Advertisement

Abstract

A recurrent pattern in the representation of actions and processes is the notion of exchange. It is a concept primarily characterised by a structure of processes or actions, rather than inherent properties, but has a strong ontological flavour. Exchange is furthermore governed by reciprocity, reflected by the way in which roles are constrained.

Representing exchange and other structured objects in an ontology poses a number of conceptual and technical problems. While these concepts require a diamond like structure, DLs are generally restricted to tree structures only. Constraints on the identity of the individuals that fill the roles in e.g. transactions cannot be enforced directly in the A-Box. In this paper we present a knowledge pattern and methodology for approximating such structures.

Keywords

Logic Program Description Logic Cardinality Restriction Sales Transaction Core Ontology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Breuker, J., Hoekstra, R.: Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law. In: Proceedings of EKAW Workshop on Core ontologies. CEUR (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rector, A.L., et al.: OWL pizzas: Practical experience of teaching OWL-DL: Common errors & common patterns. In: Motta, E., Shadbolt, N.R., Stutt, A., Gibbins, N. (eds.) EKAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3257, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gangemi, A.: Ontology design patterns for semantic web content. In: Gil, Y., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 262–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grosof, B., Volz, R., Horrocks, I., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logics. In: Proceedings of WWW 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halaschek-Wiener, C., Katz, Y., Parsia, B.: Belief base revision for expressive description logics. In: Proceedings of OWLED 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., Boer, A.: The LKIF Core ontology of basic legal concepts. In: Casanovas, P., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of LOAIT 2007 (June 2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hohfeld, W.: Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning. In: Cook, W.W. (ed.), fourth printing. Yale University Press (1966)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible \(\mathcal{SROIQ}\). In: Proceedings of KR 2006, pp. 57–67 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO/IEC. Common Logic (CL) - a framework for a family of logic-based languages. Technical Report 24707:2007, ISO/IEC (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P.: Expressive tractable description logics based on \(\mathcal{SROIQ}\) rules. Technical report, Institut AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Sattler, U.: Structured objects in OWL: representation and reasoning. In: Huai, J., et al. (eds.) WWW, pp. 555–564. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 3(1), 41–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Welty, C., Smith, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2001), Ogunquit, Maine, October 17-19 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, T.D., Parsia, B.: Ontology performance profiling and model examination: First steps. In: Aberer, K., et al. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 595–608. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rinke Hoekstra
    • 1
  • Joost Breuker
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz Center for LawUniversity of Amsterdam 

Personalised recommendations