Formalizing Ontology Modularization through the Notion of Interfaces

  • Faezeh Ensan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5268)


In this paper, we propose a new formalism for modular ontologies, which exploits the notion of interfaces as well as epistemic queries. In the proposed formalism, each ontology module both employs and realizes two distinct sets of interfaces. The axioms in each interface form the public section of the ontology module, while its ABox and TBoxes are private and can only be accessed through epistemic queries. This formalism permits the separation of configuration and development time manipulation tasks of a modular ontology development process. Hence, ontology modules can be developed independently of each others’ signature and description language.


Description Logic Ontology Module Concept Expression Completion Graph Interface Concept 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bao, J., Caragea, D., Honavar, V.: Modular ontologies - a formal investigation of semantics and expressivity. In: Mizoguchi, R., Shi, Z.-Z., Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) ASWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4185, pp. 616–631. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bao, J., Honavar, V.: Ontology language extensions to support collaborative ontology building. In: International Semantic Web Conference (2003) Poster TrackGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bao, J., Slutzki, G., Honavar, V.: A semantic importing approach to knowledge reuse from multiple ontologies. In: AAAI, pp. 1304–1309 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. J. Data Semantics 1, 153–184 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding, Y., Foo, S.: Ontology research and development. part 1- a review of ontology generation. Journal of Information Science 28(2), 123–136 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Nutt, W., Schaerf, A.: An epistemic operator for description logics. Artif. Intell. 100(1-2), 225–274 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ensan, F., Du, W.: Towards domain-centric ontology development and maintenance frameworks. In: The Nineteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), pp. 622–627 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ensan, F., Du, W.: Aspects of inconsistency resolution in modular ontologies. In: Canadian Conference on AI, pp. 84–95 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ensan, F., Du, W.: Formalizing the role of goals in the development of domain-specific ontological frameworks. In: 41st Hawaii International International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS-41), p. 120 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernandez-Lopez, M., Gomez-Perez, A.: Overview and analysis of methodologies for building ontologies. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 17(2), 129–156 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernandez-Lopez, M., Gomez-Perez, A., Sierra, J.P., Sierra, A.P.: Building a chemical ontology using methontology and the ontology design environment. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(1), 37–46 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghilardi, S., Lutz, C., Wolter, F.: Did I damage my ontology? a case for conservative extensions in description logics. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C. (eds.), pp. 187–197. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies. In: WWW 2007: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 717–726. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: A logical framework for modularity of ontologies. In: Veloso, M.M. (ed.) IJCAI 2007, pp. 298–303 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grau, B.C., Kutz, O.: Modular ontology languages revisited. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 2007 Workshop on Semantic Web for Collaborative Knowledge Acquisition, Hyderabad, India, January 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grau, B.C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Modularity and web ontologies. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) KR 2006, pp. 198–209. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Ontology reasoning in the shoq(d) description logic. In: IJCAI, pp. 199–204 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: A tableau decision procedure for hoiq. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 249–276 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In: Ganzinger, H., McAllester, D., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1705, pp. 161–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Grau, B.C., Hendler, J.: Swoop: A web ontology editing browser. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 4, 144–153 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kutz, O., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: E-connections of abstract description systems. Artif. Intell. 156(1), 1–73 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Klein, M.C.: Integrity and change in modular ontologies. In: IJCAI, pp. 900–908 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11, 93–136 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faezeh Ensan
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations