Survey on Ontology Languages

  • Diana Kalibatiene
  • Olegas Vasilecas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 90)


Nowadays a number of papers are presented on the research for the ontology application for a business system modelling. For this purpose formal and executable ontologies earn a lot of attention. However, formality and executability of an ontology depends on a language, which is used to present it. This paper presents a never completely account of languages that have been used for the research community for representing ontologies. The most popular four ontology languages (KIF, OWL, RDF + RDF(S) and DAML+OIL) are reviewed. Their advantages and disadvantages are discussed. Finally, thirteen comparison criteria are distinguished and chosen ontology languages are compared. The discussion is also presented in the paper.


Ontology ontology language comparison KIF OWL RDF + RDF(S) DAML+OIL 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee, T.: The Semantic Web as a language of logic (2009),
  2. 2.
    Gutierrez-Pulido, J.R., Ruiz, M.A.G., Herrera, R., Cabello, E., Legrand, S., Elliman, D.: ntology languages for the semantic web: A never completely updated review. Knowl.-Based Syst., 489–497 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology and Information Systems. In: Proc. of FOIS 1998, Trento, Italy, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OntologyDefinition Metamodel. Object Management Group, OMG (2009),
  5. 5.
    Kalibatiene, D., Vasilecas, O.: Ontology Axioms for the Implementation of Business Rules. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16(3), 471–486 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vasilecas, O., Kalibatiene, D., Guizzardi, G.: Towards a Formal Method for Transforming Ontology Axioms to Application Domain Rules. Information Technology and Control 38(4), 271–282 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Almeida Falbo, R., Silva de Menezes, C., da Rocha, A.R.C.: A Systematic Approach for Building Ontologies. In: Coelho, H. (ed.) IBERAMIA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1484, pp. 349–360. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Culmone, R., Rossi, G., Merelli, E.: An Ontology Similarity algorithm for BioAgent. In: Ercolani, S., Zamboni, M.A. (eds.) NETTAB Workshop on Agents and Bioinformtics, Bologna (2002),
  9. 9.
    Lin, S., Miller, L.L., Tsai, H., Xu, J.: Integrating a Heterogeneous Distributed Data Environment with a Database Specific Ontology. In: Sha, E.H.M. (ed.) ISCA PDCS, pp. 430–435 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Usability Issues in Knowledge Representation Systems. In: Mostow, J., Rich, C. (eds.) AAAI/IAAI, pp. 608–614 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noy, N.F., Fergerson, R.W., Musen, M.A.: The Knowledge Model of Protégé 2000: Combining Interoperability and Flexibility. In: Dieng, R., Corby, O. (eds.) EKAW 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1937, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ontology language. Wikipedia (2010),
  14. 14.
    Lavbic, D., Krisper, M.: Facilitating Ontology Development with Continuous Evaluation. Informatica, Lith. Acad. Sci., 533–552 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Labic, D., Krisper, M.: Rapid Ontology Development. In: EJC, pp. 283–290 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Su, X., Ilebrekke, L.: A Comparative Study of Ontology Languages and Tools. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 761–765. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Genesereth, M.R.: Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF). Draft proposed American National Standard (dpANS), NCITS.T2/98-004. Stanford University (2004),
  18. 18.
    Patil, R.S., Fikes, R.E., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Mckay, D., Finin, T., Gruber, T., Neches, R.: An Overview of the DARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort. In: Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P. (eds.) KR 1992, pp. 243–254. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berendt, B., Hotho, A., Mladenič, D., van Someren, M., Spiliopoulou, M., Stumme, G.: A Roadmap for Web Mining: From Web to Semantic Web. In: Berendt, B., Hotho, A., Mladenič, D., van Someren, M., Spiliopoulou, M., Stumme, G. (eds.) EWMF 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3209, pp. 1–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Antoniou, G., Harmelen, F.V.: Web Ontology Language: OWL. Handbook on Ontologies, 67–92 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Stevens, R., Wroe, C., Sampaio, S.: Pizza ontology. The University of Manchester (2007),
  22. 22.
    Schwitter, R.: A Controlled Natural Language Layer for the Semantic Web. In: Zhang, S., Jarvis, R.A. (eds.) AI 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3809, pp. 425–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kothari, C.R., Russomanno, D.J.: Relation Elements for the Semantic Web. In: Wolff, K.E., Pfeiffer, H.D., Delugach, H.S. (eds.) ICCS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3127, pp. 275–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Broekstra, J., Klein, M.C.A., Decker, S., Fensel, D., Harmelen, F.V., Horrocks, I.: Enabling knowledge representation on the Web by extending RDF Schema. Computer Networks, 609–634 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fensel, D., Harmelen, F.V., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 38–45 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jong-Soo, S.: Ontology Languages. Korea University (2010),
  27. 27.
    Broekstra, J., Klein, M., Decker, S., Fensel, D., Horrocks, I.: Adding formal semantics to the Web building on top of RDF Schema. In: ECDL 2000 Workshop on the Semantic Web (2000),
  28. 28.
    Horrocks, I.: DAML+OIL: a Description Logic for the Semantic Web. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 4–9 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hendler, J.A.: Agents and the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 30–37 (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martin, P.: Knowledge representation in CGLF, CGIF, KIF, frame-CG and formalized-english. In: Priss, U., Corbett, D.R., Angelova, G. (eds.) ICCS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2393, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tonti, G., Bradshaw, J.M., Jeffers, R., Montanari, R., Suri, N., Uszok, A.: Semantic Web Languages for Policy Representation and Reasoning: A Comparison of KAoS, Rei, and Ponder. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 419–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lara, R., Roman, D., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: A Conceptual Comparison of WSMO and OWL-S. In: Zhang, L.-J., Jeckle, M. (eds.) ECOWS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3250, pp. 254–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krogstie, J., Soelvberg, A.: Information systems engineering – concepttual modeling in a quality perspective. Norwegian University of Technology and Science (1999)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation (2004),
  35. 35.
    Horrocks, I.: OWL: A Description Logic Based Ontology Language. In: Gabbrielli, M., Gupta, G. (eds.) ICLP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3668, pp. 1–4. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Bradford Books (1998)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hollink, L., Schreiber, A.T., Wielemaker, J., Wielinga, B.J.: Semantic annotation of image collections. In: Handschuh, S., et al. (eds.) KCAP 2003, pp. 41–48 (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Vetere, G.: Ontoseek: Content-based access to the web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(3), 70–80 (1999)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Assem, M., Gangemi, A., Schreiber, G.: Conversion of WordNet to a standard RDF/OWL representation. In: LREC 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Assem, M., Gangemi, A., Schreiber, G. (eds.): RDF/OWL Representation of WordNet. W3C Working Draft (2006),
  41. 41.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Kalibatiene
    • 1
  • Olegas Vasilecas
    • 1
  1. 1.Vilnius Gediminas Technical University

Personalised recommendations