Pattern-Based Ontology Design



In this chapter, we present ontology design patterns (ODPs), which are reusable modeling solutions that encode modeling best practices. ODPs are the main tool for performing pattern-based design of ontologies, which is an approach to ontology development that emphasizes reuse and promotes the development of a common “language” for sharing knowledge about ontology design best practices. We put specific focus on content ODPs (CPs) and show how they can be used within a particular methodology. CPs are domain-dependent patterns, the requirements of which are expressed by means of competency questions, contextual statements, and reasoning requirements. The eXtreme Design (XD) methodology is an iterative and incremental process, which is characterized by a test-driven and collaborative development approach. In this chapter, we exemplify the XD methodology for the specific case of CP reuse. The XD methodology is also supported by a set of software components named XD Tools, compatible with the NeOn Toolkit, which assist users in the process of pattern-based design.


Contextual Statement SPARQL Query Ontology Development User Story Ontology Module 
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.


  1. Aguado de Cea G, Gómez-Pérez A, Montiel-Ponsoda E, Suárez-Figueroa MC (2009) Using linguistic patterns to enhance ontology development. In: Dietz J (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on knowledge engineering and ontology development (KEOD), Funchal, pp 206–213Google Scholar
  2. Baker CF, Fillmore CJ, Lowe JB (1998) The Berkeley FrameNet project. In: Boitet C, Whitelock P (eds) Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th international conference on computational linguistics, vol 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, pp 86–90Google Scholar
  3. Basili V, Caldiera G, Rombach D (1994) The experience factory. In: Marciniak J (ed) Encyclopedia of software engineering. Wiley, New York, pp 469–476Google Scholar
  4. Bizer C, Heath T, Berners-Lee T (2009) Linked data – the story so far. Int J Semant Web Inf Syst 5(3):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blomqvist E, Gangemi A, Presutti V (2009a) Experiments on pattern-based ontology design. In: Proceeding of K-CAP 2009, Los Angeles. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Blomqvist E, Sandkuhl K, Scharffe F, Svatek V (2009b) Proceedings of the workshop on ontology patterns (WOP 2009), collocated with the 8th international semantic web conference (ISWC-2009), Washington, DC, USA, 25 Oct, 2009, vol 516. CEURGoogle Scholar
  7. Blomqvist E, Presutti V, Daga E, Gangemi A (2010a) Experimenting with eXtreme design. In: Proceedings of EKAW2010 – knowledge engineering and management by the masses, LNCS 6317. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Blomqvist E, Chaudhri V, Corcho O, Presutti V, Sandkuhl K (2010b) Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on ontology patterns – WOP2010, vol 671. CEURGoogle Scholar
  9. Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1994) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  10. Gangemi A, Borgo S (2004) Core ontologies in ontology engineering 2004. (Un) Successful cases and best practices for ontology engineering: reusing well-founded ontologies for domain content specification. In: Proceedings of the EKAW*04 workshop on core ontologies in ontology engineering, Northamptonshire (UK), 8 Oct, 2004, vol 118. CEURGoogle Scholar
  11. Gangemi A, Presutti V (2009) Ontology design patterns. In: Staab S, Studer R (eds) Handbook on ontologies, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 221–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gangemi A, Fisseha F, Keizer J, Lehmann J, Liang A, Pettman I, Sini M, Taconet M (2004) A core ontology of fishery and its use in the FOS project. In: EKAW 2004 workshop on core ontologies in ontology engineering, Northamptonshire. CEURGoogle Scholar
  13. Gangemi A, Sagri MT, Tiscornia D (2005) A constructive framework for legal ontologies. In: Law and the semantic web. Legal ontologies, methodologies, legal information retrieval, and applications. 3369. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gruninger M, Fox MS (1994) The role of competency questions in enterprise eEngineering. In: IFIP WG5.7 workshop on benchmarking – theory and practice, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammar K, Sandkuhl K (2010) The state of ontology pattern research: a systematic review of ISWC, ESWC and ASWC 2005–2009. In: Blomqvist E, Chaudhri VK, Corcho O, Presutti V, Sandkuhl K (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International workshop on ontology patterns – WOP2010. Workshop at the 9th international semantic web conference (ISWC2010) – ISWC 2010 workshops, vol VIII. Shanghai, China, 8 Nov, 2010, vol 671. CEURGoogle Scholar
  16. Hay DC (2000) Data model patterns: conventions of thought. Dorset House Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Masolo C, Borgo S, Gangemi A, Guarino N, Oltramari A (2005) The wonderweb library of foundational ontologies. Wonderweb deliverable D18. Laboratory for applied ontology (ISTC-CNR)Google Scholar
  18. Miles A, Bechhofer S (2009) SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. W3CGoogle Scholar
  19. Niles I, Pease A (2001) Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Welty C, Smith B (eds) 2nd international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS-2001), OgunquitGoogle Scholar
  20. Noy N, Rector A (2004) Defining N-ary relations on the semantic web: use with individuals. W3CGoogle Scholar
  21. Presutti V, Daga E, Gangemi A, Blomqvist E (2009) eXtreme design with content ontology design patterns. In: Blomqvist E, Sandkuhl K, Scharffe F, Svatek V (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on ontology patterns (WOP 2009), collocated with the 8th international semantic web conference (ISWC-2009), Washington, DC, USA, 25 Oct 2009, vol 516. CEURGoogle Scholar
  22. Rector A, Stevens R (2008) Barriers to the use of OWL in knowledge driven applications. In: Dolbear C, Ruttenberg A, Sattler U (eds) Proceedings of the fifth OWLED workshop on OWL: experiences and directions collocated with the 7th international semantic web conference (ISWC-2008) Karlsruhe, Germany, 26–27 Oct 2008, vol 432. CEURGoogle Scholar
  23. Scharffe F, Fensel D (2008) Correspondence patterns for ontology alignment. In: Gangemi A, Euzenat J (eds) Proceedings of the 16th international conference, EKAW 2008, Acitrezza, Italy. 5268. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp 83–92Google Scholar
  24. Shore J, Warden S (2007) The art of agile development. O’Reilly, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Svátek V, Sváb-Zamazal O, Presutti V (2009) Ontology naming pattern sauce for (human and computer) gourmets. In: Workshop on ontology patterns at ISWC’09, Washington DC, 2009. 516. CEURGoogle Scholar
  26. Vrandečić D, Gangemi A (2006) Unit tests for ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on ontology content and evaluation in enterprise. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Vrandečić D, Sure Y (2007) How to design better ontology metrics. In: May W, Kifer M (eds) 4th European semantic web conference (ESWC’07). Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Semantic Technologies LabInstitute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies (National Research Council – CNR)RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations