Alignment of Ontology Design Patterns: Class As Property Value, Value Partition and Normalisation

  • Bene Rodriguez-Castro
  • Mouzhi Ge
  • Martin Hepp
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7566)


Design-pattern driven ontology construction, whether manual or (partially) automated, relies on the availability of curated repositories of Ontology Design Patterns (ODPs) adequately characterized. In order to consistently apply a given ODP, not only it is important to characterize it in full, but also examine its alignment or deviation to other relevant ODPs in relation to it. Otherwise, possible inconsistencies in the application can lead to interoperability issues among the ontology models involved. In that context, this paper revisits a specific version of three different ODPs: Class as a Property Value (CPV), Value Partition (VP) and Normalisation. The review of the CPV identifies two distinct modelling problems being tangled that prompt to decouple the pattern into two variants: a strict and a coarse CPV pattern. The examination continues with a comparative analysis among the patterns that reveals key alignments and differences at the structural and semantic level. These findings extends the reusability and compositional characteristics of the strict and coarse variants of the CPV ODP in relation to the other two patterns. To illustrate our contribution existing examples in the literature are revisited. They demonstrate the alignments, differences and prototypical OWL idioms identified, which can assist ontology practitioners in mitigating the opportunity for inconsistencies when applying these recurrent ontology building blocks.


ontology alignment ontology modeling ontology design pattern normalisation value partition class as property value 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C recommendation, W3C (February 2004),
  2. 2.
    Egana-Aranguren, M.: Ontology Design Patterns for the Formalisation of Biological Ontologies. MPhil Dissertation, Bio-Health Informatics Group, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester (2005),
  3. 3.
    Egana-Aranguren, M.: Role and Application of Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester (2009),
  4. 4.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Professional (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gangemi, A.: Ontology Design Patterns for Semantic Web Content. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 262–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2005), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horridge, M., Drummond, N., Jupp, S., Moulton, G., Stevens, R.: A practical guide to building owl ontologies using the protege-owl plugin and co-ode tools edition 1.2. Tech. rep., The University of Manchester (March 2009),
  7. 7.
    Krötzsch, M., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer. W3C recommendation, W3C (October 2009),
  8. 8.
    Motik, B., Fokoue, A., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Lutz, C., Grau, B.C.: OWL 2 web ontology language profiles. W3C recommendation, W3C (October 2009),
  9. 9.
    Noy, N.F.: Representing Classes As Property Values on the Semantic Web. Technical Report Note 5, W3C, Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group (2005),
  10. 10.
    Presutti, V., Gangemi, A., David, S., de Cea, G.A., Suarez-Figueroa, M.C., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Poveda, M.: A Library of Ontology Design Patterns: reusable solutions for collaborative design of networked ontologies. NeOn deliverable D2.5.1, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, CNR (2008),
  11. 11.
    Rector, A.: Modularisation of Domain Ontologies Implemented in Description Logics and related formalisms including OWL. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Capture, K-CAP 2003, pp. 121–128. ACM, New York (2003), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rector, A.: Representing Specified Values in OWL: “value partitions” and “value sets”. Technical Report Note 17, W3C, Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group (May 2005),
  13. 13.
    Rodriguez-Castro, B., Glaser, H., Carr, L.: How to Reuse a Faceted Classification and Put It on the Semantic Web. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 663–678. Springer, Heidelberg (2010), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L., Smith, M.K.: OWL Web Ontology Language Guide. W3C recommendation, W3C (February 2004),
  15. 15.
    Welty, C.A., Jenkins, J.: Formal ontology for subject. Data & Knowledge Engineering 31(2), 155–181 (1999), zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bene Rodriguez-Castro
    • 1
  • Mouzhi Ge
    • 1
  • Martin Hepp
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitaet der Bundeswehr MunichNeubibergGermany

Personalised recommendations