SYNAT System Ontology: Design Patterns Applied to Modeling of Scientific Community, Preliminary Model Evaluation

Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 467)


The paper presents the extended version of the SYNAT system ontology, used design patterns, modeling choices and preliminary evaluation of the model. SYNAT system ontology was designed to define semantic scope of the SYNAT platform. It covers concepts related to scientific community and its activities i.e.: people in science and their activities, scientific and sciencerelated documents, academic and non-academic organizations, scientific events and data resources, geographic notions necessary to characterize facts about science as well as classification of scientific topics. In its current version SYNAT system ontology counts 472 classes and 296 properties, its consistency was verified using Pellet and HermiT reasoners.


Ontology building ontology design patterns semantic modeling scientific community 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wróblewska, A., Podsiadły-Marczykowska, T., Bembenik, R., Protaziuk, G., Rybiński, H.: Methods and Tools for Ontology Building, Learning and Integration – Application in the SYNAT Project. In: Bembenik, R., Skonieczny, L., Rybiński, H., Niezgodka, M. (eds.) Intelligent Tools for Building a Scient. Info. Plat. SCI, vol. 390, pp. 121–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    System and Domain Ontologies in PASSIM project. Design of the system for building and development ontologies. Technical Report B12 in SYNAT project, Institute of Computer Science, WUT (September 2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sure, Y., Bloehdorn, S., Haase, P., Hartmann, J., Oberle, D.: The SWRC Ontology - Semantic Web for Research Communities. In: Bento, C., Cardoso, A., Dias, G. (eds.) EPIA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3808, pp. 218–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2005); SWRC model available at, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    FOAF Vocabulary Specification 0.98. Namespace Document - Marco Polo Edition (August 9, 2010),
  6. 6.
    Krafft, D.B., Cappadona, N.A., Caruso, B., Corson-Rikert, J., Devare, M., Lowe, B.J.: & VIVO Collaboration: VIVO: Enabling National Networking of Scientists. In: WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, Raleigh, NC, April 26-27 (2010), VIVO model
  7. 7.
    ESWC Conference ontology,
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Paliouras, G., Spyropoulos, C.D., Tsatsaronis, G. (eds.): Knowledge-Driven Multimedia Information Extraction and Ontology Evolution. LNCS, vol. 6050. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grau, B.C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Working with Multiple Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 620–634. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Waloszek: Implementing Sentential Representation of S-modules in S-Pellet. In: BDAS 2012, vol. 33(2A (105)). Silesian University of Technology Press, Gliwice (2012) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goczyła, K., Waloszek, A., Waloszek, W.: Algebra of Ontology Modules for Semantic Agents. In: Nguyen, N.T., Kowalczyk, R., Chen, S.-M. (eds.) ICCCI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5796, pp. 492–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Professional Computing Series. Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gangemi, A.: Ontology design patterns. In: Staab, R. (ed.) Handbook of Ontologies, International Handbooks on Information Systems, 2nd edn. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Protégé editor,
  20. 20.
    Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Ciaramita, M., Lehmann, J.: Modelling Ontology Evaluation and Validation. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 140–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gomez-Perez, A.: Ontology Evaluation. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 251–274. Springer (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aruna, T., Saranya, K., Bhandari, C.: A Survey on Ontology Evaluation Tools. In: Process Automation, Control and Computing, PACC (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Völker, J., Vrandečić, D., Sure, Y.: Automatic Evaluation of Ontologies (AEON). In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 716–731. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Völker, J., Vrandecic, D., Sure, Y., Hotho, A.: AEON – An approach to the automatic evaluation of ontologies. Journal of Applied Ontology 3(1-2), 41–62 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vrandecic, D.: Ontology Evaluation. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 293–314. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Shotton, D.: CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 1(Suppl. 1), S6 (2010),
  28. 28.
    Mazurek, C., Sielski, K., Stroiński, M., Walkowska, J., Werla, M., Węglarz, J.: Transforming a Flat Metadata Schema to a Semantic Web Ontology: The Polish Digital Libraries Federation and CIDOC CRM Case Study. In: Bembenik, R., Skonieczny, L., Rybiński, H., Niezgodka, M. (eds.) Intelligent Tools for Building a Scient. Info. Plat. SCI, vol. 390, pp. 153–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crofts, N., Doerr, M., Gill, T., Stead, S., Stiff, M.: Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model, 5.0.2 edn. (2010),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceWarsaw University of TechnologyWarszawaPoland
  2. 2.Institute of Biocybernetics and BioengineeringWarszawaPoland

Personalised recommendations