Nabble - w3.org - public-owl-dev

CFP Special Issue of the Journal of Web Semantics on Semantic Web Dynamics

2009-11-23T02:28:44Z

Apologies for the inevitable multiple receptions.

========================================

PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS

Journal of Web Semantics

Special Issue on Semantic Web Dynamics

========================================

Description

-----------

Recent years have witnessed the arrival of more and more semantically annotated data and related ontologies in the Semantic Web. For example, the linked data initiative has been very successful in making datasets available online, with a total of about 5 billion triples all together so far. While existing semantic tools and reasoning engines are year after year getting better in dealing with time invariant domain of ontological knowledge, supporting rapidly changing information has not yet attracted sufficient attention.

There are more and more heterogeneous and/or dynamic data types being created and which integration could lead to interesting applications and models (e.g. sensor data streams, geospatial information and imagery, financial transactions, news feeds, 3D models, engineering data, information for policy intelligence etc.). Current Stream Database Management Systems provide on the fly analysis of data streams, but they suffer several limitations: they cannot handle heterogeneous data streams originating from a variety of already deployed sensors; they cannot combine data streams with slowly evolving knowledge at query time; and they cannot perform reasoning tasks. And in the area of reasoning, while the problem of classical, time invariant domain of ontological knowledge has been extensively studied, the task of reasoning with rapidly changing information has been mostly neglected and constitutes a new challenge.

Furthermore, ontologies, just like any structure holding knowledge and information, need to be updated too: changes could be initiated because of a change in the world being modelled; or by a change in the users’ needs which would require a different conceptualization; or by the acquisition of knowledge previously unknown, unclassified or otherwise unavailable; or by the noticing of a design flaw in the original conceptualization. In all these cases, the representation of knowledge in the ontology should be modified so as to form a more accurate or adequate conceptualization of the domain.

This general issue of Semantic Web Dynamics includes difficulties from both practical and theoretical points of view, raising a variety of research questions and development challenges, such as how to support the ontology and data publishers in maintaining up-to-date, adequate representations; how to detect the need for evolution and changes; how to facilitate the integration of new, dynamic sources in existing datasets and ontologies; how to validate and evaluate the impact of the changes on semantic information; how to handle changes triggered from multiple sources and collaborative updates; and how to keep track of (possibly

concurrent) versions of and ensure the delivery of up-to-date and valid knowledge.

Topics of Interest

------------------

For this special issue, we seek articles describing foundational and theoretical work as well as technological solutions to these challenges.

More specifically, we expect submission on (but not restricted to) the following topics:

• Foundational and formal aspects of Semantic Web dynamics

• Language extensions for Semantic Web dynamics

• Reasoning with dynamic data and ontologies

• Engineering dynamic data and ontologies

• Requirements and practical issues for Semantic Web dynamics

• Applications of dynamic data and ontologies

• Theory for stream reasoning

• Logic language for stream reasoning

• Scalability issues in stream reasoning

• Ontologies for dynamic environments

• Dynamic knowledge building, and (re-)use

• Ontology evolution and versioning

• Language extensions for evolution

• Belief revision for ontologies

• Change propagation in ontologies dynamic datasets and ontologies

• Inconsistency in evolving semantic information

• Incremental reasoning

• Case studies and applications of ontology and knowledge evolution

• Tools to support dynamic data and ontologies

Important Dates

---------------

31 May 2010: Submission deadline

31 August 2010: First-round reviews complete

31 October 2010: Revised papers submitted

23 December 2010: Final acceptance decisions

Method of Submission

--------------------

Only electronic submissions will be considered. The precise method will be announced later. Any question can be addressed to the guest editors.

Guest Editors

-------------

Grigoris Antoniou (FORTH, Greece)

Mathieu d’Aquin (The Open University, United Kingdom)

Jeff Z. Pan (University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom)

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

Last CFP Agent-Directed Simulation, April 12-14, 2010, Orlando, Florida

2009-11-20T17:46:25Z

===============================================================
CALL FOR PAPERS and POSTERS
Agent-Directed Simulation Symposium (ADS'10)
Orlando, Florida, USA
April 12-14, 2010

http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~oren/conf-org/ADS_2010/ADS-CFP.htm
Manuscript Submission: November 30, 2009.

Sponsored by The Society for Modeling and Simulation
International (SCS) in collaboration with ACM/SIGSIM.
==============================================================

As part of the 2010 Spring Simulation Multi-conference (SpringSim'10)
http://www.scs.org/confernc/springsim/springsim10/springsim10.htm

the 2010 Agent-Directed Simulation Symposium is a premier platform to
explore all three aspects of the synergy of simulation and agent
technologies. Hence, it has a special place within simulation and
agent conferences, including agent-based (social) simulation
conferences. Therefore the ADS symposium fills a gap in the agent
community as well as the simulation community.

The purpose of the ADS symposium is to facilitate dissemination of the
most recent advancements in the theory, methodology, application, and
toolkits of agent-directed simulation. Agent-directed simulation is
comprehensive in the integration of agent and simulation technologies,
by including models that use agents to develop domain-specific
simulations, i.e., agent simulation (this is often referred to as
agent-based simulation -when other two important aspects are not
considered), and by also including the use of agent technology to
develop simulation techniques and toolkits that are subsequently
applied, either with or without agents.

Hence, agent-directed simulation consists of three distinct, yet
related areas that can be grouped under two categories as follows:

1. Simulation for Agents (agent simulation): simulation of agent
systems in engineering, human and social dynamics, military
applications etc.
2. Agents for Simulation (which has two aspects): agent-supported
simulation deals with the use of agents as a support facility to
enable computer assistance in problem solving or enhancing
cognitive capabilities; and agent-based simulation that focuses
on the use of agents for the generation of model behavior in a
simulation study.

Through the theme of agent-directed simulation, the symposium will
bring together agent technologies, tools, toolkits, platforms,
languages, methodologies, and applications in a pragmatic manner. In
this symposium, established researchers, educators, and students are
encouraged to come together and discuss the benefits of agent
technology in their use and application for simulation. It is a way
for people to discuss why and how they have used agent technology in
their simulations, and describe the benefit of having done so.

The theme of ADS'10 is based on the observation of the following
premises.

* The growth of new advanced distributed computing standards along
with the rapid rise of e-commerce are providing a new context that
acts as a critical driver for the development of next generation
systems. These standards revolve around service-oriented
technologies, pervasive computing, web-services, Grid, autonomic
computing, ambient intelligence etc. The supporting role that
intelligent agents play in the development of such systems is
becoming pervasive, and simulation plays a critical role in the
analysis and design of such systems.

* The use of emergent agent technologies at the organization,
interaction (e.g., coordination, negotiation, communication) and
agent levels (i.e. reasoning, autonomy) are expected to advance
the state of the art in various application technologies is
difficult. Using agent-supported simulation techniques for
testing complex agent systems is up and coming field.

* To facilitate bridging the gap between research and application,
there is a need for tools, agent programming languages, and
methodologies to analyze, design, and implement complex,
non-trivial agent-based simulations. Existing agent-based
simulation tools are still not mature enough to enable developing
agents with varying degrees cognitive and reasoning capabilities.

ADS'10 will provide a leading forum to bring together researchers and
practitioners from diverse simulation societies within computer science,
social sciences, engineering, business, education, human factors, and
systems engineering. The involvement of various agent-directed
simulation groups will enable the cross-fertilization of ideas and
development of new perspectives by fostering novel advanced solutions,
as well as enabling technologies for agent-directed simulation

AUTHOR GUIDE

* Technical papers provide a longer format for presenting experience
reports, research results, or descriptions of "work in progress".
They are limited to 8 pages.

* Short position papers are targeted at raising a question or framing
an issue for discussion during the symposium. Position papers are
limited to 3 pages.

* Poster presentations present an opportunity to present work in
progress and receive feedback from colleagues. A one page write-up
of the poster presentations will be included in the proceedings.

(For all, required font sizes are: min 10 pt for text and min 9 pt for
figures or references).

Papers should be submitted electronically to
http://www.softconf.com/scs/ADS10/ .
All papers will be subject to a peer-reviewing process by three program
committee members. (Please see the key dates listed below.)

FINAL PAPER SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

All prospective authors, whose papers are accepted for inclusion in the
program, will be invited to submit their position or technical papers
to ADS'10. Accepted and registered papers will be published in the
conference proceedings by the SCS. In addition, the committee will
select a set of best papers. Authors of these papers will be encouraged to
submit appropriately expanded versions of these papers for journal
publication.

KEY DATES
Nov 30, 2009: Manuscript submission
Dec 30, 2009: Notification of acceptance
Jan 20, 2010: Full Camera-ready papers
Apr 12-14, 2010: ADS'10 Symposium

General Co-Chair
Levent Yilmaz, Auburn University
Tuncer Ören, University of Ottawa
Program Co-Chair
Gregory Madey, University of Notre Dame
Maarten Sierhuis, Carnegie Mellon University, NASA Ames Research Center
Yu Zhang, Trinity University

Call for Papers/Workshop Proposals Participantion (GPC-10, UIC-10, MTPP-10, ICA3PP-10, FC-10, SMPE-10, FutureTech-10, BodyNets-10)

2009-11-20T03:40:39Z

====================================================================
** Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this announcement. **
====================================================================

Dear Colleague:

Please disseminate this message in your networks / subscribed lists.
We also take this chance to invite you contribute a paper / proposal
to these events. Thanks in advance.

-------------------------
Call for Participation:
-------------------------

1. Conference: IEEE SOCA 2009 (The IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications)
Web: http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/soca09
Place/Date: Taipei, Taiwan / December 14-15, 2009

---------------------------------
Call for Workshop Proposals
---------------------------------

1. Conference: GPC 2010 (The 5th International Conference on Grid and Pervasive Computing)
Web: http://gpc2010.ndhu.edu.tw/
Place/Date: Hualien, Taiwan / May 10-14, 2010
Publication: LNCS, Springer
Proposal Due: 10 December, 2009
Contact: Prof. Shi-Jim Yen (sjyen@... ); Prof. Robert C. Hsu (chh@...)

2. Conference: UIC 2010 (The 6th International Conference on Ubiquitous Intelligence Computing)
Place/Date: Xian, China / October 26-29, 2010
Publication: IEEE CS (EI indexed, IEEE Digital library)
Proposal Due: January 31, 2010
Contact: Prof. Robert C. Hsu (chh@...); Prof. Mieso Denko (denko@...)

-----------------------------
Call for Research Papers
-----------------------------

1. Conference: SMPE 2010 (The Fourth International Symposium on Security and Multimodality in Pervasive Environments)
Web: http://www.ftrg.org/smpe2010/
Place/Date: Perth, Australia / April 20-23, 2010
Publication: IEEE CS (EI indexed, IEEE Digital library)
Submission Due: November 25, 2009

2. Conference: ICA3PP 2010 (The 10th International Conference on Algorithms and Architecture for Parallel Processing)
Web: http://cse.stfx.ca/~ica3pp2010/
Place/Date: Busan, Korea / May 21-23, 2010
Publication: LNCS, Springer (EI Indexed, DBLP)
Submission Due: November 30, 2009

3. Conference: FutureTech 2010 (The 5th International Cnoference on Future Information Technology)
Web: http://www.ftrg.org/futuretech2010/
Place/Date: Busan, Korea / May 21-23, 2010
Publication: IEEE CS (EI indexed, IEEE Digital library)
Submission Due: November 30, 2009

4. Conference: ISA 2010 (The 4th International Conference on Information Security and Assurance)
UCMA 2010 (The 1st International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Multimedia Applications)
ACN 2010 (The 2nd International Conference on Advanced Communication and Networking)
AST 2010 (The 2nd International Conference on Advanced Science and Technology)
Web: http://www.sersc.org/ISA2010/
http://www.sersc.org/UCMA2010/
http://www.sersc.org/ACN2010/
http://www.sersc.org/AST2010/
Place/Date: Hyatt Regency Kolkata, Kolkata, India/ June 3-5, 2010
Publication: LNCS/CCIS, Springer (EI Indexed)
Submission Due: December 10, 2009

5. Conference: IET FC 2010 (The IET International Conference on Frontier Computing)
Web: http://fc2010.cs.pu.edu.tw/
Place/Date: Taichung, Taiwan / July 19-21, 2010
Publication: IET Press (EI Indexed, IEEE Digital library)
Submission Due: December 25, 2009

6. Conference: MTPP 2010 (The 2nd Russia-Taiwan Symposium on Methods and Tools of Parallel Programming Multicomputers)
Web: http://grid.chu.edu.tw/mtpp2010/
Place/Date: Vladivostok, Russia / May 17-19, 2010
Publication: LNCS, Springer (EI Indexed, DBLP)
Submission Due: January 10, 2010

7. Conference: BodyNets 2010 (The Fifth International Conference on Body Area Networks)
Web: http://www.bodynets.org/
Place/Date: Corfu Island, Greece / Spetember 10-12, 2010
Publication: LNICST (EI indexed, DBLP)
Submission Due: March 22, 2010

-------------------------
Journal Special Issues:
-------------------------

1. Journal: IEEE Transactions on CI and AI in Games
Theme: Computational Intelligence and AI in Economic and Financial Games
Guest editors: Han La Poutre, Edward Tsang, Athanasios V.Vasilakos
Submission Due: December 15 2009
Publication: Summer/Autumn 2010

2. Journal: International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing
Theme: Cloud Computing: Technologies and Services
Guest editors: Manish Parashar, Chung-Ming Huang, Jiannong Cao, Rajkumar Buyya, Robert C. H. Hsu
Submission Due: 31 January, 2010

Postdoctoral Research Fellow Semantic Infrastructures

2009-11-16T00:37:44Z

Postdoctoral Research Fellow Semantic Infrastructures

University of Aberdeen
RCUK Digital Economy Hub

Salary range:
£29,704-£32,458 per annum

Closing Date:
20-Nov-2009

Digital Economy is an RCUK cross-council programme, aimed at realising the transformational impact of ICT for all aspects of business, society and economy. The Rural Digital Economy Hub at the University of Aberdeen is one of three large multi-disciplinary research hubs funded through this programme, and commenced its activities in October 2009.

The Hub award to Aberdeen is worth £12.4M and will fund five years of activity. The Hub will bring together a large team of researchers (70+) working in and across the disciplines of computer science, communication engineering, human geography, sociology, transport studies, health sciences and environmental science. For further details, see: www.digital-rural.org

To support our ambitious research programme we have begun our first phase of recruitment involving 8 research studentships and 9 postdoctoral fellowships. As part of this activity we are looking to appoint a postdoctoral research fellow to work in the area of Semantic Infrastructures.

The successful candidate will have a good knowledge of the fundamental concepts underlying the Semantic Web, and the computational realisation and application of these techniques. Some knowledge of machine learning/data-mining would also be beneficial. They candidate will have a PhD or be about to complete a PhD in Computer Science. Enthusiasm for digital technology and innovation relevant to society and the economy is essential as is the ability to work in a cross-disciplinary team including colleagues in medicine and the social sciences.

Should you require a visa to undertake paid employment in the UK you will be required to fulfil the minimum points criteria to be granted a Certificate of Sponsorship and Tier 2 visa.

For further information on this post (including how to apply):
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/jobs/display.php?recordid=RDH013R

Informal enquiries may be made to: Professor Peter Edwards
(p.edwards@...)

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

2nd CFP: Workshop on Matching and Meaning: Automated development, evolution and interpretation of ontologies.

2009-11-11T08:08:35Z

Apologies for possible multiple postings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL FOR PAPERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Workshop on Matching and Meaning:
Automated development, evolution and interpretation of ontologies

http://dream.inf.ed.ac.uk/events/wmm-2010

31st March 2010, part of AISB'10 Convention, Leicester, UK

OVERVIEW

The problem of semantic misalignment - of two (or more) systems failing
to understand one another when their semantic representation is not
identical - occurs in a huge variety of areas: the Semantic Web,
databases, natural language processing; anywhere, indeed, where
semantics are necessary but centralised control is undesirable or
impractical. In highly dynamic domains, where interactions are between
a large, diverse and evolving community, there is a need for the
resolving of these misalignments - through developing and evolving
existing ontologies or interpreting unknown ontologies in terms of
known ones - to be done automatically and on-the-fly.

The aim of this workshop is to bring together researchers interested in
the problems of automated development, evolution and interpretation of
ontologies in the many different domains in which it occurs. We are
primarily interested in the exchange of ideas and the stimulation of
debate, and the workshop is intended to be a forum for researchers to
present ongoing work and ideas and to engage in discussion with other
researchers from the field. We are particularly interested in novel
ideas and innovative research, which may be in its early stages, and
encourage reports on work in progress.

Topics of interest include:

* Ontology evolution
* Ontology matching and alignment
* Ontology versioning
* Representational or structural change
* Formal aspects of ontology dynamics
* Formalisation of and reasoning with contexts
* Foundational issues
* Social and collaborative matching
* Background knowledge in matching
* Extensions to ontology languages to better support change
* Non-monotonic reasoning for ontologies and the Semantic Web
* Inconsistency handling in evolving ontologies
* Uncertainty in matching
* Change propagation in ontologies and metadata
* Ontologies for dynamic environments
* Dynamic knowledge construction and exploitation
* Matching for dynamic applictions (e.g., p2p, agents, web-services)
* Case studies, software tools, use cases, applications
* Open problems

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

We encourage the submission of extended abstracts of 2-5 pages that
discuss ongoing research, problem descriptions and overviews of the
domain. Accepted papers will be included in the AISB 2010 proceedings
unless the authors prefer them not to be (for example, if the work is
very similar to work presented elsewhere which they nevertheless feel
it would be valuable to present in this context, or if the work is at
a stage where discussion would be valuable but publication would be
premature). Authors wishing their submissions to be included in the
convention proceedings must follow the style guide on the convention
website.

Submissions will be subject to light reviewing, mainly intended to
check fit to workshop.

Abstracts should be submitted electronically in pdf format to
mchan-at-ed.ac.uk by 18th December 2009. Notification of acceptance
will be sent to the submitting author on 15th February 2010.

VENUE

The workshop will take place at De Montfort University in Leicester,
as part of the AISB 2010 Convention
(http://www.aisb.org.uk/convention/aisb10/), from March 31st to 1st
April, 2010. All workshop participants must be registered for the AISB
2010 Convention. Registration for this workshop is included in the
convention registration fee.

IMPORTANT DATES

Submission: Friday, 18th December 2009
Notification: Monday, 15th February 2010
Workshop: 31st March - 1st April 2010
AISB10 Convention: 29th March - 1st April 2010

PROGRAMME

Presentations: Authors of accepted abstracts will give presentations of
their work; exact times to be decided.

Posters: If it is not possible to fit in presentations for all accepted
authors, some may be asked to present posters instead. There will be a
session of 5 minute poster talks.

Panel: The technical programme will end with a 90 minute panel
discussion on a topic of mutual interest to be decided. Three speakers
will speak for 10 minutes each with a brief to stimulate debate during
the remaining 60 minutes. Discussion amongst all participants, rather
than question-and-answering for the panel, will be strongly encouraged.

ORGANISERS

Fiona McNeill, University of Edinburgh, UK
Michael Chan, University of Edinburgh, UK

PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE

Manuel Atencia Arcas, IIIA-CSIC, Spain
Paolo Besana, University of Edinburgh, UK
Alan Bundy, University of Edinburgh, UK
Jerome Euzenat, INRIA Grenoble Rhone-Alpes, France
Fausto Giunchiglia, University of Trento, Italy
Adam Pease, Articulate Software, USA
Pavel Shvaiko, TasLab, Informatica Trentina, Italy

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Problem to save ontology

2009-11-10T17:35:15Z

Dears,

I am developing an ontology and I want to store the owl code to disk. I
got the code sample from protege-owl guide to store the owl code to disk,
but something is wrong.

This error is showed when the code is executed:

URI da Classe: file:///C:/Users/divino/Documents/UFSC/TELE-CIT/Ontologia/
URI criada: file:///C:/Users/divino/TELECIT342.owl
SEVERE: Failed to save file file:///C:/Users/divino/TELECIT342.owl using
Protege2Jena. -- com.hp.hpl.jena.shared.BadURIException: Only well-formed
absolute URIrefs can be included in RDF/XML output: <d> Code:
58/REQUIRED_COMPONENT_MISSING in SCHEME: A component that is required by
the scheme is missing.
at
com.hp.hpl.jena.xmloutput.impl.BaseXMLWriter.checkURI(BaseXMLWriter.java:768)
at
com.hp.hpl.jena.xmloutput.impl.BaseXMLWriter.xmlnsDecl(BaseXMLWriter.java:300)
at
com.hp.hpl.jena.xmloutput.impl.Unparser.printNameSpaceDefn(Unparser.java:1036)
at com.hp.hpl.jena.xmloutput.impl.Unparser.wRDF(Unparser.java:286)
at com.hp.hpl.jena.xmloutput.impl.Unparser.write(Unparser.java:195)
at
com.hp.hpl.jena.xmloutput.impl.Abbreviated.writeBody(Abbreviated.java:138)
at
com.hp.hpl.jena.xmloutput.impl.BaseXMLWriter.writeXMLBody(BaseXMLWriter.java:455)
at
com.hp.hpl.jena.xmloutput.impl.BaseXMLWriter.write(BaseXMLWriter.java:424)
at
com.hp.hpl.jena.xmloutput.impl.Abbreviated.write(Abbreviated.java:124)
at
edu.stanford.smi.protegex.owl.jena.JenaOWLModel.saveModel(Unknown
Source)
Arquivo salvo com 1 erro(s).
at edu.stanford.smi.protegex.owl.jena.JenaOWLModel.save(Unknown
Source)
at edu.stanford.smi.protegex.owl.jena.JenaOWLModel.save(Unknown
Source)
at
edu.stanford.smi.protegex.owl.jena.protege2jena.Protege2Jena.saveAll(Unknown
Source)
at edu.stanford.smi.protegex.owl.jena.JenaOWLModel.save(Unknown
Source)
at ontosample.ontoReader.createSubstances(ontoReader.java:65)
at ontosample.ontoReader.main(ontoReader.java:24)

This is the code used to save the ontology:
String fileName = "TELECIT342.owl";
Collection errors = new ArrayList();
File arqowl=new File(fileName);
URI uri = arqowl.toURI();
System.out.println("URI criada: " + uri.toString());
onto.save(uri, FileUtils.langXMLAbbrev, errors);
System.out.println("Arquivo salvo com " + errors.size() + "
erro(s).");

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

2009-11-10T09:25:00Z

Ok, thanks everyone! I did not mean to stir up controversy here - I
was simply asking for clarification because our users had similar
questions. I believe we are all on the same page that a single syntax
is better than multiple syntaxes for the same thing. As Bijan also
states, this makes SPARQL queries (e.g. SPIN constraints) much easier.
There are other places in the OWL spec that allow multiple syntaxes
for essentially the same thing (e.g. owl:intersectionOf either
directly or as equivalent class), and this has been causing confusion
and makes implementations more expensive.

I think we also all agree that the current mapping is very verbose. I
trust that there have been good reasons for this, and it's too late to
change now anyway, so let's move on.

Regards,
Holger

On Nov 10, 2009, at 3:06 AM, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi Holger!
>
> Look at it this way: The option to assign names to datatype
> restrictions was added to OWL 2 as a specific feature to allow the
> reuse of complex datatype restrictions; this was requested by public
> feedback, AFAIR. Therefore, the structural specification of OWL 2
> has been extended by a dedicated construct for this feature, see
> [1]. For the OWL 2 RDF mapping, it would have been perfectly valid
> to introduce a new vocabulary term for this purpose as well, e.g.
> something like
>
> a:SSN owl:datatypeDefinition _:x .
>
> However, this was not necessary, since it was possible to re-use the
> term owl:equivalentClass for this. On the one hand, for OWL 2 DL,
> this was simply an extension to the (forward and reverse) RDF
> mapping without leading to any conflict. On the other hand, for OWL
> 2 Full, nothing needed to be changed, since the use of
> owl:equivalentClass between two resources of type rdfs:Datatype is
> allowed, anyway, and has the desired semantics out of the box. So
> this "minimal change" path was finally chosen.
>
> Now, if you think, for a moment, in the lines of using specific new
> vocabulary ("owl:datatypeDefinition"), it should become clear that
> using something like "DT1 rdfs:subClassOf DT2" was not intended,
> because there would have not been any additional
> "owl:subDatatypeDefinition" term. And, in fact, using "DT1
> rdfs:subClassOf DT2", with DT1 and DT2 being declared as datatypes,
> is disallowed by the reverse RDF mapping, meaning that it does not
> translate to any expression in the structural specification of OWL
> 2, which again means that it is invalid OWL 2 DL.
>
> In OWL 2 Full, of course, you can freely specify sub class
> relationships between any datatypes, but this is completely
> independent of the datatype-definition feature. It is possible,
> simply because datatypes are classes in OWL Full, and so you can
> state anything about datatypes that you can state about classes. You
> could do this already in OWL 1 Full, and even in RDFS you can safely
> write
>
> ex:MyDT rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> ex:MyDT rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Literal .
>
> and this is not only syntactically valid (it's well-formed RDF,
> after all), but even has the expected meaning there: it defines some
> datatype that is a sub class of rdfs:Literal, i.e. is a sub-datatype
> of the datatype rdfs:Literal.
>
> The question is, what does such a sub datatype specification buy
> you? Semantically, you only say with this that ex:MyDT represents
> some set that may be anything between the empty set and the whole
> original set of literals. This is extremely unspecific. At least for
> datatypes, I think the interesting cases are those where you
> *precisely* specify the extend of such a sub datatype. And this is
> what datatype definitions in connection with facet-based datatype
> restrictions are intended for in OWL 2.
>
> Now, to conclude, I would give the following advice: If Topbraid
> Composer had no specific support for sub-datatype specifications in
> the past, why should it have specific support for it now? The use of
> "owl:equivalentClass" for datatype definitions should not mislead
> you in thinking that OWL 2 has introduced general axioms on
> datatypes. For OWL DL, this is definitely *not* the case. For OWL
> Full, nothing new has happened except for the introduction of
> faceted datatype restrictions. So I would say that OWL 2-aware
> editors should really have dedicated support for datatype
> definitions, since it is a particular OWL 2 feature, but no support
> for anything else but this. Sub-datatype specifications were not
> intended, and are not compatible with OWL 2 DL. Since Topbraid
> Composer is an RDF-based editor, those people who believe that
> building sub-datatype specifications is a good idea can still do
> this by encoding the respective RDF bits manually, but this was
> always possible in the past. If these people care about
> interoperability with OWL 2 DL tools, they will be on the wrong
> track, though.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Definitions
> >
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-dev-request@... [mailto:public-owl-dev-
>> request@...] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:23 AM
>> To: Holger Knublauch
>> Cc: public-owl-dev@...; Michael Schneider
>> Subject: Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Holger Knublauch
>> <holger@...> wrote:
>>> Dear group,
>>>
>>> I am unsure about the right (and best) way of mapping user-defined
>>> OWL
>> 2
>>> datatypes to RDF graphs. I have been skimming through the OWL specs
>> but all
>>> examples I saw were of the following format (see
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-
>> 20091027/#Datatype_Definitions):
>>>
>>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>> a:SSN owl:equivalentClass _:x .
>>> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>> _:x owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>>> _:x owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>>> _:y xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>>>
>>> This means that a datatype is an instance of rdfs:Datatype that
>>> has an
>>> owl:equivalentClass of another (anonymous) datatype which then
>>> points
>> to the
>>> fact restrictions as an rdf:List.
>>>
>>> 1) Would it also be allowed to use rdfs:subClassOf instead of
>>> owl:equivalentClass?
>>
>> No. The mappings are defined precisely in
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/
>>
>>> 2) Would it be legal to attach the restrictions directly on the
>>> named
>>> datatype instead of going through the (very verbose!) blank node,
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>> a:SSN owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>>> a:SSN owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>>> a:SSN xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>>
>> No. If you don't see a mapping rule to create or parse such triples
>> in
>> the mapping document, then the construct isn't syntactically correct.
>> If you wrote the above it wouldn't mean what you intend it to mean.
>>
>>
>>> 3) Is it legal (and good practice) to subclass existing datatypes,
>> such as
>>>
>>> a:SNN rdfs:subClass xsd:string .
>>
>> Not legal in OWL-DL. If you look at the reverse mapping the
>> consequence of this is that a:SNN and xsd:string will be considered
>> classes, not datatypes and that a term can't denote both a class and
>> datatype.
>>
>> In OWL Full, this is allowed, but I wouldn't consider it good
>> practice
>> - however perhaps Michael Schneider has a different opinion? ccing
>> him.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying these, so that we can built the best practices
>> into
>>> our tools.
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@...
> WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> =
> ======================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael
> Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> =
> ======================================================================

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

2009-11-10T08:44:13Z

On Nov 9, 2009, at 7:33 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On 11/9/09, Pat Hayes <phayes@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@...
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Dear group,
>>>>
>>>> I am unsure about the right (and best) way of mapping user-defined
>>>> OWL 2
>>>> datatypes to RDF graphs. I have been skimming through the OWL specs
>>>> but all
>>>> examples I saw were of the following format (see
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Definitions)
>>>>
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>>> a:SSN owl:equivalentClass _:x .
>>>> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>>> _:x owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>>>> _:x owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>>>> _:y xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>>>>
>>>> This means that a datatype is an instance of rdfs:Datatype that has
>>>> an
>>>> owl:equivalentClass of another (anonymous) datatype which then
>>>> points to the
>>>> fact restrictions as an rdf:List.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Would it also be allowed to use rdfs:subClassOf instead of
>>>> owl:equivalentClass?
>>>
>>> No. The mappings are defined precisely in
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/
>>
>> But wait. It is certainly *correct* to use subClassOf instead of
>> EquivalentClass, since the latter entails the former. It might not
>> convey the full intention of the original OWL, of course, but that
>> does not make it into an error.
>
> I read his question as a question of whether the cited
> DatatypeDefinition could be encoded as he proposes. It can not.

Ah, I see. True. We need to have a more nuanced term than simply
"correct" in these emails.

>
>>>> 2) Would it be legal to attach the restrictions directly on the
>>>> named
>>>> datatype instead of going through the (very verbose!) blank node,
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>>> a:SSN owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>>>> a:SSN owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>>>> a:SSN xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>>>
>>> No. If you don't see a mapping rule to create or parse such
>>> triples in
>>> the mapping document, then the construct isn't syntactically
>>> correct.
>>
>> Correct in what language? It is perfectly legal RDF.
>
> It is perfectly legal RDF and that makes it perfectly legal OWL Full,
> apologies if there was confusion.
>
> I assumed that since he posted to the OWL list he wanted to know about
> how OWL parsers in general would see this. They would not parse it
> into the DatatypeDefinition that was cited, and any OWL tools that use
> the direct semantics would not process this construct.

Indeed.

>
>>> If you wrote the above it wouldn't mean what you intend it to mean.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on why not?
>
> Because he cited an example and asked if what was offered was a
> reasonable alternative encoding of that construct. The background was
> a question of best practices. The encoding offered is not semantically
> equivalent, even in OWL Full, and not part of the language OWL DL. I
> consider best practice to use the specified construct when there is
> one that matches intent, and in order to promote interoperability.

What I meant was, what inferences would go wrong. Not rhetorical, I
was genuinely interested in the details. BUt let us take this offline
or drop the subject.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3) Is it legal (and good practice) to subclass existing datatypes,
>>>> such as
>>>>
>>>> a:SNN rdfs:subClass xsd:string .
>>>
>>> Not legal in OWL-DL. If you look at the reverse mapping the
>>> consequence of this is that a:SNN and xsd:string will be considered
>>> classes, not datatypes and that a term can't denote both a class and
>>> datatype.
>>
>> Which is absurd, of course. A datatype *is* a class in RDF. Still,
>> OWL
>> is rich in such absurdities.
>
> Once there is a specification there isn't a question of absurd in the
> sense you suggest. The spec *defines* what the thing is.

True, but a definition can still be absurd. But let us not harp on
this, my views on the awkwardness of the OWL-DL syntactic restrictions
are well known.

>
>>> In OWL Full, this is allowed, but I wouldn't consider it good
>>> practice
>>
>> I would. In what sense is a datatype *not* a class? It is defined to
>> be a set, after all.
>
> That's fine, but then your best practice would prevent the user who
> used the construct from making productive use of OWL-DL reasoners. I
> don't think *my* customers would find that good advice. Particularly
> as it seems unnecessary.

Well, it is very handy to be able to treat a datatype as a class, and
the RDFS spec actually requires it. BUt of course, if one is aiming to
use OWL-DL reasoners, then one should conform to OWL-DL, as you say. I
guess I was reacting to the use of the term 'best practice', which
seems to claim a degree of correctness which transcends any one
particular dialect. But perhaps you did not intend this broader sense:
apologies for the misunderstanding.

Pat

>
> -Alan
>
>>
>> Pat Hayes
>>
>>
>>> - however perhaps Michael Schneider has a different opinion? ccing
>>> him.
>>>
>>> -Alan
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for clarifying these, so that we can built the best
>>>> practices into
>>>> our tools.
>>>> Holger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494
>> 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

2009-11-10T08:36:53Z

On Nov 9, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>
> Speaking as a repository builder (and other tool builder), I'd be
> happier if your (and everyone's!) tools generated RDF that's close
> to the RDF mapping, even if it's somewhat verbose. Consistency makes
> things a lot easier down the line.
>

FWIW, I entirely agree :-)

Pat Hayes

> Hope this helps!
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

RE: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

2009-11-10T03:06:42Z

Hi Holger!

Look at it this way: The option to assign names to datatype restrictions was added to OWL 2 as a specific feature to allow the reuse of complex datatype restrictions; this was requested by public feedback, AFAIR. Therefore, the structural specification of OWL 2 has been extended by a dedicated construct for this feature, see [1]. For the OWL 2 RDF mapping, it would have been perfectly valid to introduce a new vocabulary term for this purpose as well, e.g. something like

a:SSN owl:datatypeDefinition _:x .

However, this was not necessary, since it was possible to re-use the term owl:equivalentClass for this. On the one hand, for OWL 2 DL, this was simply an extension to the (forward and reverse) RDF mapping without leading to any conflict. On the other hand, for OWL 2 Full, nothing needed to be changed, since the use of owl:equivalentClass between two resources of type rdfs:Datatype is allowed, anyway, and has the desired semantics out of the box. So this "minimal change" path was finally chosen.

Now, if you think, for a moment, in the lines of using specific new vocabulary ("owl:datatypeDefinition"), it should become clear that using something like "DT1 rdfs:subClassOf DT2" was not intended, because there would have not been any additional "owl:subDatatypeDefinition" term. And, in fact, using "DT1 rdfs:subClassOf DT2", with DT1 and DT2 being declared as datatypes, is disallowed by the reverse RDF mapping, meaning that it does not translate to any expression in the structural specification of OWL 2, which again means that it is invalid OWL 2 DL.

In OWL 2 Full, of course, you can freely specify sub class relationships between any datatypes, but this is completely independent of the datatype-definition feature. It is possible, simply because datatypes are classes in OWL Full, and so you can state anything about datatypes that you can state about classes. You could do this already in OWL 1 Full, and even in RDFS you can safely write

ex:MyDT rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
ex:MyDT rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Literal .

and this is not only syntactically valid (it's well-formed RDF, after all), but even has the expected meaning there: it defines some datatype that is a sub class of rdfs:Literal, i.e. is a sub-datatype of the datatype rdfs:Literal.

The question is, what does such a sub datatype specification buy you? Semantically, you only say with this that ex:MyDT represents some set that may be anything between the empty set and the whole original set of literals. This is extremely unspecific. At least for datatypes, I think the interesting cases are those where you *precisely* specify the extend of such a sub datatype. And this is what datatype definitions in connection with facet-based datatype restrictions are intended for in OWL 2.

Now, to conclude, I would give the following advice: If Topbraid Composer had no specific support for sub-datatype specifications in the past, why should it have specific support for it now? The use of "owl:equivalentClass" for datatype definitions should not mislead you in thinking that OWL 2 has introduced general axioms on datatypes. For OWL DL, this is definitely *not* the case. For OWL Full, nothing new has happened except for the introduction of faceted datatype restrictions. So I would say that OWL 2-aware editors should really have dedicated support for datatype definitions, since it is a particular OWL 2 feature, but no support for anything else but this. Sub-datatype specifications were not intended, and are not compatible with OWL 2 DL. Since Topbraid Composer is an RDF-based editor, those people who believe that building sub-datatype specifications is a good idea can still do this by encoding the respective RDF bits manually, but this was always possible in the past. If these people care about interoperability with OWL 2 DL tools, they will be on the wrong track, though.

Cheers,
Michael

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Definitions>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-dev-request@... [mailto:public-owl-dev-
>request@...] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:23 AM
>To: Holger Knublauch
>Cc: public-owl-dev@...; Michael Schneider
>Subject: Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges
>
>On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Holger Knublauch
><holger@...> wrote:
>> Dear group,
>>
>> I am unsure about the right (and best) way of mapping user-defined OWL
>2
>> datatypes to RDF graphs. I have been skimming through the OWL specs
>but all
>> examples I saw were of the following format (see
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-
>20091027/#Datatype_Definitions):
>>
>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>> a:SSN owl:equivalentClass _:x .
>> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>> _:x owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>> _:x owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>> _:y xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>>
>> This means that a datatype is an instance of rdfs:Datatype that has an
>> owl:equivalentClass of another (anonymous) datatype which then points
>to the
>> fact restrictions as an rdf:List.
>>
>> 1) Would it also be allowed to use rdfs:subClassOf instead of
>> owl:equivalentClass?
>
>No. The mappings are defined precisely in
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/
>
>> 2) Would it be legal to attach the restrictions directly on the named
>> datatype instead of going through the (very verbose!) blank node, e.g.
>>
>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>> a:SSN owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>> a:SSN owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>> a:SSN xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>
>No. If you don't see a mapping rule to create or parse such triples in
>the mapping document, then the construct isn't syntactically correct.
>If you wrote the above it wouldn't mean what you intend it to mean.
>
>
>> 3) Is it legal (and good practice) to subclass existing datatypes,
>such as
>>
>> a:SNN rdfs:subClass xsd:string .
>
>Not legal in OWL-DL. If you look at the reverse mapping the
>consequence of this is that a:SNN and xsd:string will be considered
>classes, not datatypes and that a term can't denote both a class and
>datatype.
>
>In OWL Full, this is allowed, but I wouldn't consider it good practice
>- however perhaps Michael Schneider has a different opinion? ccing
>him.
>
>-Alan
>
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying these, so that we can built the best practices
>into
>> our tools.
>> Holger
>>
>>
>>

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel : +49-721-9654-726
Fax : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@...
WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

EISWT-10 Call for papers

2009-11-10T02:37:35Z

EISWT-10 Call for papers The 2010 International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems and Web Technologies (EISWT-10) (website: http://www.PromoteResearch.org) will be held during 12-14 of July 2010 in Orlando, FL, USA. EISWT is an important event in the areas of Enterprise Information Systems, Enterprise Solution Systems, Databases as well as Web Technologies. The conference will be held at the same time and location where several other major international conferences will be taking place. The conference will be held as part of 2010 multi-conference (MULTICONF-10). MULTICONF-10 will be held during July 12-14, 2010 in Orlando, Florida, USA. The primary goal of MULTICONF is to promote research and developmental activities in computer science, information technology, control engineering, and related fields. Another goal is to promote the dissemination of research to a multidisciplinary audience and to facilitate communication among researchers, developers, practitioners in different fields. The following conferences are planned to be organized as part of MULTICONF-10. • International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition (AIPR-10) • International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Control Systems (ARCS-10) • International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, Genomics and Chemoinformatics (BCBGC-10) • International Conference on Computer Networks (CN-10) • International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems and Web Technologies (EISWT-10) • International Conference on High Performance Computing Systems (HPCS-10) • International Conference on Information Security and Privacy (ISP-10) • International Conference on Image and Video Processing and Computer Vision (IVPCV-10) • International Conference on Software Engineering Theory and Practice (SETP-10) • International Conference on Theoretical and Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (TMFCS-10) We invite draft paper submissions. Please see the website http://www.PromoteResearch.org for more details. Sincerely John Edward Publicity committee

EISWT-10 Call for papers

2009-11-10T02:31:07Z

EISWT-10 Call for papers The 2010 International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems and Web Technologies (EISWT-10) (website: http://www.PromoteResearch.org) will be held during 12-14 of July 2010 in Orlando, FL, USA. EISWT is an important event in the areas of Enterprise Information Systems, Enterprise Solution Systems, Databases as well as Web Technologies. The conference will be held at the same time and location where several other major international conferences will be taking place. The conference will be held as part of 2010 multi-conference (MULTICONF-10). MULTICONF-10 will be held during July 12-14, 2010 in Orlando, Florida, USA. The primary goal of MULTICONF is to promote research and developmental activities in computer science, information technology, control engineering, and related fields. Another goal is to promote the dissemination of research to a multidisciplinary audience and to facilitate communication among researchers, developers, practitioners in different fields. The following conferences are planned to be organized as part of MULTICONF-10. • International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition (AIPR-10) • International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Control Systems (ARCS-10) • International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, Genomics and Chemoinformatics (BCBGC-10) • International Conference on Computer Networks (CN-10) • International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems and Web Technologies (EISWT-10) • International Conference on High Performance Computing Systems (HPCS-10) • International Conference on Information Security and Privacy (ISP-10) • International Conference on Image and Video Processing and Computer Vision (IVPCV-10) • International Conference on Software Engineering Theory and Practice (SETP-10) • International Conference on Theoretical and Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (TMFCS-10) We invite draft paper submissions. Please see the website http://www.PromoteResearch.org for more details. Sincerely John Edward Publicity committee

EISWT-10 Call for papers

2009-11-10T02:27:46Z

EISWT-10 Call for papers

The 2010 International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems and Web Technologies (EISWT-10) (website: http://www.PromoteResearch.org) will be held during 12-14 of July 2010 in Orlando, FL, USA. EISWT is an important event in the areas of Enterprise Information Systems, Enterprise Solution Systems, Databases as well as Web Technologies.

The conference will be held at the same time and location where several other major international conferences will be taking place. The conference will be held as part of 2010 multi-conference (MULTICONF-10). MULTICONF-10 will be held during July 12-14, 2010 in Orlando, Florida, USA. The primary goal of MULTICONF is to promote research and developmental activities in computer science, information technology, control engineering, and related fields. Another goal is to promote the dissemination of research to a multidisciplinary audience and to facilitate communication among researchers, developers, practitioners in different fields. The following conferences are planned to be organized as part of MULTICONF-10.

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition (AIPR-10)
International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Control Systems (ARCS-10)
International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, Genomics and Chemoinformatics (BCBGC-10)
International Conference on Computer Networks (CN-10)
International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems and Web Technologies (EISWT-10)
International Conference on High Performance Computing Systems (HPCS-10)
International Conference on Information Security and Privacy (ISP-10)
International Conference on Image and Video Processing and Computer Vision (IVPCV-10)
International Conference on Software Engineering Theory and Practice (SETP-10)
International Conference on Theoretical and Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (TMFCS-10)

We invite draft paper submissions. Please see the website http://www.PromoteResearch.org for more details.

Sincerely

John Edward

Publicity committee

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

2009-11-09T17:33:17Z

On 11/9/09, Pat Hayes <phayes@...> wrote:

>
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@...
>> > wrote:
>>> Dear group,
>>>
>>> I am unsure about the right (and best) way of mapping user-defined
>>> OWL 2
>>> datatypes to RDF graphs. I have been skimming through the OWL specs
>>> but all
>>> examples I saw were of the following format (see
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Definitions)
>>>
>>> :
>>>
>>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>> a:SSN owl:equivalentClass _:x .
>>> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>> _:x owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>>> _:x owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>>> _:y xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>>>
>>> This means that a datatype is an instance of rdfs:Datatype that has
>>> an
>>> owl:equivalentClass of another (anonymous) datatype which then
>>> points to the
>>> fact restrictions as an rdf:List.
>>>
>>> 1) Would it also be allowed to use rdfs:subClassOf instead of
>>> owl:equivalentClass?
>>
>> No. The mappings are defined precisely in
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/
>
> But wait. It is certainly *correct* to use subClassOf instead of
> EquivalentClass, since the latter entails the former. It might not
> convey the full intention of the original OWL, of course, but that
> does not make it into an error.

I read his question as a question of whether the cited
DatatypeDefinition could be encoded as he proposes. It can not.

>>> 2) Would it be legal to attach the restrictions directly on the named
>>> datatype instead of going through the (very verbose!) blank node,
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>> a:SSN owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>>> a:SSN owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>>> a:SSN xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>>
>> No. If you don't see a mapping rule to create or parse such triples in
>> the mapping document, then the construct isn't syntactically correct.
>
> Correct in what language? It is perfectly legal RDF.

It is perfectly legal RDF and that makes it perfectly legal OWL Full,
apologies if there was confusion.

I assumed that since he posted to the OWL list he wanted to know about
how OWL parsers in general would see this. They would not parse it
into the DatatypeDefinition that was cited, and any OWL tools that use
the direct semantics would not process this construct.

>> If you wrote the above it wouldn't mean what you intend it to mean.
>
> Can you elaborate on why not?

Because he cited an example and asked if what was offered was a
reasonable alternative encoding of that construct. The background was
a question of best practices. The encoding offered is not semantically
equivalent, even in OWL Full, and not part of the language OWL DL. I
consider best practice to use the specified construct when there is
one that matches intent, and in order to promote interoperability.

>
>>
>>
>>> 3) Is it legal (and good practice) to subclass existing datatypes,
>>> such as
>>>
>>> a:SNN rdfs:subClass xsd:string .
>>
>> Not legal in OWL-DL. If you look at the reverse mapping the
>> consequence of this is that a:SNN and xsd:string will be considered
>> classes, not datatypes and that a term can't denote both a class and
>> datatype.
>
> Which is absurd, of course. A datatype *is* a class in RDF. Still, OWL
> is rich in such absurdities.

Once there is a specification there isn't a question of absurd in the
sense you suggest. The spec *defines* what the thing is.

>> In OWL Full, this is allowed, but I wouldn't consider it good practice
>
> I would. In what sense is a datatype *not* a class? It is defined to
> be a set, after all.

That's fine, but then your best practice would prevent the user who
used the construct from making productive use of OWL-DL reasoners. I
don't think *my* customers would find that good advice. Particularly
as it seems unnecessary.

-Alan

>
> Pat Hayes
>
>
>> - however perhaps Michael Schneider has a different opinion? ccing
>> him.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying these, so that we can built the best
>>> practices into
>>> our tools.
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

2009-11-09T17:00:12Z

On 9 Nov 2009, at 21:06, Holger Knublauch wrote:

> Dear group,
>
> I am unsure about the right (and best) way of mapping user-defined
> OWL 2 datatypes to RDF graphs. I have been skimming through the OWL
> specs but all examples I saw were of the following format (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Definitions)
> :
>
> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> a:SSN owl:equivalentClass _:x .
> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> _:x owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
> _:x owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
> _:y xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>
> This means that a datatype is an instance of rdfs:Datatype that has
> an owl:equivalentClass of another (anonymous) datatype which then
> points to the fact restrictions as an rdf:List.
>
> 1) Would it also be allowed to use rdfs:subClassOf instead of
> owl:equivalentClass?

This would make you OWL Full (I'd imagine) and might screw up some
parsers/translators (e.g., the OWL API) and validators. Obviously, it
would also complicate e.g., datatype extraction code that e.g., used
SPARQL 1.0 (since they would have to check for two cases rather than
one, at least).

I imagine, eventually, repair code would fix that up, but I think it's
more robust for code to stick closer to the explicit behavior of the
spec.

> 2) Would it be legal to attach the restrictions directly on the
> named datatype instead of going through the (very verbose!) blank
> node, e.g.
>
> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> a:SSN owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
> a:SSN owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
> a:SSN xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .

The main reason for the verbose form is partly consistency with class
expressions and axioms and partial to make it easier to verify the
naming constraints (e.g., avoiding cyclic patterns of dependency).

Again, this won't accord with tools following the spec and trying to
be DL compatible, so if you can avoid it, it will increase interop.

(Since they are named I think the verbosity isn't so bad (occurs once
per def) and, if generated by tools, not burdensome.)

> 3) Is it legal (and good practice) to subclass existing datatypes,
> such as
>
> a:SNN rdfs:subClass xsd:string .

This will only make sense in OWL Full, but it could have surprising
results and won't work well with XML Schema based datatype reasoners.
I think its better, as a general rule, to use the XML Schema based
derivation operators to define restrictions on existing datatypes.
It's easier to go back and forth with the XML Schema syntax, which I
think is a good idea.

Speaking as a repository builder (and other tool builder), I'd be
happier if your (and everyone's!) tools generated RDF that's close to
the RDF mapping, even if it's somewhat verbose. Consistency makes
things a lot easier down the line.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,
Bijan.

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

2009-11-09T15:57:45Z

On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@...
> > wrote:
>> Dear group,
>>
>> I am unsure about the right (and best) way of mapping user-defined
>> OWL 2
>> datatypes to RDF graphs. I have been skimming through the OWL specs
>> but all
>> examples I saw were of the following format (see
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Definitions)
>> :
>>
>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>> a:SSN owl:equivalentClass _:x .
>> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>> _:x owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>> _:x owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>> _:y xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>>
>> This means that a datatype is an instance of rdfs:Datatype that has
>> an
>> owl:equivalentClass of another (anonymous) datatype which then
>> points to the
>> fact restrictions as an rdf:List.
>>
>> 1) Would it also be allowed to use rdfs:subClassOf instead of
>> owl:equivalentClass?
>
> No. The mappings are defined precisely in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/

But wait. It is certainly *correct* to use subClassOf instead of
EquivalentClass, since the latter entails the former. It might not
convey the full intention of the original OWL, of course, but that
does not make it into an error.

>
>> 2) Would it be legal to attach the restrictions directly on the named
>> datatype instead of going through the (very verbose!) blank node,
>> e.g.
>>
>> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>> a:SSN owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
>> a:SSN owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
>> a:SSN xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>
> No. If you don't see a mapping rule to create or parse such triples in
> the mapping document, then the construct isn't syntactically correct.

Correct in what language? It is perfectly legal RDF.

> If you wrote the above it wouldn't mean what you intend it to mean.

Can you elaborate on why not?

>
>
>> 3) Is it legal (and good practice) to subclass existing datatypes,
>> such as
>>
>> a:SNN rdfs:subClass xsd:string .
>
> Not legal in OWL-DL. If you look at the reverse mapping the
> consequence of this is that a:SNN and xsd:string will be considered
> classes, not datatypes and that a term can't denote both a class and
> datatype.

Which is absurd, of course. A datatype *is* a class in RDF. Still, OWL
is rich in such absurdities.

>
> In OWL Full, this is allowed, but I wouldn't consider it good practice

I would. In what sense is a datatype *not* a class? It is defined to
be a set, after all.

Pat Hayes

> - however perhaps Michael Schneider has a different opinion? ccing
> him.
>
> -Alan
>
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying these, so that we can built the best
>> practices into
>> our tools.
>> Holger
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

2009-11-09T15:23:18Z

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@...> wrote:

> Dear group,
>
> I am unsure about the right (and best) way of mapping user-defined OWL 2
> datatypes to RDF graphs. I have been skimming through the OWL specs but all
> examples I saw were of the following format (see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Definitions):
>
> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> a:SSN owl:equivalentClass _:x .
> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> _:x owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
> _:x owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
> _:y xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .
>
> This means that a datatype is an instance of rdfs:Datatype that has an
> owl:equivalentClass of another (anonymous) datatype which then points to the
> fact restrictions as an rdf:List.
>
> 1) Would it also be allowed to use rdfs:subClassOf instead of
> owl:equivalentClass?

No. The mappings are defined precisely in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/

> 2) Would it be legal to attach the restrictions directly on the named
> datatype instead of going through the (very verbose!) blank node, e.g.
>
> a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> a:SSN owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
> a:SSN owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
> a:SSN xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .

No. If you don't see a mapping rule to create or parse such triples in
the mapping document, then the construct isn't syntactically correct.
If you wrote the above it wouldn't mean what you intend it to mean.

> 3) Is it legal (and good practice) to subclass existing datatypes, such as
>
> a:SNN rdfs:subClass xsd:string .

Not legal in OWL-DL. If you look at the reverse mapping the
consequence of this is that a:SNN and xsd:string will be considered
classes, not datatypes and that a term can't denote both a class and
datatype.

In OWL Full, this is allowed, but I wouldn't consider it good practice
- however perhaps Michael Schneider has a different opinion? ccing
him.

-Alan

>
> Thanks for clarifying these, so that we can built the best practices into
> our tools.
> Holger
>
>
>

Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

2009-11-09T13:06:12Z

Dear group,

I am unsure about the right (and best) way of mapping user-defined OWL
2 datatypes to RDF graphs. I have been skimming through the OWL specs
but all examples I saw were of the following format (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Definitions
):

a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
a:SSN owl:equivalentClass _:x .
_:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
_:x owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
_:x owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
_:y xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .

This means that a datatype is an instance of rdfs:Datatype that has an
owl:equivalentClass of another (anonymous) datatype which then points
to the fact restrictions as an rdf:List.

1) Would it also be allowed to use rdfs:subClassOf instead of
owl:equivalentClass?

2) Would it be legal to attach the restrictions directly on the named
datatype instead of going through the (very verbose!) blank node, e.g.

a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
a:SSN owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
a:SSN owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
a:SSN xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .

3) Is it legal (and good practice) to subclass existing datatypes,
such as

a:SNN rdfs:subClass xsd:string .

Thanks for clarifying these, so that we can built the best practices
into our tools.
Holger

OWLED presentations

2009-11-09T04:09:41Z

Dear all,

Slides of several presentations given at this year's OWLED are now
available from the OWLED 2009 schedule page at [1].

Best,

Rinke

[1] http://www.webont.org/owled/2009/schedule.html

---
Dr Rinke Hoekstra

AI Department | Leibniz Center for Law
Faculty of Sciences | Faculty of Law
Vrije Universiteit | Universiteit van Amsterdam
De Boelelaan 1081a | Kloveniersburgwal 48
1081 HV Amsterdam | 1012 CX Amsterdam
+31-(0)20-5987752 | +31-(0)20-5253499
hoekstra@... | hoekstra@...

Homepage: http://www.few.vu.nl/~hoekstra

Application Ontology

2009-11-06T05:52:56Z

Hi!

I've been doing my master degree research and it includes the use of domain ontology and application ontology. I've found a lot of owl examples of domain ontology, but I can't find application ontology owl axamples. Someone knows where may I find some application ontology owl file to guide me in my research?

Thanks!

Best Regards.

Daniel Cintra Cugler
Lince - Laboratory for Innovation on Computing and Engineering
DC - UFSCar - Brazil
Skype name: daniel.cintra.cugler

Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! + Buscados: Top 10 - Celebridades - Música - Esportes

Re: How to query items of a Sequence ?

2009-11-05T13:00:00Z

Doh! I've been caught up in function extensions recently, and totally
forgot that this can be done with base SPARQL. See below...

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Paul Gearon <gearon@...> wrote:

> If you don't have an entailment regime, then you can also try to
> filter by the structure of the predicate, but you need function
> extensions if your triplestore to handle that. For instance, on many
> triplestores you could do:
>
> PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>
> SELECT ?sequence ?predicate ?element
> WHERE {
> ?sequence rdf:type rdf:Seq .
> ?sequence ?predicate ?element .
> FILTER fn:starts-with( str(?predicate),
> "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_")
> }
>
> The problem with this approach is that not every SPARQL endpoint
> handles this function (yet), or they have similar though differently
> named functions. Also, doing these string comparisons could get
> expensive if you had a lot of data to return.

The better approach is to use regex.

FILTER regex(str(?predicate),
"^http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_\d+$")

This has the added advantage of ensuring that only numbers are used at
the end of the URI (this should be the case, but it's conceivable that
someone could write bad URIs). Thanks to Andy Seaborne for pointing
out my shortcomings. :-)

Regards,
Paul Gearon

Re: How to query items of a Sequence ?

2009-11-05T12:00:59Z

Hi Etienne,

This is an RDF and SPARQL issue, and not really appropriate for an OWL
list. This is especially so, given that most of the OWL community are
against the use of Containers (especially the DL folks).

I recommend mailing lists such as semantic-web@..., or possibly
www-rdf-interest@....

But since I'm here....

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Etienne Morency
<etienne.morency@...> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We are using sequences in our project and we are having difficulties finding
> a way to query our ontology to get all items of a sequence using SPARQL.

I mentioned that containers (including sequences) are not encouraged
by the OWL community. While I expect to see them used in general RDF,
I'm a little surprised to see them in a system described by OWL. I'm
sure there are a few people here willing to discuss this design
decision with you, but I'll just press ahead with your question. After
all, querying members of collections is just as awkward with SPARQL
1.0. :-)

> The sequence in our ontology looks like this :
>
> <rdf:Seq rdf:about="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317"/>
>
> <rdf:Seq rdf:about="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317"/>
>     <rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#314"/>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> <rdf:Seq rdf:about="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317"/>
>     <rdf:_2 rdf:resource="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#194"/>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> <rdf:Seq rdf:about="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317"/>
>     <rdf:_3 rdf:resource="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#GENERIC_113"/>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> We are able to find the sequence "http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317" with
> the following query :
> SELECT ?sequence WHERE { ?sequence <" + RDF.TYPE + "> <" + RDF.SEQ + "> }
>
> But is there a way to have a query that will return the items _1, _2 and _3
> directly ?

First off, since you have a sequence, you'd often want to know what
the first thing is, the second thing is, etc, and you can select these
out just by referring to the predicates rdf:_1, rdf:_2, and so on. But
it looks like you want to get everything, so directly mentioning the
predicates won't help.

If you have RDFS entailments available, you can ask for the
rdfs:member property, since all rdf:_n are subproperties of this:

PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>
PREFIX rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>
SELECT ?sequence ?element
WHERE { ?sequence rdf:type rdf:Seq . ?sequence rdfs:member ?element }

However, this loses your ordering. You can try to get the associated
predicate (add {?sequence ?pred ?element} and remove the rdfs:member
elements via OPTIONAL/!BOUND), but the SPARQL gets messy and we
haven't even established if you have entailment available.

If you don't have an entailment regime, then you can also try to
filter by the structure of the predicate, but you need function
extensions if your triplestore to handle that. For instance, on many
triplestores you could do:

PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>
SELECT ?sequence ?predicate ?element
WHERE {
?sequence rdf:type rdf:Seq .
?sequence ?predicate ?element .
FILTER fn:starts-with( str(?predicate),
"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_")
}

The problem with this approach is that not every SPARQL endpoint
handles this function (yet), or they have similar though differently
named functions. Also, doing these string comparisons could get
expensive if you had a lot of data to return.

Regards,
Paul Gearon

Re: questions about the topObjectProperty

2009-11-05T09:39:54Z

2009/11/5 Wael Yehia <wmyehia2001@...>

Hello everyone,
I'm trying to use some reasoner that supports OWL 2, fully, and I'm particularly interested in being able to reason with the Universal Role (represented by the topObjectProperty), the role that relates every pair of individuals in the domain.
Now, I noticed that Protege 4.0 does not have a keyword for topObjectProperty or at least it is not predefined and appear at the root of the property hierarchy, the way the Thing (top) concept is predefined and is at the root of the concept hierarchy. Maybe because protege 4.0 doesn't support OWL 2 fully yet.

Protege 4.0 is not really OWL 2 ready. You would need Protege 4.1, which is not yet officially released. We just released HermiT 1.1 and from the HermiT website, you can also get a compiled version of Protege 4.1 (no support and no guarantee that it is working, it is not an official Protege release).

And creating a new property with the 'topObjectProperty' name won't make it the topObjectProperty that we need but just some another property, because by looking at the rdf output when you save the ontology you'll see that the topObjectProperty that you defined is prefixed with your ontology's name and not the 'owl:' prefix which is presumably the right one.

Yes, without the owl prefix it is not really the top property.

I wrote some test cases manually, this is one of them in First Order Logic (FOL):
(\forall x.F(x)) \and \not (\exist x.F(x))

That can directly be expressed as a DL axiom:
SubClassOf(owl:Thing :F)
SubClassOf(owl:Thing ObjectComplementOf(:F))
in other syntax
top implies F
top implies not F
(I used two axioms because in your example the two x are not really the same, you could rename one into y due to the quantifier scope)

which is equal to: \forall x.False

not equal, but it follows

I am not sure if this formula is satisfiable, maybe if the domain is empty.

The domain is required to be non-empty, so it is unsatisfiable.

But it can be translated to Description Logic (DL) using the Universal Role (topObjectProperty) and becomes
\forall U. Bot
or in manchester syntax:
topObjectProperty only Nothing

No need for the top role, as said above. All axioms apply to all individuals, they can be seen as usiversally quantified.
If you use the top object property, your domain can still have one element, but that element cannot have a successor. The ontology is still satisfiable though.

Now, my concern is that I'm not 100% sure that I'm expressing the formula in RDF syntax (which i will show below) correctly, and therefore don't know how Hermit 1.0 (which claims that it supports OWL 2) is understanding it.

HermiT understands what you say, but you probably don't want to use the top object property.

So, if anyone knows whether this is correct syntax, or knows anything about Hermit's reasoning capabilities with topObjectProperty, then any advice or hints are greatly appreciated.

HermiT supports indeed all of OWL 2 including owl:topObjectProperty.

This is my RDF syntax ontology, I don't know if I should include parts of it here or all of it, so I decide to put it all here, and please note that I cheated a bit and used protege to output it for me and then i manually changed the occurrences of topobjectproperty with two version of my own:
1) #TopObjectProperty .... I tried this one because protege shows it as a super property of any new property you create so I thought maybe it recognizes it this way
2) owl:topObjectProperty

only the second one is the top object property. The first one is just a normal property for HermiT.

This is the RDF ontology:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
    <!ENTITY owl2 "owl:" >
    <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" >
    <!ENTITY xsd "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
    <!ENTITY owl2xml "http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2-xml#" >
    <!ENTITY rdfs "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" >
    <!ENTITY rdf "http://www.w3..org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" >
    <!ENTITY O3 "http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl#" >
]>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl#"
     xml:base="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl"
     xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
     xmlns:owl2xml="http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2-xml#"
     xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
     xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:owl2="owl:"
     xmlns:O3="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl#">
    <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""/>

    

    
    <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#TopObjectProperty"/>

    
    <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="owl:topObjectProperty"/>

    

    
    <owl:Class rdf:about="#A"/>

    
    <owl:Class rdf:about="#Last">
        <owl:equivalentClass>
            <owl:Class>
                <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
                    <owl:Class>
                        <owl:complementOf>
                            <owl:Restriction>
                                <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#TopObjectProperty"/>
                                <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
                            </owl:Restriction>
                        </owl:complementOf>
                    </owl:Class>
                    <owl:Restriction>
                        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#TopObjectProperty"/>
                        <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
                    </owl:Restriction>
                </owl:intersectionOf>
            </owl:Class>
        </owl:equivalentClass>
    </owl:Class>


    

    <owl:Class rdf:about="#b">
        <owl:equivalentClass>
            <owl:Class>
                <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
                    <rdf:Description rdf:about="#A"/>
                    <rdf:Description rdf:about="&owl;Thing"/>
                </owl:intersectionOf>
            </owl:Class>
        </owl:equivalentClass>
    </owl:Class>


    

    <owl:Class rdf:about="#c">
        <owl:equivalentClass>
            <owl:Class>
                <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
                    <owl:Class>
                        <owl:complementOf>
                            <owl:Restriction>
                                <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="owl:topObjectProperty"/>
                                <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
                            </owl:Restriction>
                        </owl:complementOf>
                    </owl:Class>
                    <owl:Restriction>
                        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="owl:topObjectProperty"/>
                        <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
                    </owl:Restriction>
                </owl:intersectionOf>
            </owl:Class>
        </owl:equivalentClass>
    </owl:Class>

    

    <owl:Class rdf:about="&owl;Thing"/>
</rdf:RDF>

In your ontology instances of the class C cannot have any successors (there you used the real top property) and instances of class Last cannot have any http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl#TopObjectProperty successor, but can have other successors.

finally, I was wondering if there is a formula containing a topObjectProperty that is, say unsatisfiable, and if all occurences of topObjectProperty are substituted by another property R, then it becomes satisfiable. So, what I 'm asking is if there's an example which clearly shows the distinction between a topObjectProperty and an ordinary property, also I'm interested in logic (or maybe DL) based satisfiability, and not satisfiability based on domain, range or something else.

I was told that domain closure formulas such as \forall x.(F(x) <=> (x=a | x=b)), can be used to distinguish between the topObjectProperty and other properties, so this formula should be unsatisfiable:
C(a) & C(b) & \forall x (C(x) <=> x=a)

This just implies a=b, unless you have unique name assumption.

which is equivalent to:
       Ex.(C(x) & x=a) & Ex.(C(x) & x=b) & Ax.( (C(x) & x=a) | (~C(x) & ~x=a) )
So I translated them to a DL called ALCO+U, which allows nominals and the Universal Role, using the translation:
       Ex.C(x)     becomes in DL   \exist U. C
       Ax.C(x)     becomes in DL   \forall U. C
where U is the universal role.

Again, no need for the universal role:
C(a)
C(b)
C equals {a}
in functional style syntax
ClassAssertion(C a)
ClassAssertion(C b)
EquivalentClasses(C ObjectOneOf(a))

And the other translations are straightforward, such as   x=a becomes {a}, and so on..
Also, we assumed Unique Names Axioms in the above formula, but we need to explicitly mention that in OWL 2, so I used the DifferentIndividuals axiom to say that 'a' and 'b' are different individuals.
This is that formula in Manchester Syntax:
            topObjectProperty some (C and {a})
              and topObjectProperty some (C and {b})
              and topObjectProperty only ((not C) or {a})

So, after saying that 'a' and 'b' are distinct individuals, the formula is found unsatisfiable, which is correct, but when replacing topObjectProperty with another property, say R, the unsatisfiablility stays, which after some thinking I found it correct too. So this result made me write this email to ask for advice about whether the topObjectProperty can be distinguished from another role R using purely FOL semantics.

Well, it can be axiomatised, so you can replace the top object property by a fresh property and add a couple of axioms (the fresh property is a super property of all other axioms, etc.) and you have the same effect.

You should use the top object property sparsely, because it can be computationally expensive and in all your examples it was not needed and rather the result of a wrong translation, so I suggest you read more about OWL semantics and maybe its relation to FOL. Maybe the OWL primer is helpful:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/

Best regards,
Birte

Thank you.

Wael

--
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529

Re: questions about the topObjectProperty

2009-11-05T09:38:17Z

I hope that this post is not misplaced but I thought I would give some
context about the Protege reference. Protege 4.0 is currently in
transition and does not fully support OWL 2.0. Roughly speaking
Protege 4.0 supports OWL 1.1. Protege 4.1, which will be released as
an early alpha soon, does support OWL 2.0 and works with Hermit.

-Timothy

On Nov 4, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Wael Yehia wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> I'm trying to use some reasoner that supports OWL 2, fully, and
> I'm particularly interested in being able to reason with the
> Universal Role (represented by the topObjectProperty), the role that
> relates every pair of individuals in the domain.
> Now, I noticed that Protege 4.0 does not have a keyword for
> topObjectProperty or at least it is not predefined and appear at the
> root of the property hierarchy, the way the Thing (top) concept is
> predefined and is at the root of the concept hierarchy. Maybe
> because protege 4.0 doesn't support OWL 2 fully yet. And creating a
> new property with the 'topObjectProperty' name won't make it the
> topObjectProperty that we need but just some another property,
> because by looking at the rdf output when you save the ontology
> you'll see that the topObjectProperty that you defined is prefixed
> with your ontology's name and not the 'owl:' prefix which is
> presumably the right one.
> I wrote some test cases manually, this is one of them in First Order
> Logic (FOL):
> (\forall x.F(x)) \and \not (\exist x.F(x))
> which is equal to: \forall x.False
> I am not sure if this formula is satisfiable, maybe if the domain is
> empty. But it can be translated to Description Logic (DL) using the
> Universal Role (topObjectProperty) and becomes
> \forall U. Bot
> or in manchester syntax:
> topObjectProperty only Nothing
>
> Now, my concern is that I'm not 100% sure that I'm expressing the
> formula in RDF syntax (which i will show below) correctly, and
> therefore don't know how Hermit 1.0 (which claims that it supports
> OWL 2) is understanding it. So, if anyone knows whether this is
> correct syntax, or knows anything about Hermit's reasoning
> capabilities with topObjectProperty, then any advice or hints are
> greatly appreciated. This is my RDF syntax ontology, I don't know if
> I should include parts of it here or all of it, so I decide to put
> it all here, and please note that I cheated a bit and used protege
> to output it for me and then i manually changed the occurrences of
> topobjectproperty with two version of my own:
> 1) #TopObjectProperty .... I tried this one because protege shows
> it as a super property of any new property you create so I thought
> maybe it recognizes it this way
> 2) owl:topObjectProperty
>
> This is the RDF ontology:
>
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
> <!ENTITY owl2 "owl:" >
> <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" >
> <!ENTITY xsd "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
> <!ENTITY owl2xml "http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2-xml#" >
> <!ENTITY rdfs "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" >
> <!ENTITY rdf "http://www.w3..org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" >
> <!ENTITY O3 "http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/
> O3.owl#" >
> ]>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl#"
> xml:base="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl"
> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
> xmlns:owl2xml="http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2-xml#"
> xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"
> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> xmlns:owl2="owl:"
> xmlns:O3="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl#">
> <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""/>
>
> 
>
> 
> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#TopObjectProperty"/>
>
> 
> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="owl:topObjectProperty"/>
>
> 
>
> 
> <owl:Class rdf:about="#A"/>
>
> 
> <owl:Class rdf:about="#Last">
> <owl:equivalentClass>
> <owl:Class>
> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
> <owl:Class>
> <owl:complementOf>
> <owl:Restriction>
> <owl:onProperty
> rdf:resource="#TopObjectProperty"/>
> <owl:someValuesFrom
> rdf:resource="#b"/>
> </owl:Restriction>
> </owl:complementOf>
> </owl:Class>
> <owl:Restriction>
> <owl:onProperty
> rdf:resource="#TopObjectProperty"/>
> <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
> </owl:Restriction>
> </owl:intersectionOf>
> </owl:Class>
> </owl:equivalentClass>
> </owl:Class>
>
>
>
> 
>
> <owl:Class rdf:about="#b">
> <owl:equivalentClass>
> <owl:Class>
> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#A"/>
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&owl;Thing"/>
> </owl:intersectionOf>
> </owl:Class>
> </owl:equivalentClass>
> </owl:Class>
>
>
>
> 
>
> <owl:Class rdf:about="#c">
> <owl:equivalentClass>
> <owl:Class>
> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
> <owl:Class>
> <owl:complementOf>
> <owl:Restriction>
> <owl:onProperty
> rdf:resource="owl:topObjectProperty"/>
> <owl:someValuesFrom
> rdf:resource="#b"/>
> </owl:Restriction>
> </owl:complementOf>
> </owl:Class>
> <owl:Restriction>
> <owl:onProperty
> rdf:resource="owl:topObjectProperty"/>
> <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
> </owl:Restriction>
> </owl:intersectionOf>
> </owl:Class>
> </owl:equivalentClass>
> </owl:Class>
>
> 
>
> <owl:Class rdf:about="&owl;Thing"/>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> finally, I was wondering if there is a formula containing a
> topObjectProperty that is, say unsatisfiable, and if all occurences
> of topObjectProperty are substituted by another property R, then it
> becomes satisfiable. So, what I 'm asking is if there's an example
> which clearly shows the distinction between a topObjectProperty and
> an ordinary property, also I'm interested in logic (or maybe DL)
> based satisfiability, and not satisfiability based on domain, range
> or something else.
> I was told that domain closure formulas such as \forall x.(F(x) <=>
> (x=a | x=b)), can be used to distinguish between the
> topObjectProperty and other properties, so this formula should be
> unsatisfiable:
> C(a) & C(b) & \forall x (C(x) <=> x=a)
> which is equivalent to:
> Ex.(C(x) & x=a) & Ex.(C(x) & x=b) & Ax.( (C(x) & x=a) |
> (~C(x) & ~x=a) )
> So I translated them to a DL called ALCO+U, which allows nominals
> and the Universal Role, using the translation:
> Ex.C(x) becomes in DL \exist U. C
> Ax.C(x) becomes in DL \forall U. C
> where U is the universal role. And the other translations are
> straightforward, such as x=a becomes {a}, and so on..
> Also, we assumed Unique Names Axioms in the above formula, but we
> need to explicitly mention that in OWL 2, so I used the
> DifferentIndividuals axiom to say that 'a' and 'b' are different
> individuals.
> This is that formula in Manchester Syntax:
> topObjectProperty some (C and {a})
> and topObjectProperty some (C and {b})
> and topObjectProperty only ((not C) or {a})
>
> So, after saying that 'a' and 'b' are distinct individuals, the
> formula is found unsatisfiable, which is correct, but when replacing
> topObjectProperty with another property, say R, the
> unsatisfiablility stays, which after some thinking I found it
> correct too. So this result made me write this email to ask for
> advice about whether the topObjectProperty can be distinguished from
> another role R using purely FOL semantics.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Wael
>

questions about the topObjectProperty

2009-11-04T19:30:58Z

Hello everyone,
    I'm trying to use some reasoner that supports OWL 2, fully, and I'm particularly interested in being able to reason with the Universal Role (represented by the topObjectProperty), the role that relates every pair of individuals in the domain.
    Now, I noticed that Protege 4.0 does not have a keyword for topObjectProperty or at least it is not predefined and appear at the root of the property hierarchy, the way the Thing (top) concept is predefined and is at the root of the concept hierarchy. Maybe because protege 4.0 doesn't support OWL 2 fully yet. And creating a new property with the 'topObjectProperty' name won't make it the topObjectProperty that we need but just some another property, because by looking at the rdf output when you save the ontology you'll see that the topObjectProperty that you defined is prefixed with your ontology's name and not the 'owl:' prefix which is presumably the right one.
I wrote some test cases manually, this is one of them in First Order Logic (FOL):
              (\forall x.F(x))    \and    \not (\exist x.F(x))
which is equal to:    \forall x.False
I am not sure if this formula is satisfiable, maybe if the domain is empty. But it can be translated to Description Logic (DL) using the Universal Role (topObjectProperty) and becomes
              \forall U. Bot
or in manchester syntax:
              topObjectProperty only Nothing

Now, my concern is that I'm not 100% sure that I'm expressing the formula in RDF syntax (which i will show below) correctly, and therefore don't know how Hermit 1.0 (which claims that it supports OWL 2) is understanding it. So, if anyone knows whether this is correct syntax, or knows anything about Hermit's reasoning capabilities with topObjectProperty, then any advice or hints are greatly appreciated. This is my RDF syntax ontology, I don't know if I should include parts of it here or all of it, so I decide to put it all here, and please note that I cheated a bit and used protege to output it for me and then i manually changed the occurrences of topobjectproperty with two version of my own:
1) #TopObjectProperty    .... I tried this one because protege shows it as a super property of any new property you create so I thought maybe it recognizes it this way
2) owl:topObjectProperty

This is the RDF ontology:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
    <!ENTITY owl2 "owl:" >
    <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" >
    <!ENTITY xsd "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
    <!ENTITY owl2xml "http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2-xml#" >
    <!ENTITY rdfs "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" >
    <!ENTITY rdf "http://www.w3..org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" >
    <!ENTITY O3 "http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl#" >
]>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl#"
     xml:base="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl"
     xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
     xmlns:owl2xml="http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2-xml#"
     xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
     xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:owl2="owl:"
     xmlns:O3="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2009/9/O3.owl#">
    <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""/>

    

    
    <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#TopObjectProperty"/>

    
    <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="owl:topObjectProperty"/>

    

    
    <owl:Class rdf:about="#A"/>

    
    <owl:Class rdf:about="#Last">
        <owl:equivalentClass>
            <owl:Class>
                <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
                    <owl:Class>
                        <owl:complementOf>
                            <owl:Restriction>
                                <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#TopObjectProperty"/>
                                <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
                            </owl:Restriction>
                        </owl:complementOf>
                    </owl:Class>
                    <owl:Restriction>
                        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#TopObjectProperty"/>
                        <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
                    </owl:Restriction>
                </owl:intersectionOf>
            </owl:Class>
        </owl:equivalentClass>
    </owl:Class>


    

    <owl:Class rdf:about="#b">
        <owl:equivalentClass>
            <owl:Class>
                <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
                    <rdf:Description rdf:about="#A"/>
                    <rdf:Description rdf:about="&owl;Thing"/>
                </owl:intersectionOf>
            </owl:Class>
        </owl:equivalentClass>
    </owl:Class>


    

    <owl:Class rdf:about="#c">
        <owl:equivalentClass>
            <owl:Class>
                <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
                    <owl:Class>
                        <owl:complementOf>
                            <owl:Restriction>
                                <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="owl:topObjectProperty"/>
                                <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
                            </owl:Restriction>
                        </owl:complementOf>
                    </owl:Class>
                    <owl:Restriction>
                        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="owl:topObjectProperty"/>
                        <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#b"/>
                    </owl:Restriction>
                </owl:intersectionOf>
            </owl:Class>
        </owl:equivalentClass>
    </owl:Class>

    

    <owl:Class rdf:about="&owl;Thing"/>
</rdf:RDF>


finally, I was wondering if there is a formula containing a topObjectProperty that is, say unsatisfiable, and if all occurences of topObjectProperty are substituted by another property R, then it becomes satisfiable. So, what I 'm asking is if there's an example which clearly shows the distinction between a topObjectProperty and an ordinary property, also I'm interested in logic (or maybe DL) based satisfiability, and not satisfiability based on domain, range or something else.
I was told that domain closure formulas such as \forall x.(F(x) <=> (x=a | x=b)), can be used to distinguish between the topObjectProperty and other properties, so this formula should be unsatisfiable:
       C(a) & C(b) & \forall x (C(x) <=> x=a)
which is equivalent to:
       Ex.(C(x) & x=a) & Ex.(C(x) & x=b) & Ax.( (C(x) & x=a) | (~C(x) & ~x=a) )
So I translated them to a DL called ALCO+U, which allows nominals and the Universal Role, using the translation:
       Ex.C(x)     becomes in DL   \exist U. C
       Ax.C(x)     becomes in DL   \forall U. C
where U is the universal role. And the other translations are straightforward, such as   x=a becomes {a}, and so on..
Also, we assumed Unique Names Axioms in the above formula, but we need to explicitly mention that in OWL 2, so I used the DifferentIndividuals axiom to say that 'a' and 'b' are different individuals.
This is that formula in Manchester Syntax:
            topObjectProperty some (C and {a})
              and topObjectProperty some (C and {b})
              and topObjectProperty only ((not C) or {a})

So, after saying that 'a' and 'b' are distinct individuals, the formula is found unsatisfiable, which is correct, but when replacing topObjectProperty with another property, say R, the unsatisfiablility stays, which after some thinking I found it correct too. So this result made me write this email to ask for advice about whether the topObjectProperty can be distinguished from another role R using purely FOL semantics.

Thank you.

Wael

3rd CFP Agent-Directed Simulation, April 12-14, 2010, Orlando, Florida

2009-11-04T09:22:50Z

How to query items of a Sequence ?

2009-11-03T13:48:58Z

Hi everyone,

We are using sequences in our project and we are having difficulties finding a way to query our ontology to get all items of a sequence using SPARQL.

The sequence in our ontology looks like this :

<rdf:Seq rdf:about="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317"/>

<rdf:Seq rdf:about="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317"/>
    <rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#314"/>
</rdf:Description>

<rdf:Seq rdf:about="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317"/>
    <rdf:_2 rdf:resource="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#194"/>
</rdf:Description>

<rdf:Seq rdf:about="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317"/>
    <rdf:_3 rdf:resource="http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#GENERIC_113"/>
</rdf:Description>

We are able to find the sequence "http://www.url.com/someonto.owl#1317" with the following query :
SELECT ?sequence WHERE { ?sequence <" + RDF.TYPE + "> <" + RDF.SEQ + "> }

But is there a way to have a query that will return the items _1, _2 and _3 directly ?

Thank you,

Etienne Morency-Bachand

OnTheMove 2009, Vilamoura, Algarve: 5 top Keynote Speakers

2009-10-26T16:13:30Z

Call for Participation

OnTheMove (OTM) 2009 is a federated event that counts 4 conferences and 10 workshops, co-located in the week of Nov.1 to 6, in the Tivoli Marina Conference Center and Hotel overlooking the pleasant fishing and yacht harbour of Vilamoura, in the Portuguese Algarve.

All workshops and conferences gravitate around the themes and aspects of distributed, heterogenous and ubiquitous computing on the internet. There will be plenty of opportunities to mingle with researchers in related domains, or become informed of new developments in your area.

More about OnTheMove 2009 can be found at http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/

We draw your attention to our prestigious keynote speaker program which by OTM tradition is shared among all workshops and conferences, so *any* registration gives access to *all* keynote talks!

Keynotes:

- Wolfgang Prinz
- Santosh Shrivastava
- Kai Hwang
- Alejandro Buchmann
- Claude Feliot

We, the General co-Chairs of OTM'09 hope we may welcome you for a week of top professional enjoyment in this charming part of Portugal.

Advance registration rates remain in effect if registration is done through our website until 31 Oct 2009.

Pilar Herrero
Tharam Dillon
Robert Meersman

OnTheMove Federated Conferences & Workshops 2009

www.onthemove-conferences.org

Mapping from relational databases to OWL?

2009-10-26T09:31:04Z

Dear public-owl-dev

Can anybody can point me to any work done (published reviews and/or
available software) in the area of mapping relational database schemas
to OWL ontologies?

Thanks

Duncan

--
Duncan Hull
http://www.ebi.ac.uk

OWLED 2009 - Future of OWL session minutes & slides

2009-10-24T10:37:42Z

The minutes and slides of the Future of OWL session are now available
from the Webont Wiki [1].

If you feel like contributing to the wiki (best practices, use cases,
applications etc.) please contact the Wiki administrators listed on
the front page [2] to get an account.

Best,

Rinke
OWLED 2009 program chair

[1] http://wiki.webont.org/page/Future_of_OWL
[2] http://wiki.webont.org

---
Dr Rinke Hoekstra

AI Department | Leibniz Center for Law
Faculty of Sciences | Faculty of Law
Vrije Universiteit | Universiteit van Amsterdam
De Boelelaan 1081a | Kloveniersburgwal 48
1081 HV Amsterdam | 1012 CX Amsterdam
+31-(0)20-5987752 | +31-(0)20-5253499
hoekstra@... | hoekstra@...

Homepage: http://www.few.vu.nl/~hoekstra

Call For Participation: Semantics for the Rest of Us Workshop at ISWC 2009

2009-10-23T17:53:28Z

Apologies for cross posting

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semantics for the Rest of Us -- Variants of
Semantic Web Languages in the Real World

Held in conjunction with
8th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2009)
Monday, 26 October 2009, Washington, DC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Semantic Web is a broad vision of the future of personal
computing, emphasizing the use of sophisticated knowledge
representation as the basis for end-user applications' data modeling
and management needs. Key to the pervasive adoption of Semantic Web
technologies is a good set of fundamental "building blocks" - the most
important of these are representation languages themselves. W3C's
standard languages for the Semantic Web, RDF and OWL, have been around
for several years; instead of strict standards compliance, we see
"variants" of these languages emerge in applications, often tailored
to a particular application's needs. These variants are often either
subsets of OWL or supersets of RDF, typically with fragments OWL
added. Extensions based on rules, such as SWRL and N3 logic, have been
developed as well as enhancements to the SPARQL query language and
protocol.

In this workshop we will explore the landscape of RDF, OWL and SPARQL
variants, specifically from the standpoint of "real-world
semantics". Are there commonalities in these variants that might
suggest new standards or new versions of the existing standards? We
hope to identify common requirements of applications consuming
Semantic Web data and understand the pros and cons of a strictly
formal approach to modeling data versus a "scruffier" approach where
semantics are based on application requirements and implementation
restrictions.

The workshop will encourage active audience participation and
discussion and includes a keynote by Sandro Hawke (W3C) as well as a
panel to be moderated by Jim Hendler (RPI).

ORGANIZERS

Lalana Kagal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ora Lassila, Nokia
Tim Finin, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

PROGRAM

08:30-08:45 Welcome, introductions, etc. [15]
08:45-09:45 Sandro's invited talk + discussion [60]
9:45 - 10:35 2 research paper [50]
RDF syntax normalization using XML validation - Denny Vrandecic, Frank
Dengler, Sebastian Rudolph and Michael Erdmann (research paper) [25]
LexRDF Model: An RDF-based Unified Model for Heterologous Biomedical
Ontologies - Cui Tao, Jyotishman Pathak, Harold Solbrig, Wei-Qi Wei
and Christopher Chute (research paper) [25]
10:35-10:50 Break [15]
10:50 - 11:55 1 position paper, 2 research papers [65]
Streaming OWL, Mike Dean (position paper) [10]
Accessing Site-Specific APIs Through Write-Wrappers From The Web of
Data - Oana Ureche, Aftab Iqbal, Richard Cyganiak and Michael
Hausenblas (research paper) [25]
LTML - A Language for Representing Semantic Web Service Workflow
Procedures - Mark Burstein, Robert Goldman, Drew McDermott, David
McDonald, Jacob Beal and John Maraist [25]
11:55 - 12:40 Panel + discussion [45]
12:40-12:45 Closing comments and Wrap-up
12:45-2:00 Lunch

PANEL

Title: "Little vs Large Semantics: What's next for the Semantic Web
languages?"

Moderator: Jim Hendler, RPI

Panelists:
Kendall Clark, Clark & Parsia, LLC
Leigh Dodds, Talis
Ivan Herman, W3C
Ora Lassila, Nokia

Sequence and inverse/transitive properties

2009-10-22T13:10:53Z

Hi,

I'm working for the first time with rdf:seq and I have a few questions.

I have a class Person and 2 inverse and transitive properties hasChild
and isChildOf:
<owl:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasChild">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;TransitiveProperty"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#isChildOf">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;TransitiveProperty"/>
<owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#hasChild"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>

Here are my individuals:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.test.com/test.owl#parent1">
<hasChild xmlns="http://www.test.com/test.owl#"
rdf:resource="http://www.test.com/test.owl#childSeq"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.test.com/test.owl#childSeq">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Seq"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.test.com/test.owl#parent1">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.test.com/test.owl#Person"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.test.com/test.owl#child1">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.test.com/test.owl#Person"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.test.com/test.owl#child2">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.test.com/test.owl#Person"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.test.com/test.owl#childSeq">
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://www.test.com/test.owl#child1"/>
<rdf:_2 rdf:resource="http://www.test.com/test.owl#child2"/>
</rdf:Description>

How can I know who is the parent of a child?
HasChild property from the parent give me the Seq instance, so the
inverse from the Seq will return the parent. There is no properties
about children...

Ideally, I'd like to have something like
parent1 hasChild child1, child2 (sorted)
child1 isChildOf parent1
child2 isChildOf parent1

And how can I use the transitivity of hasChild:
parent1 hasChild seq(child1)
child1 hasChild seq(child3)

I don't understand how can I get all children (multiple generations)
from a parent (something like parent1 hasChild child1, child2,
child3).

Is there a way from an individual to retrieve the seq that contains it?

Thanks in advance

Cedric

Transitive Self-Referencing Properties

2009-10-21T16:11:15Z

Hi,

I am working on extending an ontology to select particular groups of equivalent classes from the base ontology, for validation of an ontology instance. I have come across a situation which doesn't seem to be solvable within OWL 2 DL, and as far as I can tell, there are no OWL 2 Full reasoners available.

This is the base ontology:

SubClassOf(Page Destination)

ObjectPropertyDomain(events Page)
ObjectPropertyRange(events Event)

ObjectPropertyDomain(action Event)
ObjectPropertyRange(action Action)

ObjectPropertyDomain(to Action)
ObjectPropertyRange(to Destination)

DataPropertyDomain(name Event)
DataPropertyRange(name xsd:string)

That is, a Page (subclass of Destination) can have an Event, which has an Action, which has a reference to another Destination.

What I would like to achieve is select all cycles in ontology instances, i.e. all Pages that have an Event/Action chain that eventually points to itself - a cycle of event/action redirections.

I define an equivalent subclass EventAccess which is all Events with the name "access":

SubClassOf(EventAccess Event)
EquivalentClasses(EventAccess ObjectIntersectionOf(DataHasValue(name "access") Event))

In order to select this class later, I assert that all of these classes have a new "isAccessEvent" property, thanks to the OWA:

Declaration(ObjectProperty(isAccessEvent))
SubClassOf(EventAccess ObjectSomeValuesFrom(isAccessEvent owl:Thing))

I then define a subclass of Page called PageRedirects, which represents a Page that contains an Event, which has an Action, that points to another Page.This is achieved though property chains, and uses the "property o inv(property)" approach of selecting a particular class. This "pageAccessTo" property, which points to the possible Pages that this Page may redirect to, is also defined as transitive.

Declaration(ObjectProperty(pageAccessTo))
TransitiveObjectProperty(pageAccessTo)
ObjectPropertyDomain(pageAccessTo Page)
ObjectPropertyRange(pageAccessTo Page)
SubObjectPropertyOf(SubObjectPropertyChain(events isAccessEvent InverseObjectProperty(isAccessEvent) action to) pageAccessTo)

Declaration(Class(PageRedirects))
EquivalentClasses(PageRedirects ObjectIntersectionOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom(pageAccessTo Page) Page))
SubClassOf(PageRedirects Page)

Up to this stage, there is no problem. I can create individuals in Protege and use the FaCT reasoner, and the Pellet reasoner, to infer that individuals are correctly equivalent to PageRedirects.

However, now I want to select all PageRedirects which eventually redirect to itself, using the transitive property above. I define an equivalent class CyclicPage, which is all PageRedirects which redirects to itself:

EquivalentClasses(CyclicPage ObjectIntersectionOf(ObjectExistsSelf(pageAccessTo) PageRedirects))
SubClassOf(CyclicPage PageRedirects)

This is where the ontology fails. On further investigation, it appears this is because this transitive, self-referencing property is part of OWL 2 Full, and not OWL 2 DL; and the reasoners I have tried (FaCT, Pellet) can only support OWL 2 DL.

Is there another approach that would let me select transitive self-referencing properties, or achieve what I'd like to do, within the OWL 2 DL restrictions?

Thanks,

Jevon

Re: OWL 2 Quick Reference Card

2009-10-18T00:21:51Z

This ([1]) is just so cool - it even got me to read it properly.

Which did get me pondering on why people might feel the need to re-write
Universal/Empty to Top/Bottom, making people have to just remember the
terms, since hopefully many users will have no idea why.

But it is really good, and even seduces me into thinking I might understand
it.

Thanks
Hugh

On 18/10/2009 05:55, "Jie Bao" <baojie@...> wrote:

> We¹re pleased to announce the OWL 2 Reference Card [1]. The Card is
> meant to be a ³cheat sheet² of OWL 2 features printable on a single
> piece of paper (on both sides). It is based on the OWL 2 Quick
> Reference Guide [1], which is now a Proposed Recommendation [2] in the
> OWL 2 Web Ontology Language document set.
>
> Background: OWL 2 [4] is an extension to OWL 1 with a few new
> functionalities. Some of the new features are syntactic sugar (e.g.,
> disjoint union of classes) while others offer new expressivity,
> including:
>
> * keys;
> * property chains;
> * richer datatypes, data ranges;
> * qualified cardinality restrictions;
> * asymmetric, reflexive, and disjoint properties; and
> * enhanced annotation capabilities
>
> Comments and suggestions to the Card are welcome (please send to
> public-owl-comments@...)
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/refcard
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-quick-reference-20090922/
>
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>
> Jie Bao
>

Re: OWL 2 Quick Reference Card

2009-10-17T21:55:01Z

We’re pleased to announce the OWL 2 Reference Card [1]. The Card is
meant to be a “cheat sheet” of OWL 2 features printable on a single
piece of paper (on both sides). It is based on the OWL 2 Quick
Reference Guide [1], which is now a Proposed Recommendation [2] in the
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language document set.

Background: OWL 2 [4] is an extension to OWL 1 with a few new
functionalities. Some of the new features are syntactic sugar (e.g.,
disjoint union of classes) while others offer new expressivity,
including:

* keys;
* property chains;
* richer datatypes, data ranges;
* qualified cardinality restrictions;
* asymmetric, reflexive, and disjoint properties; and
* enhanced annotation capabilities

Comments and suggestions to the Card are welcome (please send to
public-owl-comments@...)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/refcard

[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-quick-reference-20090922/

[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

Jie Bao

Nabble - w3.org - public-owl-dev

CFP Special Issue of the Journal of Web Semantics on Semantic Web Dynamics

Last CFP Agent-Directed Simulation, April 12-14, 2010, Orlando, Florida

Call for Papers/Workshop Proposals Participantion (GPC-10, UIC-10, MTPP-10, ICA3PP-10, FC-10, SMPE-10, FutureTech-10, BodyNets-10)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow ­ Semantic Infrastructures

2nd CFP: Workshop on Matching and Meaning: Automated development, evolution and interpretation of ontologies.

Problem to save ontology

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

RE: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

EISWT-10 Call for papers

EISWT-10 Call for papers

EISWT-10 Call for papers

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

Re: Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

OWLED presentations

Application Ontology

Re: How to query items of a Sequence ?

Re: How to query items of a Sequence ?

Re: questions about the topObjectProperty

Re: questions about the topObjectProperty

questions about the topObjectProperty

3rd CFP Agent-Directed Simulation, April 12-14, 2010, Orlando, Florida

How to query items of a Sequence ?

OnTheMove 2009, Vilamoura, Algarve: 5 top Keynote Speakers

Mapping from relational databases to OWL?

OWLED 2009 - Future of OWL session minutes & slides

Call For Participation: Semantics for the Rest of Us Workshop at ISWC 2009

Sequence and inverse/transitive properties

Transitive Self-Referencing Properties

Re: OWL 2 Quick Reference Card

Re: OWL 2 Quick Reference Card

Postdoctoral Research Fellow Semantic Infrastructures