reuse of OWL Lite Ontologies

2006

Distributed and Parallel Databases, 2005

In this paper, we address how ebXML registry semantics support can be further enhanced to make it OWL aware. There are basically three ways of achieving this: The first one is mapping OWL constructs to ebXML registry information model constructs without modifying the registry architecture and implementation. In this way, the semantic explicitly stored in the registry can be retrieved through querying; yet, the application program must contain additional code to process this semantics. The second approach is additionally providing predefined stored procedures in the registry for processing the OWL constructs. We believe that this approach is quite powerful to associate semantics with registry objects: it becomes possible to retrieve knowledge through queries and the enhancements to the registry are generic. The capabilities provided move the semantics support beyond what is currently available in ebXML registries and it does so by using a standard ontology language. The third approach is changing the ebXML registry to support OWL with full reasoning capabilities. However, this approach requires considerable changes in the registry architecture.

2006

This document defines the ebXML Registry profile for enhancing ebXML Registry with OWL semantics to make it OWL aware.

2006

This document defines the ebXML Registry profile for enhancing ebXML Registry with OWL semantics to make it OWL aware.

BMC research …, 2010

Background: Ontology development is a rapidly growing area of research, especially in the life sciences domain. To promote collaboration and interoperability between different projects, the OBO Foundry principles require that these ontologies be open and non-redundant, avoiding duplication of terms through the re-use of existing resources. As current options to do so present various difficulties, a new approach, MIREOT, allows specifying import of single terms. Initial implementations allow for controlled import of selected annotations and certain classes of related terms.

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2013

Tool development for and empirical experimentation in OWL ontology engineering require a wide variety of suitable ontologies as input for testing and evaluation purposes and detailed characterisations of real ontologies. Empirical activities often resort to (somewhat arbitrarily) hand curated corpora available on the web, such as the NCBO BioPortal and the TONES Repository, or manually selected sets of well-known ontologies. Findings of surveys and results of benchmarking activities may be biased, even heavily, towards these datasets. Sampling from a large corpus of ontologies, on the other hand, may lead to more representative results. Current large scale repositories and web crawls are mostly uncurated and suffer from duplication, small and (for many purposes) uninteresting ontology files, and contain large numbers of ontology versions, variants, and facets, and therefore do not lend themselves to random sampling. In this paper, we survey ontologies as they exist on the web and describe the creation of a corpus of OWL DL ontologies using strategies such as web crawling, various forms of de-duplications and manual cleaning, which allows random sampling of ontologies for a variety of empirical applications.

Tool development for and empirical experimentation in OWL ontology engineering require a wide variety of suitable ontologies as input for testing and evaluation purposes. Empirical activities often resort to (somewhat arbitrarily) hand curated corpora available on the web, such as the NCBO BioPortal and the TONES Repository, or manually select a set of well-known ontologies. Results may be biased, even heavily, towards these datasets. Sampling from a large corpus of ontologies, on the other hand, may lead to more representative results. Current large scale repositories/web crawls are mostly uncurated, suffer from duplication and contain large numbers of ontology versions, variants, and facets, and therefore do not lend themselves to random sampling. In this paper, we describe the creation of a corpus of OWL DL ontologies using strategies such as web crawling, various forms of de-duplications and manual cleaning, which allows random sampling of ontologies for a variety of empirical applications.

2017

Reasonable Ontology Templates, OTTRs for short, are OWL ontology macros capable of representing ontology design patterns (ODPs) and closely integrating their use into ontology engineering. An OTTR is itself an OWL ontology or RDF graph, annotated with a special purpose OWL vocabulary. This allows OTTRs to be edited, debugged, published, identified, instantiated, combined, used as queries and bulk transformations, and maintained—all leveraging existing W3C standards, best practices and tools. We show how such templates can drive a technical framework and tools for a practical, efficient and transparent use of ontology design patterns in ontology design and instantiation.

The proliferation of different metadata schemas and models pose serious problems of interoperability. Maintaining isolated repositories with overlapping data is costly in terms of time and effort. In this paper, we describe how we have achieved a Linked Open Data version of metadata descriptions coming from heterogeneous sources, originally encoded in XML. The resulting model is much simpler than the original XSD schema and avoids problems typical of XML syntax, such as semantic ambiguity and order constraint.

2001

Increasingly, effort has been devoted to surveying ontology-related research studies from various aspects. However, no survey is available for the ontology library system. For this reason, we decided to examine existing library systems in this paper. First, we identified the main criteria (management, adaptation, and standardization) for evaluating the functionality of the library systems. Then, based on the further enriched criteria, we surveyed most existing ontology library systems. Finally, we summarized the comparison and proposed various important requirements for structuring ontology library systems. The ontology library systems surveyed include: WebOnto, Ontolingua, DAML Ontology Library System, SHOE, Ontology Server, IEEE Standard Upper Ontology, OntoServer and ONIONS.