From baojie at cs.iastate.edu Mon Jun 5 17:26:51 2006 From: baojie at cs.iastate.edu (Jie Bao) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:26:51 -0500 Subject: [OWL] [CFP]The First International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WoMO 2006) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The First International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WoMO 2006) http://www.cild.iastate.edu/events/womo.html International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006) November 6, 2006, Athens, GA, USA Workshop Description Realizing the full potential of the Semantic web requires the large-scale adoption and use of ontology-based approaches to sharing of information and resources. Constructing large ontologies typically requires collaboration among multiple individuals or groups with expertise in specific areas, with each participant contributing only a part of the ontology. Therefore, instead of a single, centralized ontology, in most domains, there are multiple distributed ontologies covering parts of the domain. Because no single ontology can meet the needs of all users under every conceivable scenario, the ontology that meets the needs of a user or a group of users needs to be assembled from several independently developed ontology modules. Thus, in realistic applications, it is often desirable to logically integrate different ontologies, wholly or in part, into a single, reconciled ontology. Ideally, one would expect the individual ontologies to be developed as independently as possible from the rest, and the final reconciliation to be seamless and free from unexpected results. This would allow for the modular design of large ontologies and would facilitate knowledge reuse. Few ontology development tools, however, provide any support for integration, and there has been relatively little study of the problem at a fundamental level. In order for the full potential of the Semantic Web to be realized in practice, we need to come to terms with the characteristics of web ontologies. Specifically, next generation ontology languages and/or tools need to support collaborative construction, selective sharing and use of ontologies. In response to this need, there is a growing interest in, on the one hand, logical formalisms that support ontology modularization and the study of integration and segmentation problems on the other. Workshop Topics Against this background, the proposed workshop aims to bring together researchers and practitioners to discuss the current state of the art and open research problems in ontology modularization and integration. A secondary goal of the workshop is to facilitate collaborations between different research groups. Specific topics of interest include: * Logical formalisms for Modular Ontologies * Sharing and reuse of ontology modules - linking and importing approaches * Identification and analysis of common scenarios for ontology integration or modularization * Methodologies for providing semantic guarantees on merged ontologies * Methodologies for extracting semantically meaningful modules from large ontologies * Selective information sharing between ontology modules * Syntax, semantics, and expressivity of modular ontology languages * Features and limitations of DDLs, E-connections, and P-DLs * Requirements of modular ontology languages * Reasoning with modular ontologies * Reconciling inconsistent ontology modules * Approaches to distributed reasoning and their soundness, completeness, efficiency * Ontology language extensions to support modularity * Modular ontology tools for collaborative ontology development * Case studies, software tools, use cases, and applications * Open problems Workshop Format The workshop will consist of: * An opening session for introducing the workshop topics, goals, participants, and expected outcomes * A small number of invited talks carefully intermixed with presentation of contributed papers. The invited talks will give overviews of the main modular ontology language proposals, and of logical approaches to ontology modularization/integration. * Breaks between sessions, meant to encourage informal discussions related to the topics discussed in the sessions and to create opportunities for collaborations. * Discussion of open problems and future research directions * A wrap-up session summarizing the workshop (including formal or informal discussions). The workshop will allow enough time for presentations as well as focused discussions among workshop participants. Paper Submission We invite papers that report on completed or work in progress on relevant topic areas. All papers will be peer-reviewed by members of the WoMO-2006 program committee. The contributions should be prepared in PDF format according to the official formatting guidelines for Springer-Verlag LNCS (http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html). Submissions should be limited to a maximum of 6 pages for short papers, and 14 pages for full papers. Submissions in PDF form should be emailed to womo06 at cs.iastate.edu, no later than July 17, 2006. Extended versions of selected papers may be published in a special issue of a journal or an edited book. Important Dates Submissions due: July 17, 2006 Notification of acceptance: August 15, 2006 Camera-ready versions due: September 15, 2006 Workshop: November 6, 2006 Workshop Organizing Committee Peter Haase, Institute AIFB, Universit?t Karlsruhe, haase at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/pha/ Vasant Honavar, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, honavar at cs.iastate.edu http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~honavar Oliver Kutz, School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, okutz at cs.man.ac.uk http://ww.cs.man.ac.uk/~okutz York Sure, Institut AIFB, Universit?t Karlsruhe, sure at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ysu/ Andrei Tamilin, University of Trento, andrei.tamilin at dit.unitn.it http://dit.unitn.it/~tamilin/ Program Committee - TBA From ewallace at cme.nist.gov Fri Jun 9 15:15:25 2006 From: ewallace at cme.nist.gov (ewallace at cme.nist.gov) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:15:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] question on symmetry of OWL equiv, disjoint and inverse statements Message-ID: <200606091915.PAA00816@clue.mel.nist.gov> Hello, My interpretation of the OWL statements equivalentClass, equivalentProperty, inverseOf, disjointWith, sameAs, and differentFrom is that they are symmetric. Such that, for example a triple A owl:equivalentClass B . entails B owl:equivalentClass A . Similar rules would hold for all the other statements as well. However, I can't find anything in the OWL specification documentation which explicitly states or contradicts this. OWL entailment tests in the Test document don't include these, so maybe I'm wrong. But the properties of the logical operators in the interpretations given in the Semantics and Abstract Syntax document suggest that I am correct. But if so why wasn't this documented explicitly somewhere? -Evan Evan K. Wallace Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST From pfps at research.bell-labs.com Fri Jun 9 15:29:47 2006 From: pfps at research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:29:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] question on symmetry of OWL equiv, disjoint and inverse statements In-Reply-To: <200606091915.PAA00816@clue.mel.nist.gov> References: <200606091915.PAA00816@clue.mel.nist.gov> Message-ID: <20060609.152947.73085758.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> From: ewallace at cme.nist.gov Subject: [OWL] question on symmetry of OWL equiv, disjoint and inverse statements Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:15:25 -0400 (EDT) > Hello, > > My interpretation of the OWL statements > equivalentClass, > equivalentProperty, > inverseOf, > disjointWith, > sameAs, and > differentFrom > > is that they are symmetric. Such that, for example a triple > A owl:equivalentClass B . > entails > B owl:equivalentClass A . > > Similar rules would hold for all the other statements as well. > > However, I can't find anything in the OWL specification documentation > which explicitly states or contradicts this. OWL entailment tests in > the Test document don't include these, so maybe I'm wrong. But the > properties of the logical operators in the interpretations given in > the Semantics and Abstract Syntax document suggest that I am correct. > But if so why wasn't this documented explicitly somewhere? > > -Evan This all follows from the semantic definitions for OWL-in-RDF in http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html Characteristics of OWL vocabulary related to equivalence: If E is then in EXTI(SI(E)) *****iff****** owl:equivalentClass x,y in IOC and CEXTI(x)=CEXTI(y) owl:disjointWith x,y in IOC and CEXTI(x) ^ CEXTI(y)={} owl:equivalentProperty x,y in IOOP v IODP and EXTI(x) = EXTI(y) owl:inverseOf x,y in IOOP and in EXTI(x) iff in EXTI(y) owl:sameAs x = y owl:differentFrom x /= y Note that the RHS of these definitions is indeed symmetric, and thus so is the LHS, because of the iff (emphasis added above). S&AS does not explicitly document all the consequences of the underlying semantics of OWL. peter From bparsia at isr.umd.edu Sat Jun 10 12:02:10 2006 From: bparsia at isr.umd.edu (Bijan Parsia) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:02:10 -0400 Subject: [OWL] question on symmetry of OWL equiv, disjoint and inverse statements In-Reply-To: <200606091915.PAA00816@clue.mel.nist.gov> References: <200606091915.PAA00816@clue.mel.nist.gov> Message-ID: <932D2A01-5AF6-43C0-9423-2625FDDA8EC5@isr.umd.edu> On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, ewallace at cme.nist.gov wrote: > Hello, > > My interpretation of the OWL statements > equivalentClass, > equivalentProperty, > inverseOf, > disjointWith, > sameAs, and > differentFrom > > is that they are symmetric. Such that, for example a triple > A owl:equivalentClass B . > entails > B owl:equivalentClass A . > > Similar rules would hold for all the other statements as well. > > However, I can't find anything in the OWL specification documentation > which explicitly states or contradicts this. Well, the semantics makes all these the case. > OWL entailment tests in > the Test document don't include these, so maybe I'm wrong. Nope. > But the > properties of the logical operators in the interpretations given in > the Semantics and Abstract Syntax document suggest that I am correct. Not just suggest! Demonstrate. > But if so why wasn't this documented explicitly somewhere? I guess I find that an odd question. The point of having the semantics is to adjudicate such questions (i.e., of what is entailed). It so adjudicates...why bother also stating it explicitly? Just one more thing to get out of synch. Cheers, Bijan. From babakbh at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 12:00:47 2006 From: babakbh at gmail.com (Babak Bagheri) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:30:47 +0330 Subject: [OWL] question on symmetry of OWL equiv, disjoint and inverse statements In-Reply-To: <932D2A01-5AF6-43C0-9423-2625FDDA8EC5@isr.umd.edu> References: <200606091915.PAA00816@clue.mel.nist.gov> <932D2A01-5AF6-43C0-9423-2625FDDA8EC5@isr.umd.edu> Message-ID: <2d3872a40606150900t181eda08k228145bc288ac524@mail.gmail.com> On 6/10/06, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, ewallace at cme.nist.gov wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > My interpretation of the OWL statements > > equivalentClass, > > equivalentProperty, > > inverseOf, > > disjointWith, > > sameAs, and > > differentFrom > > > > is that they are symmetric. Such that, for example a triple > > A owl:equivalentClass B . > > entails > > B owl:equivalentClass A . > > > > Similar rules would hold for all the other statements as well. > > > > However, I can't find anything in the OWL specification documentation > > which explicitly states or contradicts this. > > Well, the semantics makes all these the case. > > > OWL entailment tests in > > the Test document don't include these, so maybe I'm wrong. > > Nope. > > > But the > > properties of the logical operators in the interpretations given in > > the Semantics and Abstract Syntax document suggest that I am correct. > > Not just suggest! Demonstrate. > > > But if so why wasn't this documented explicitly somewhere? > > I guess I find that an odd question. The point of having the > semantics is to adjudicate such questions (i.e., of what is > entailed). It so adjudicates...why bother also stating it explicitly? > Just one more thing to get out of synch. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/owl/attachments/20060615/0dd3f35c/attachment-0001.html From pfps at research.bell-labs.com Fri Jun 16 08:38:59 2006 From: pfps at research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] Additions the OWL 1.1 website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060616.083859.14916140.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> The logo at the top of http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/ should be changed back to the full OWL logo (but the icon logo should not be changed). peter From: Bernardo Cuenca Grau Subject: [OWL] Additions the OWL 1.1 website Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:01:40 +0100 (BST) > > Hi all, > > I have recently updated the OWL 1.1 website. In particular, I have added > a draft for an RDF syntax for OWL 1.1 and also a pointer to a potential > XML exchange syntax (not based on RDF) based on the DIG interface. Both > documents are subject to change (and will be changed). Feel free to take a > look and make any comments or suggestions > > Cheers, > > Bernardo From pfps at research.bell-labs.com Fri Jun 16 08:40:23 2006 From: pfps at research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] Additions the OWL 1.1 website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060616.084023.117415457.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Also, the pointer to the "abstract" syntax should just say OWL 1.1 WOL Syntax In general, let's stop calling this an "abstract" syntax, as it is not very abstract. If we want to call it something, perhaps "functional-style" would do. peter From: Bernardo Cuenca Grau Subject: [OWL] Additions the OWL 1.1 website Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:01:40 +0100 (BST) > > Hi all, > > I have recently updated the OWL 1.1 website. In particular, I have added > a draft for an RDF syntax for OWL 1.1 and also a pointer to a potential > XML exchange syntax (not based on RDF) based on the DIG interface. Both > documents are subject to change (and will be changed). Feel free to take a > look and make any comments or suggestions > > Cheers, > > Bernardo > > > *********************************** > Dr. Bernardo Cuenca Grau > Research Fellow > Information Management Group > School Of Computer Science > University of Manchester, UK > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bcg > ************************************ > > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl From pfps at research.bell-labs.com Fri Jun 16 08:47:37 2006 From: pfps at research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] changes to OWL semantics document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060616.084737.118526213.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> 1/ OWL S&AS is OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax 2/ OWL 1.1 syntax is OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language Syntax 3/ OWL 1.1 overview is The OWL 1.1 Extension to the W3C OWL Web Ontology Language 4/ There should be a pointer to

Ian Horrocks and Peter F. Patel-Schneider. Reducing OWL Entailment to Description Logic Satisfiability. Journal of Web Semantics 1, 4, October 2004, pages 345–357.

5/ Where the text mentions OWL S&AS, it should say "OWL Semantics" instead of "OWL documentation". and the "biggy" 6/ The document should be changed from LaTeX to HTML. :-( peter From pfps at research.bell-labs.com Fri Jun 16 08:50:04 2006 From: pfps at research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] Additions the OWL 1.1 website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060616.085004.115457771.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> By they way, we should switch back to reality, and say "author" instead of the W3C "editor". I've switched my two documents. peter From pfps at research.bell-labs.com Fri Jun 16 09:34:48 2006 From: pfps at research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:34:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] tractable fragments document In-Reply-To: <20060616.085004.115457771.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> References: <20060616.085004.115457771.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: <20060616.093448.03633991.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Looks good. I suggest that the start of the document be modified to look like the start of my two documents. peter From holger at topquadrant.com Fri Jun 16 18:50:50 2006 From: holger at topquadrant.com (Holger Knublauch) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:50:50 -0700 Subject: [OWL] User-defined datatypes syntax in RDF/XML Message-ID: <449335CA.4080404@topquadrant.com> All, in the first OWL 1.1 workshop in Galway we briefly discussed the issue of how to represent user-defined XSD types in OWL. I haven't seen further traffic on this question. The current 1.1 Syntax document [1] shows the constructs in the concrete syntax, but the open question to me is how the RDF/XML syntax would look like. As some of you may remember we implemented a work-around [2] in Protege. I still like this approach, because it allows users to keep all information in a single file and format. However, others have argued that we should not duplicate syntax if it can also be expressed by means of pure XSD files, and this point of view also has its advantages. As I am about to implement one of these solutions for TopQuadrant's ontology editing platform [3], I would like to follow the most likely trend in anticipation of OWL 1.1. Thanks for any follow-up discussion, Holger [1] http://www-db-out.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax-20060614.html [2] http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/xsp.html [3] http://www.topbraidcomposer.com/ From horrocks at cs.man.ac.uk Sat Jun 17 10:26:25 2006 From: horrocks at cs.man.ac.uk (Ian Horrocks) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:26:25 +0100 Subject: [OWL] Additions the OWL 1.1 website In-Reply-To: <20060616.084023.117415457.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> References: <20060616.084023.117415457.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: <6696cd04316178aef51d2197f26092eb@cs.man.ac.uk> On 16 Jun 2006, at 13:40, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Also, the pointer to the "abstract" syntax should just say > > OWL 1.1 WOL Syntax > > In general, let's stop calling this an "abstract" syntax, as it is not > very > abstract. If we want to call it something, perhaps "functional-style" > would do. Functional style is probably OK - if we just call it "Syntax", then there may be some confusion w.r.t. XML and RDF syntax. Ian > > peter > > > From: Bernardo Cuenca Grau > Subject: [OWL] Additions the OWL 1.1 website > Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:01:40 +0100 (BST) > >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have recently updated the OWL 1.1 website. In particular, I have >> added >> a draft for an RDF syntax for OWL 1.1 and also a pointer to a >> potential >> XML exchange syntax (not based on RDF) based on the DIG interface. >> Both >> documents are subject to change (and will be changed). Feel free to >> take a >> look and make any comments or suggestions >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bernardo >> >> >> *********************************** >> Dr. Bernardo Cuenca Grau >> Research Fellow >> Information Management Group >> School Of Computer Science >> University of Manchester, UK >> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bcg >> ************************************ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OWL mailing list >> OWL at lists.mindswap.org >> http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl From horrocks at cs.man.ac.uk Sat Jun 17 10:29:49 2006 From: horrocks at cs.man.ac.uk (Ian Horrocks) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:29:49 +0100 Subject: [OWL] tractable fragments document In-Reply-To: <20060616.093448.03633991.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> References: <20060616.085004.115457771.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> <20060616.093448.03633991.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: On 16 Jun 2006, at 14:34, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Looks good. > > I suggest that the start of the document be modified to look like the > start > of my two documents. Yours are not quite consistent - one says copyright and the other doesn't. Ian > > peter > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl From pfps at research.bell-labs.com Sat Jun 17 14:39:59 2006 From: pfps at research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] tractable fragments document In-Reply-To: References: <20060616.085004.115457771.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> <20060616.093448.03633991.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: <20060617.143959.83712599.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> From: Ian Horrocks Subject: Re: [OWL] tractable fragments document Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:29:49 +0100 > On 16 Jun 2006, at 14:34, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > Looks good. > > > > I suggest that the start of the document be modified to look like the > > start > > of my two documents. > > Yours are not quite consistent - one says copyright and the other > doesn't. > > Ian Hmm. I was trying to get them more into the W3C format, and only did the copyright for one them. peter From matthew.pocock at ncl.ac.uk Mon Jun 19 04:37:14 2006 From: matthew.pocock at ncl.ac.uk (Matthew Pocock) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:37:14 +0100 Subject: [OWL] Additions the OWL 1.1 website In-Reply-To: <6696cd04316178aef51d2197f26092eb@cs.man.ac.uk> References: <20060616.084023.117415457.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> <6696cd04316178aef51d2197f26092eb@cs.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: <200606190937.14502.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> On Saturday 17 June 2006 15:26, Ian Horrocks wrote: > On 16 Jun 2006, at 13:40, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > In general, let's stop calling this an "abstract" syntax, as it is not > > very > > abstract. If we want to call it something, perhaps "functional-style" > > would do. Amen! > Functional style is probably OK - if we just call it "Syntax", then > there may be some confusion w.r.t. XML and RDF syntax. > > Ian I found the (abstract) syntax fairly confusing. I've represented it in Java, SML, O'Camel and Haskell, and in each case have needed to introduce names for parts of the language model that are not in the syntax spec. For example, in the subclass-superclass syntax, it is not clear which class is the sub class and which is the super class. It is clear when looking at the semantics, but by doing simple things like naming all 'function arguments' in the syntax we can make it vastly more readable in the syntax. Have I just volunteered myself, or is there a block against changing any of this text at this stage? Matthew