Constructing RuleML-based domain theories on top of OWL ontologies

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

Volumn 2876, Issue , 2003, Pages 81-94

  Matheus, Christopher J ^a   Kokar, Mitch M ^b   Baclawski, Kenneth ^b   Letkowski, Jerzy ^c  

^a Versatile Information Systems Inc ^*  (United States)

^b NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIRDS; COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; ONTOLOGY;

DOMAIN THEORY; EXPLICIT REPRESENTATION; OWL ONTOLOGIES; SITUATION AWARENESS;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 0242370965     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-39715-1_6     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. M. Endsley and D. Garland, Situation Awareness, Analysis and Measurement, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahway, New Jersey, 2000.
2. J. Barwise, "Scenes and other situations", J. Philosophy 77, 369-397, 1981.
3. J. Barwise, The Situation In Logic, CSLI Lecture Notes 17, 1989.
4. Steinberg, C. Bowman, and F. White, Revisions to the JDL data fusion model, In Proceedings of SPIE Conf. Sensor Fusion: Architectures, Algorithms and Applications III, volume 3719, pages 430-441, April 1999.
5. Matheus, M. Kokar and K. Baclawski, Phase I Final Report: A Formal Framework for Situation Awareness. AFRL Funding Number: F30602-02-C-0039, January 2003.
6. K. Baclawski, M. Kokar, J. Letkowski, C. Matheus and M. Malczewski, Formalization of Situation Awareness, In Proceedings of the Eleventh OOPSLA Workshop on Behavioral Semantics, pp. 1-15, November, 2002.
7. C. Matheus, M. Kokar and K. Baclawski, A Core Ontology for Situation Awareness. Proceedings of FUSION'03, Cairns, Queensland, Australia, July 2003.
8. C. J. Matheus, K. Baclawski and M. M. Kokar, Derivation of ontological relations using formal methods in a situation awareness scenario, In Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Mulitsensor, Multisource Information Fusion, pages 298-309, April 2003.
9. Specware: Language manual, version 2.0.3. Technical report, Kestrel Institute, 1998.
10. SNARK: SRI's new automated reasoning kit, http://www.ai.sri.com/stickel/snark.html, 2002.
11. C. Matheus, M. Kokar and K. Baclawski, Phase II Proposal: A Formal Framework for s
12. OWL Web Ontology Language XML Presentation Syntax. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/.
13. The RuleML Initiative, http://www.ruleml.org/.
14. Resource Description Framework (RDF). http://www.w3.org/RDF/.
15. Ian Horrocks and Peter F. Patel-Schneider. Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. In Proc. of the 2003 International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), 2003.
16. OntoWeb Consortium, OntoWeb Deliverable 1.3: A survey on ontology tools, May 2002. http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ysu/publications/OntoWeb_Del_1-3.pdf.
17. Kogut, P. A., Cranefield, S., Hart, L., Dutra, M., Baclawski, K. and Kokar, M. M. and Smith, J. E. UML for Ontology Development, The Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 17(1), pp. 61-64, 2002.
18. Horn, "On sentences which are true of direct unions of algebras", Journal of Symbolic Logic, 16, 14-21, 1951.
19. RuleML DTDs, http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/ruleml/indtd0.8.html.