Ontologies and the semantic web

Communications of the ACM

Volumn 51, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 58-67

  Horrocks, Ian ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b ORIEL COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBLE INFORMATIONS; DESCRIPTION LOGIC; FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS; ONTOLOGY LANGUAGES; REPRESENTATION FORMALISMS; SEMANTIC NETWORKS; SEMANTIC WEB RESEARCHES; WEB RESOURCES; WORLD WIDE WEB CONSORTIUMS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DATA DESCRIPTION; INFORMATION THEORY; INTERNET; KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION; LINGUISTICS; ONTOLOGY; QUERY LANGUAGES; SEMANTIC WEB; SEMANTICS; SOFTWARE AGENTS;

WORLD WIDE WEB;

EID: 59449090600     PISSN: 00010782     EISSN: 15577317     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1409360.1409377     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P.F., Eds. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2003.
2. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., and Navathe, S.B. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys 18, 4 (Dec. 1986), 323-364.
3. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O. The semantic Web. Scientific American 284, 5 (May 2001), 34-43.
4. Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., and Sattler, U. Modular reuse of ontologies: Theory and practice. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 31 (Apr. 2008), 273-318.
5. Datta, R., Joshi, D., Li, J., and Wang, J.Z. Image retrieval: Ideas, influences, and trends of the new age. ACM Computing Surveys 40, 2 (Apr. 2008).
6. Dill, S., Eiron, N., Gibson, D., Gruhl, D., Guha, R., Jhingran, A., Kanungo, T., Rajagopalan, S., Tomkins, A., Tomlin, J.A., and Zien, J.Y. Semtag and seeker: Bootstrapping the semantic Web via automated semantic annotation. In Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (Budapest, Hungary, May). ACM Press, New York, 2003, 178-186.
7. Doyle, J. and Patil, R.S. Two theses of knowledge representation: Language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services. Artificial Intelligence 48, 3 (Apr. 1991), 261-297.
8. Golbreich, C., Zhang, S., and Bodenreider, O. The foundational model of anatomy in OWL: Experience and perspectives. Journal of Web Semantics 4, 3 (Sept. 2006), 181-195.
9. Goodwin, J. Experiences of using OWL at the ordnance survey. In Proceedings of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop (Galway, Ireland, Nov.). CEUR-WS, 2005; CEUR-WS.org/Vol-188/.
10. Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., and Sattler, U. The even more irresistible SROIQ. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Lake District, U.K., June). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 2006, 57-67.
11. Horrocks, I. and Sattler, U. A tableau decision procedure for SHOIQ. Journal of Automated Reasoning 39, 3 (Oct. 2007), 249-276.
12. Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., and Hendler, J. Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics 3, 4 (Dec. 2005), 243-366.
13. Kershenbaum, A., Fokoue, A., Patel, C., Welty, C., Schonberg, E., Cimino, J., Ma, L., Srinivas, K., Schloss, R., and Murdock, J.W. A view of OWL from the field: Use cases and experiences. In Proceedings of the Second OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop (Athens, GA, Nov.). CEUR-WS, 2006; CEUR-WS.org/Vol-216/.
14. Klyne, G. and Carroll, J.J. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract syntax, W3C Recommendation, Feb. 10, 2004; www.w3.org/TR/rdfconcepts/.
15. Lacy, L., Aviles, G., Fraser, K., Gerber, W., Mulvehill, A., and Gaskill, R. Experiences using OWL in military applications. In Proceedings of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop (Galway, Ireland, Nov. 2005); CEUR-WS.org/Vol-188/.
16. Maedche, A. and Staab, S. Ontology learning for the semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16, 2 (Mar./Apr. 2001), 72-79.
17. Motik, B., Sattler, U., and Studer, R. Query answering for 0WL-DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3, 1 (July 2005), 41-60.
18. Shvaiko, P. and Euzenat, J. A survey of schema-based matching approaches. Journal on Data Semantics IV, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3730 (Nov. 2005), 146-171.
19. Sidhu, A., Dillon, T., Chang, E., and Sidhu, B.S. Protein ontology development using OWL. In Proceedings of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop (Galway, Ireland, Nov. 2005); CEUR-WS.org/Vol-188/.
20. Soergel, D., Lauser, B., Liang, A., Fisseha, F., Keizer, J., and Katz, S. Reengineering thesauri for new applications: The AGROVOC example. Journal of Digital Information 4, 4 (2004).
21. Spyns, P., de Moor, A., Vandenbussche, J., and Meersman, R. From folksologies to ontologies: How the twain meet. In Proceedings of On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4275 (Montpellier, France, Oct. 29-Nov. 3). Springer, 2006, 738-755.
22. Stevens, R., Baker, P., Bechhofer, S., Ng, G., Jacoby, A., Paton, N.W., Goble, C.A., and Brass, A. Tambis: Transparent access to multiple bioinformatics information sources. Bioinformatics 16, 2 (Feb. 2000), 184-186.