OntoKBEval: A Support Tool for OWL Ontology Evaluation Qing Lu The Support Tool for OWL Ontology Evaluation (OntoKBEval) has been developed to apply Description Logics reasoning to ontology evaluation by deriving information from knowledge bases. The principal objective is to evaluate ontologies and to present results using a user-friendly visualized interface to users. OntoKBEval offers hierar...

The Semantic Web [2] aims at making web resources more accessible to automated processes by augmenting web pages with descriptions of their content. Ontologies are used to provide precisely specified meanings for these descriptions, and with the Web Ontology Language OWL [1] a standardised ontology building language is available. A notable feature of OWL is that two of the three OWL species (OW...

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 bias...

Lipids can be systematically classified according to functional properties, structural features, biochemical origin or biological system. However Lipid nomenclature has yet to become a robust research tool since no rigorous definitions exist for membership of specific lipid classes. Lipids need to be defined in a manner that is systematic yet at the same time semantically explicit. We report th...

Aiming to build a complete benchmark for better evaluation of existing ontology systems, we extend the well-known Lehigh University Benchmark in terms of inference and scalability testing. The extended benchmark, named University Ontology Benchmark (UOBM), includes both OWL Lite and OWL DL ontologies covering a complete set of OWL Lite and DL constructs, respectively. We also add necessary prop...

OWL 2 Full remains a “catch all” language in the sense that it treats as well formed any legal RDF graph. In contrast, OWL 2 DL, and its sub profiles, exclude large classes of RDF graphs as malformed and thus meaningless. Many ontology documents on the web appear to fall under OWL Full. However, not all ways of being OWL Full are indicative of modelling intent. In this paper, we look at the pre...

One of the commonly requested features for OWL is some form of key support, generally phrased as allowing inverse-functional datatype properties. For a variety of technical reasons, these were not included in OWL DL (though they were available in OWL Full). OWL 2—a revision to OWL which is under development by the W3C—introduces a form of key representation, so-called “Easy Keys”, which avoids ...

The Leibniz Center for Law at the University of Amsterdam is involved in several research projects that deal with the integration of knowledge representation with legal texts. For many of these projects, the use of ontologies in OWL DL plays an important, if not a central role. In this statement of interest we give a short sketch of the kind of application we see for OWL in the legal domain, an...

This chapter gives an extended introduction to the lightweight profiles OWL EL, OWL QL, and OWL RL of the Web Ontology Language OWL. The three ontology language standards are sublanguages of OWL DL that are restricted in ways that significantly simplify ontological reasoning. Compared to OWL DL as a whole, reasoning algorithms for the OWL profiles show higher performance, are easier to implemen...