Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Rules to modify/create ontologies from ontologies?
johann.petrak at chello.at
Tue Oct 7 05:49:17 PDT 2008
Thank you for those pointers!
OPPL looks fairly high-level and it implements a way to
create and modify ontologies in an operation way.
However, it seems to have a limited way of selecting
the entities to modify and to create new facts from
If I understand LSW correctly, the selection of
existing facts and the creation of new facts has to be
done on the level of LISP functions (which I like
personally as I used to program in LISP a lot) and
hence, on a rather low, programming-language close
Is anyone aware of any other high-level tools for
manipulating and creating ontologies from existing
ones, based on some high-level rule language?
I think many ontologies will be created or populated in an
automatic or semi-automatic way or derived from maybe
several existing ontologies in a (semi-)automatic way.
For such cases, wouldn't it be good to have something
that allows for a high-level description of conditions
or query/resonining results that can be associated with
consequents that actually carry out fact assertions
or operations on e.g. literar values?
I wonder who else has been hitting similar requirements
and whether there is some agreement on whether such a
tool (unless it already exists) would be feasable or
On 10/02/2008 12:10 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> You might look at GONG - http://www.gong.manchester.ac.uk/
> There is the OWL API, which can be used to read and write ontologies -
> It's a java library.
> I use a lisp based tool called LSW which is based JENA and Pellet to do
> things like this - a combination of SPARQL queries and direct reasoner
> queries, followed by construction of OWL statements based on it.
> As an example, see
> This file generates an anonymous individual that is an instance of each
> class that has no subclasses.
> This file creates disjoint class assertions based on OBI's policy.
> Hope this helps,
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Johann Petrak <johann.petrak at chello.at
> <mailto:johann.petrak at chello.at>> wrote:
> Since I got no answer yet I will broaden my question:
> what ways exist to systematically change or merge
> the knowledge in one or more ontologies into
> a new ontology?
> Is the only way to do this to hand-code it or
> do tool or more formal, e.g. rule-based, approaches
> I'd highly apreciate any feedback about this, even
> if it is not a solution -- I'd also apreciate hearing
> from people who face similar problems.
> On 09/29/2008 04:24 PM, Johann Petrak wrote:
> > I am wondering if there is some high-level, possibly rule-based
> > way (as opposed to hacking it in Java or similar) to modify
> > an ontology or create a new ontology from an existing one.
> > Here is the background and motivation: I have a process that
> > creates an ontology automatically and due to the sequential
> > process and other factors, the created ontology has several
> > problems that need to be fixed:
> > - several individuals might turn out to be known to be different
> or equal
> > - properties might need processing and get split up or merged into
> > other properties, or data properties might need to get converted
> > into one or more object properties filled with individuals that
> > need to created or modified.
> > - one or more individuals might need to get converted into
> > individuals of a different class (representing a different
> > abstraction layer).
> > - etc.
> > For all these actions that would modify the ontology or
> > create a new one there exists a domain theory that could
> > be represented in a rule language where the rule head
> > matches conditions in the original ontology and the
> > rule body is a sequence of operations on property values
> > and on the target ontology.
> > Does anyone know about a way to (at least partly) achieve
> > this or about people who work on similar things?
> > Are there others who want to solve this or similar problems?
> > And as usual: are you aware of other forums, mailing lists
> > or places on the internet were questions like this one
> > can be discussed?
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu <mailto:protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
More information about the protege-owl