Semantic web-primer

Second Edition

A Semantic Web Primer
Grigoris Antoniou and Frank van Harmelen

Cooperative Information Systems
Michael P. Papazoglou, Joachim W. Schmidt, and John Mylopoulos, editors

Advances in Object-Oriented Data Modeling
Michael P. Papazoglou, Stefano Spaccapietra, and Zahir Tari, editors, 2000

Workﬂow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems
Wil van der Aalst and Kees Max van Hee, 2002

A Semantic Web Primer
Grigoris Antoniou and Frank van Harmelen, 2004

Aligning Modern Business Processes and Legacy Systems
Willem-Jan van den Heuvel, 2006

A Semantic Web Primer, second edition
Grigoris Antoniou and Frank van Harmelen, 2008

A
Semantic
Web
Primer
second edition

Grigoris Antoniou
and
Frank van Harmelen

The MIT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England

© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any
electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information
storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher.

This book was set in 10/13 Palatino by the authors using LTEX 2ε .
A

Printed and bound in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Antoniou, G. (Grigoris)
A semantic Web primer / Grigoris Antoniou and Frank van Harmelen. – 2nd ed.
p. cm. – (Cooperative information systems)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-262-01242-3 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Semantic Web. I. Van Harmelen, Frank. II. Title.
TK5105.88815. A58 2008
025.04–dc22
2007020429

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Dedicated to Konstantina

G.A.

Brief Contents

1 The Semantic Web Vision 1
2 Structured Web Documents: XML 25
3 Describing Web Resources: RDF 65
4 Web Ontology Language: OWL 113
5 Logic and Inference: Rules 157
6 Applications 185
7 Ontology Engineering 225
8 Conclusion and Outlook 245
A Abstract OWL Syntax 253

vii

Contents

List of Figures xiii

Series Foreword xv

Preface xix

1 The Semantic Web Vision 1
1.1 Today’s Web 1
1.2 From Today’s Web to the Semantic Web: Examples 3
1.3 Semantic Web Technologies 8
1.4 A Layered Approach 17
1.5 Book Overview 21
1.6 Summary 21
Suggested Reading 22

2 Structured Web Documents: XML 25
2.1 Introduction 25
2.2 The XML Language 29
2.3 Structuring 33
2.4 Namespaces 46
2.5 Addressing and Querying XML Documents 47
2.6 Processing 53
2.7 Summary 59
Exercises and Projects 62

ix

x Contents

3 Describing Web Resources: RDF 65
3.1 Introduction 65
3.2 RDF: Basic Ideas 67
3.3 RDF: XML-Based Syntax 73
3.4 RDF Schema: Basic Ideas 84
3.5 RDF Schema: The Language 88
3.6 RDF and RDF Schema in RDF Schema 94
3.7 An Axiomatic Semantics for RDF and RDF Schema 97
3.8 A Direct Inference System for RDF and RDFS 102
3.9 Querying in SPARQL 103
3.10 Summary 109

4 Web Ontology Language: OWL 113
4.1 Introduction 113
4.2 OWL and RDF/RDFS 114
4.3 Three Sublanguages of OWL 117
4.4 Description of the OWL Language 119
4.5 Layering of OWL 131
4.6 Examples 135
4.7 OWL in OWL 144
4.8 Future Extensions 150
4.9 Summary 152

5 Logic and Inference: Rules 157
5.2 Example of Monotonic Rules: Family Relationships 161
5.3 Monotonic Rules: Syntax 162
5.4 Monotonic Rules: Semantics 164
5.5 Description Logic Programs (DLP) 167
5.6 Semantic Web Rules Language (SWRL) 170
5.7 Nonmonotonic Rules: Motivation and Syntax 171
5.8 Example of Nonmonotonic Rules: Brokered Trade 173
5.9 Rule Markup Language (RuleML) 177
5.10 Summary 179

Contents xi


6 Applications 185
6.2 Horizontal Information Products at Elsevier 185
6.3 Openacademia: Distributed Publication Management 189
6.4 Bibster: Data Exchange in a Peer-to-Peer System 195
6.5 Data Integration at Audi 197
6.6 Skill Finding at Swiss Life 201
6.7 Think Tank Portal at EnerSearch 203
6.8 e-Learning 207
6.9 Web Services 210
6.10 Other Scenarios 219
7 Ontology Engineering 225
7.2 Constructing Ontologies Manually 225
7.3 Reusing Existing Ontologies 229
7.4 Semiautomatic Ontology Acquisition 231
7.5 Ontology Mapping 235
7.6 On-To-Knowledge Semantic Web Architecture 237
Project 240

8 Conclusion and Outlook 245
8.2 Which Semantic Web? 245
8.3 Four Popular Fallacies 246
8.4 Current Status 248
8.5 Selected Key Research Challenges 251

A Abstract OWL Syntax 253

Index 261

List of Figures

1.1 A hierarchy 11
1.2 Intelligent personal agents 16
1.3 A layered approach to the Semantic Web 19
1.4 An alternative Semantic Web stack 20

2.1 Tree representation of an XML document 33
2.2 Tree representation of a library document 49
2.3 Tree representation of query 4 51
2.4 Tree representation of query 5 52
2.5 A template 56
2.6 XSLT as tree transformation 60

3.1 Graphic representation of a triple 69
3.2 A semantic net 70
3.3 Representation of a tertiary predicate 72
3.4 Representation of a tertiary predicate 82
3.5 A hierarchy of classes 86
3.6 RDF and RDFS layers 88
3.7 Class hierarchy for the motor vehicles example 93

4.1 Subclass relationships between OWL and RDF/RDFS 119
4.2 Inverse properties 123
4.3 relation of OWL DLP to other languages 134
4.4 Classes and subclasses of the African wildlife ontology 135
4.5 Branches are parts of trees 136
4.6 Classes and subclasses of the printer ontology 140

xiii

xiv List of Figures

5.1 RuleML vocabulary 177

6.1 Querying across data sources at Elsevier 187
6.2 DOPE search and browse interface 189
6.3 AJAX-based query interface of openacademia 192
6.4 Interactive time-based visualization using the Timeline widget 192
6.5 Sample SeRQL query and its graphic representation 195
6.6 Bibster peer-to-peer bibliography finder 198
6.7 Semantic map of part of the EnerSearch Web site 206
6.8 Semantic distance between EnerSearch authors 206
6.9 Browsing ontologically organized papers in Spectacle 207
6.10 Work flow for finding the closest medical supplier 211
6.11 OWL-S service ontology 212
6.12 Profile to Process bridge 215
6.13 Web service domain ontology 218

7.1 Semantic Web knowledge management architecture 237

Series Foreword

The traditional view of information systems as tailor-made, cost-intensive
database applications is changing rapidly. The change is fueled partly by
a maturing software industry, which is making greater use of off-the-shelf
generic components and standard software solutions, and partly by the on-
slaught of the information revolution. In turn, this change has resulted in a
new set of demands for information services that are homogeneous in their
presentation and interaction patterns, open in their software architecture,
and global in their scope. The demands have come mostly from applica-
tion domains such as e-commerce and banking, manufacturing (including
the software industry itself), training, education, and environmental man-
agement, to mention just a few.
Future information systems will have to support smooth interaction with
a large variety of independent multivendor data sources and legacy applica-
tions, running on heterogeneous platforms and distributed information net-
works. Metadata will play a crucial role in describing the contents of such
data sources and in facilitating their integration.
As well, a greater variety of community-oriented interaction patterns will
have to be supported by next-generation information systems. Such inter-
actions may involve navigation, querying and retrieval, and will have to be
combined with personalized notification, annotation, and profiling mecha-
nisms. Such interactions will also have to be intelligently interfaced with
application software, and will need to be dynamically integrated into cus-
tomized and highly connected cooperative environments. Moreover, the
massive investments in information resources, by governments and busi-
nesses alike, call for specific measures that ensure security, privacy, and ac-
curacy of their contents.
All these are challenges for the next generation of information systems. We
call such systems cooperative information systems, and they are the focus of this
series.

xv

xvi Series Foreword

In lay terms, cooperative information systems are serving a diverse mix of
demands characterized by content—community—commerce. These demands
are originating in current trends for off-the-shelf software solutions, such as
enterprise resource planning and e-commerce systems.
A major challenge in building cooperative information systems is to de-
velop technologies that permit continuous enhancement and evolution of
current massive investments in information resources and systems. Such
technologies must offer an appropriate infrastructure that supports not only
development but also evolution of software.
Early research results on cooperative information systems are becoming
the core technology for community-oriented information portals or gate-
ways. An information gateway provides a “one-stop-shopping” place for
a wide range of information resources and services, thereby creating a loyal
user community.
The research advances that will lead to cooperative information systems
will not come from any single research area within the ﬁeld of information
technology. Database and knowledge-based systems, distributed systems,
groupware, and graphical user interfaces have all matured as technologies.
While further enhancements for individual technologies are desirable, the
greatest leverage for technological advancement is expected to come from
their evolution into a seamless technology for building and managing coop-
erative information systems.
The MIT Press Cooperative Information Systems series will cover this area
through textbooks, and research editions intended for the researcher and the
professional who wishes to remain up-to-date on current developments and
future trends.
The series will include three types of books:
• Textbooks or resource books intended for upper-level undergraduate or
graduate level courses
• Research monographs, which collect and summarize research results and
development experiences over a number of years
• Edited volumes, including collections of papers on a particular topic
Data in a data source are useful because they model some part of the real
world, its subject matter (or application, or domain of discourse). The problem
of data semantics is establishing and maintaining the correspondence between
a data source, hereafter a model, and its intended subject matter. The model
may be a database storing data about employees in a company, a database

xvii

schema describing parts, projects, and suppliers, a Web site presenting infor-
mation about a university, or a plain text file describing the battle of Wa-
terloo. The problem has been with us since the development of the first
databases. However, the problem remained under control as long as the op-
erational environment of a database remained closed and relatively stable.
In such a setting, the meaning of the data was factored out from the database
proper and entrusted to the small group of regular users and application
programs.
The advent of the Web has changed all that. Databases today are made
available, in some form, on the Web where users, application programs, and
uses are open-ended and ever changing. In such a setting, the semantics of
the data has to be made available along with the data. For human users, this
is done through an appropriate choice of presentation format. For applica-
tion programs, however, this semantics has to be provided in a formal and
machine-processable form. Hence the call for the Semantic Web.1
Not surprisingly, this call by Tim Berners-Lee has received tremendous at-
tention by researchers and practitioners alike. There is now an International
Semantic Web Conference series,2 a Semantic Web Journal published by Else-
vier,3 as well as industrial committees that are looking at the first generation
of standards for the Semantic Web.
The current book constitutes a timely publication, given the fast-moving
nature of Semantic Web concepts, technologies, and standards. The book of-
fers a gentle introduction to Semantic Web concepts, including XML, DTDs,
and XML schemas, RDF and RDFS, OWL, logic, and inference. Throughout,
the book includes examples and applications to illustrate the use of concepts.
We are pleased to include this book on the Semantic Web in the series on
Cooperative Information Systems. We hope that readers will find it interest-
ing, insightful, and useful.

John Mylopoulos Michael Papazoglou
jm@cs.toronto.edu M.P.Papazoglou@kub.nl
Dept. of Computer Science INFOLAB
University of Toronto P.O. Box 90153
Toronto, Ontario LE Tilburg
Canada The Netherlands

1. Tim Berners-Lee and Mark Fischetti, Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny
of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999.
2. <http://iswc.semanticweb.org>.
3. <http://www.semanticwebjournal.org>.

Preface

The World Wide Web (WWW) has changed the way people communicate
with each other, how information is disseminated and retrieved, and how
business is conducted. The term Semantic Web comprises techniques that
promise to dramatically improve the current WWW and its use. This book is
about this emerging technology.
The success of each book should be judged against the authors’ aims. This
is an introductory textbook about the Semantic Web. Its main use will be to
serve as the basis for university courses about the Semantic Web. It can also
be used for self-study by anyone who wishes to learn about Semantic Web
technologies.
The question arises whether there is a need for a textbook, given that all
information is available online. We think there is a need because on the Web
there are too many sources of varying quality and too much information.
Some information is valid, some outdated, some wrong, and most sources
talk about obscure details. Anyone who is a newcomer and wishes to learn
something about the Semantic Web, or who wishes to set up a course on the
Semantic Web, is faced with these problems. This book is meant to help out.
A textbook must be selective in the topics it covers. Particularly in a field
as fast developing as this, a textbook should concentrate on fundamental
aspects that can reasonably be expected to remain relevant some time into
the future. But, of course, authors always have their personal bias.
Even for the topics covered, this book is not meant to be a reference work
that describes every small detail. Long books have already been written on
certain topics, such as XML. And there is no need for a reference work in
the Semantic Web area because all definitions and manuals are available on-
line. Instead, we concentrate on the main ideas and techniques and provide
enough detail to enable readers to engage with the material constructively
and to build applications of their own.
That way readers will be equipped with sufficient knowledge to easily get

xix

xx Preface

the remaining details from other sources. In fact, an annotated list of refer-
ences is found at the end of each chapter.

Preface to the Second Edition
The reception of the first edition of this book showed that there was a real
need for a book with this profile. The book is in use in dozens of courses
worldwide and has been translated into Japanese, Spanish, Chinese and Ko-
rean.
The Semantic Web area has seen rapid development since the first publi-
cation of our book. New elements have appeared in the Semantic Web lan-
guage stack, new application areas have emerged, and new tools are being
produced. This has prompted us to produce a second edition with a sub-
stantial number of updates and changes. In brief, this second edition has the
following new elements:

• All known bugs and errata have been fixed (notably the RDF chapter
(chapter 3) contained some embarrassing errors).

• The RDF chapter now discusses SPARQL as the RDF query language
(with SPARQL going for W3C recommendation in the near future, and
already receiving widespread implementation support).

• The OWL chapter (chapter 4) now discusses OWL DLP, a newly identi-
fied fragment of the language with a number of interesting practical and
theoretical properties.

• In the light of rapid developments in this area, the chapter on rules (chap-
ter 5) has been revised and discusses the SWRL language as well as OWL
DLP.

• New example applications have been added to chapter 6.

• The discussion of web services in chapter 6 has been revised and is now
based on OWL-S.

• The final outlook chapter (chapter 8) has been entirely rewritten to reflect
the advancements in the state of the art, to capture a number of currently
ongoing discussions, and to list the most challenging issues facing the
Semantic Web.

xxi

We have also started to maintain a Web site with material to support the
use of this book: <http://www.semanticwebprimer.org>. The Web site con-
tains slides for each chapter, to be used for teaching, online versions of code
fragments in the book, and links to material for further reading.

Acknowledgments
We thank Jeen Broekstra, Michel Klein, and Marta Sabou for pioneering
much of this material in our course on Web-based knowledge representation
at the Free University in Amsterdam; Annette ten Teije, Zharko Aleksovski
and Wouter Jansweijer for critically reading early versions of the manuscript;
and Lynda Hardman and Jacco van Ossenbruggen for spotting errors in the
RDF chapter.
We thank Christoph Grimmer and Peter Koenig for proofreading parts of
the book and assisting with the creation of the ﬁgures and with LaTeX pro-
cessing.
For the second edition of this book, the following people generously con-
tributed material: Jeen Broekstra wrote section 3.9 on SPARQL; Peter Mika
and Michel Klein wrote section 6.3 on their openacademia system; some of
the text on the Bibster system in section 6.4 was donated by Peter Haase from
his Ph.D. thesis; and some of the text on OWL-S was donated by Marta Sabou
from her Ph.D. thesis.
Also, we wish to thank the MIT Press people for their assistance with the ﬁ-
nal preparation of the manuscript, and Christopher Manning for his L TEX 2ε
A

macros.

1 The Semantic Web Vision

1.1 Today’s Web
The World Wide Web has changed the way people communicate with each
other and the way business is conducted. It lies at the heart of a revolu-
tion that is currently transforming the developed world toward a knowledge
economy and, more broadly speaking, to a knowledge society.
This development has also changed the way we think of computers. Orig-
inally they were used for computing numerical calculations. Currently their
predominant use is for information processing, typical applications being
database systems, text processing, and games. At present there is a transi-
tion of focus toward the view of computers as entry points to the information
highways.
Most of today’s Web content is suitable for human consumption. Even
Web content that is generated automatically from databases is usually
presented without the original structural information found in databases.
Typical uses of the Web today involve people’s seeking and making use of
information, searching for and getting in touch with other people, review-
ing catalogs of online stores and ordering products by ﬁlling out forms, and
viewing adult material.
These activities are not particularly well supported by software tools.
Apart from the existence of links that establish connections between docu-
ments, the main valuable, indeed indispensable, tools are search engines.
Keyword-based search engines such as Yahoo and Google are the main
tools for using today’s Web. It is clear that the Web would not have become
the huge success it is, were it not for search engines. However, there are
serious problems associated with their use:

• High recall, low precision. Even if the main relevant pages are retrieved,

1

2 1 The Semantic Web Vision

they are of little use if another 28,758 mildly relevant or irrelevant docu-
ments are also retrieved. Too much can easily become as bad as too little.

• Low or no recall. Often it happens that we don’t get any relevant answer
for our request, or that important and relevant pages are not retrieved. Al-
though low recall is a less frequent problem with current search engines,
it does occur.

• Results are highly sensitive to vocabulary. Often our initial keywords do
not get the results we want; in these cases the relevant documents use dif-
ferent terminology from the original query. This is unsatisfactory because
semantically similar queries should return similar results.

• Results are single Web pages. If we need information that is spread over
various documents, we must initiate several queries to collect the relevant
documents, and then we must manually extract the partial information
and put it together.

Interestingly, despite improvements in search engine technology, the diffi-
culties remain essentially the same. It seems that the amount of Web content
outpaces technological progress.
But even if a search is successful, it is the person who must browse selected
documents to extract the information he is looking for. That is, there is not
much support for retrieving the information, a very time-consuming activ-
ity. Therefore, the term information retrieval, used in association with search
engines, is somewhat misleading; location finder might be a more appropri-
ate term. Also, results of Web searches are not readily accessible by other
software tools; search engines are often isolated applications.
The main obstacle to providing better support to Web users is that, at
present, the meaning of Web content is not machine-accessible. Of course,
there are tools that can retrieve texts, split them into parts, check the spelling,
count their words. But when it comes to interpreting sentences and extracting
useful information for users, the capabilities of current software are still very
limited. It is simply difficult to distinguish the meaning of

I am a professor of computer science.

from

I am a professor of computer science, you may think. Well, . . .


Using text processing, how can the current situation be improved? One so-
lution is to use the content as it is represented today and to develop increas-
ingly sophisticated techniques based on artiﬁcial intelligence and computa-
tional linguistics. This approach has been followed for some time now, but
despite some advances the task still appears too ambitious.
An alternative approach is to represent Web content in a form that is more
easily machine-processable1 and to use intelligent techniques to take advan-
tage of these representations. We refer to this plan of revolutionizing the Web
as the Semantic Web initiative. It is important to understand that the Seman-
tic Web will not be a new global information highway parallel to the existing
World Wide Web; instead it will gradually evolve out of the existing Web.
The Semantic Web is propagated by the World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C), an international standardization body for the Web. The driving force
of the Semantic Web initiative is Tim Berners-Lee, the very person who in-
vented the WWW in the late 1980s. He expects from this initiative the re-
alization of his original vision of the Web, a vision where the meaning of
information played a far more important role than it does in today’s Web.
The development of the Semantic Web has a lot of industry momentum,
and governments are investing heavily. The U.S. government has established
the DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) Project, and the Semantic
Web is among the key action lines of the European Union’s Sixth Framework
Programme.

1.2 From Today’s Web to the Semantic Web: Examples

1.2.1 Knowledge Management
Knowledge management concerns itself with acquiring, accessing, and
maintaining knowledge within an organization. It has emerged as a key
activity of large businesses because they view internal knowledge as an in-
tellectual asset from which they can draw greater productivity, create new
value, and increase their competitiveness. Knowledge management is par-
ticularly important for international organizations with geographically dis-
persed departments.

1. In the literature the term machine-understandable is used quite often. We believe it is the wrong
word because it gives the wrong impression. It is not necessary for intelligent agents to under-
stand information; it is sufﬁcient for them to process information effectively, which sometimes
causes people to think the machine really understands.


Most information is currently available in a weakly structured form, for
example, text, audio, and video. From the knowledge management perspec-
tive, the current technology suffers from limitations in the following areas:

• Searching information. Companies usually depend on keyword-based
search engines, the limitations of which we have outlined.

• Extracting information. Human time and effort are required to browse the
retrieved documents for relevant information. Current intelligent agents
are unable to carry out this task in a satisfactory fashion.

• Maintaining information. Currently there are problems, such as inconsis-
tencies in terminology and failure to remove outdated information.

• Uncovering information. New knowledge implicitly existing in corpo-
rate databases is extracted using data mining. However, this task is still
difﬁcult for distributed, weakly structured collections of documents.

• Viewing information. Often it is desirable to restrict access to certain in-
formation to certain groups of employees. “Views,” which hide certain
information, are known from the area of databases but are hard to realize
over an intranet (or the Web).

The aim of the Semantic Web is to allow much more advanced knowledge
management systems:

• Knowledge will be organized in conceptual spaces according to its mean-
ing.

• Automated tools will support maintenance by checking for inconsisten-
cies and extracting new knowledge.

• Keyword-based search will be replaced by query answering: requested
knowledge will be retrieved, extracted, and presented in a human-
friendly way.

• Query answering over several documents will be supported.

• Deﬁning who may view certain parts of information (even parts of docu-
ments) will be possible.


1.2.2 Business-to-Consumer Electronic Commerce
Business-to-consumer (B2C) electronic commerce is the predominant com-
mercial experience of Web users. A typical scenario involves a user’s visiting
one or several online shops, browsing their offers, selecting and ordering
products.
Ideally, a user would collect information about prices, terms, and condi-
tions (such as availability) of all, or at least all major, online shops and then
proceed to select the best offer. But manual browsing is too time-consuming
to be conducted on this scale. Typically a user will visit one or a very few
online stores before making a decision.
To alleviate this situation, tools for shopping around on the Web are avail-
able in the form of shopbots, software agents that visit several shops, extract
product and price information, and compile a market overview. Their func-
tionality is provided by wrappers, programs that extract information from
an online store. One wrapper per store must be developed. This approach
suffers from several drawbacks.
The information is extracted from the online store site through keyword
search and other means of textual analysis. This process makes use of as-
sumptions about the proximity of certain pieces of information (for example,
the price is indicated by the word price followed by the symbol $ followed by
a positive number). This heuristic approach is error-prone; it is not always
guaranteed to work. Because of these difficulties only limited information
is extracted. For example, shipping expenses, delivery times, restrictions on
the destination country, level of security, and privacy policies are typically
not extracted. But all these factors may be significant for the user’s deci-
sion making. In addition, programming wrappers is time-consuming, and
changes in the online store outfit require costly reprogramming.
The Semantic Web will allow the development of software agents that can
interpret the product information and the terms of service:

• Pricing and product information will be extracted correctly, and delivery
and privacy policies will be interpreted and compared to the user require-
ments.

• Additional information about the reputation of online shops will be re-
trieved from other sources, for example, independent rating agencies or
consumer bodies.

• The low-level programming of wrappers will become obsolete.


• More sophisticated shopping agents will be able to conduct automated
negotiations, on the buyer’s behalf, with shop agents.

1.2.3 Business-to-Business Electronic Commerce
Most users associate the commercial part of the Web with B2C e-commerce,
but the greatest economic promise of all online technologies lies in the area
of business-to-business (B2B) e-commerce.
Traditionally businesses have exchanged their data using the Electronic
Data Interchange (EDI) approach. However this technology is complicated
and understood only by experts. It is difﬁcult to program and maintain, and
it is error-prone. Each B2B communication requires separate programming,
so such communications are costly. Finally, EDI is an isolated technology.
The interchanged data cannot be easily integrated with other business appli-
cations.
The Internet appears to be an ideal infrastructure for business-to-business
communication. Businesses have increasingly been looking at Internet-based
solutions, and new business models such as B2B portals have emerged. Still,
B2B e-commerce is hampered by the lack of standards. HTML (hypertext
markup language) is too weak to support the outlined activities effectively:
it provides neither the structure nor the semantics of information. The new
standard of XML is a big improvement but can still support communications
only in cases where there is a priori agreement on the vocabulary to be used
and on its meaning.
The realization of the Semantic Web will allow businesses to enter partner-
ships without much overhead. Differences in terminology will be resolved
using standard abstract domain models, and data will be interchanged using
translation services. Auctioning, negotiations, and drafting contracts will be
carried out automatically (or semiautomatically) by software agents.

1.2.4 Wikis
Currently, the use of the WWW is expanded by tools that enable the active
participation of Web users. Some consider this development revolutionary
and have given it a name: Web 2.0.
Part of this direction involves wikis, collections of Web pages that allow
users to add content (usually structured text and hypertext links) via a
browser interface. Wiki systems allow for collaborative knowledge creation
because they give users almost complete freedom to add and change infor-


mation without ownership of content, access restrictions, or rigid workflows.
Wiki systems are used for a variety of purposes, including the following:

• Development of bodies of knowledge in a community effort, with contri-
butions from a wide range of users. The best-known result is the general-
purpose Wikipedia.

• Knowledge management of an activity or a project. Examples are brain-
storming and exchanging ideas, coordinating activities, and exchanging
records of meetings.

While it is still early to talk about drawbacks and limitations of this technol-
ogy, wiki systems can definitely benefit from the use of semantic technolo-
gies. The main idea is to make the inherent structure of a wiki, given by
the linking between pages, accessible to machines beyond mere navigation.
This can be done by enriching structured text and untyped hyperlinks with
semantic annotations referring to an underlying model of the knowledge
captured by the wiki. For example, a hyperlink from Knossos to Heraklion
could be annotated with information is located in. This information could
then be used for context-specific presentation of pages, advanced querying,
and consistency verification.

1.2.5 Personal Agents: A Future Scenario
The following scenario illustrates functionalities that can be implemented
based on Semantic Web technologies.
Michael had just had a minor car accident and was feeling some neck pain.
His primary care physician suggested a series of physical therapy sessions.
Michael asked his Semantic Web agent to work out some possibilities.
The agent retrieved details of the recommended therapy from the doctor’s
agent and looked up the list of therapists maintained by Michael’s health
insurance company. The agent checked for those located within a radius of 10
km from Michael’s office or home, and looked up their reputation according
to trusted rating services. Then it tried to match available appointment times
with Michael’s calendar. In a few minutes the agent returned two proposals.
Unfortunately, Michael was not happy with either of them. One therapist
had offered appointments in two weeks’ time; for the other Michael would
have to drive during rush hour. Therefore, Michael decided to set stricter
time constraints and asked the agent to try again.


A few minutes later the agent came back with an alternative: a therapist
with a good reputation who had available appointments starting in two days.
However, there were a few minor problems. Some of Michael’s less impor-
tant work appointments would have to be rescheduled. The agent offered
to make arrangements if this solution were adopted. Also, the therapist was
not listed on the insurer’s site because he charged more than the insurer’s
maximum coverage. The agent had found his name from an independent
list of therapists and had already checked that Michael was entitled to the
insurer’s maximum coverage, according to the insurer’s policy. It had also
negotiated with the therapist’s agent a special discount. The therapist had
only recently decided to charge more than average and was keen to find new
patients.
Michael was happy with the recommendation because he would have to
pay only a few dollars extra. However, because he had installed the Semantic
Web agent a few days ago, he asked it for explanations of some of its asser-
tions: how was the therapist’s reputation established, why was it necessary
for Michael to reschedule some of his work appointments, how was the price
negotiation conducted? The agent provided appropriate information.
Michael was satisfied. His new Semantic Web agent was going to make his
busy life easier. He asked the agent to take all necessary steps to finalize the
task.

1.3 Semantic Web Technologies
The scenarios outlined in section 1.2 are not science fiction; they do not re-
quire revolutionary scientific progress to be achieved. We can reasonably
claim that the challenge is an engineering and technology adoption rather
than a scientific one: partial solutions to all important parts of the problem
exist. At present, the greatest needs are in the areas of integration, standard-
ization, development of tools, and adoption by users. But, of course, further
technological progress will lead to a more advanced Semantic Web than can,
in principle, be achieved today.
In the following sections we outline a few technologies that are necessary
for achieving the functionalities previously outlined.

1.3.1 Explicit Metadata
Currently, Web content is formatted for human readers rather than programs.
HTML is the predominant language in which Web pages are written (directly


or using tools). A portion of a typical Web page of a physical therapist might
look like this:

<h1>Agilitas Physiotherapy Centre</h1>
Welcome to the Agilitas Physiotherapy Centre home page.
Do you feel pain? Have you had an injury? Let our staff
Lisa Davenport, Kelly Townsend (our lovely secretary)
and Steve Matthews take care of your body and soul.

<h2>Consultation hours</h2>
Mon 11am - 7pm<br>
Tue 11am - 7pm<br>
Wed 3pm - 7pm<br>
Thu 11am - 7pm<br>
Fri 11am - 3pm<p>
But note that we do not offer consultation
during the weeks of the
<a href=". . .">State Of Origin</a> games.

For people the information is presented in a satisfactory way, but machines
will have their problems. Keyword-based searches will identify the words
physiotherapy and consultation hours. And an intelligent agent might even be
able to identify the personnel of the center. But it will have trouble distin-
guishing the therapists from the secretary, and even more trouble ﬁnding the
exact consultation hours (for which it would have to follow the link to the
State Of Origin games to ﬁnd when they take place).
The Semantic Web approach to solving these problems is not the devel-
opment of superintelligent agents. Instead it proposes to attack the problem
from the Web page side. If HTML is replaced by more appropriate languages,
then the Web pages could carry their content on their sleeve. In addition
to containing formatting information aimed at producing a document for
human readers, they could contain information about their content. In our
example, there might be information such as

<company>
<treatmentOffered>Physiotherapy</treatmentOffered>
<companyName>Agilitas Physiotherapy Centre</companyName>
<staff>
<therapist>Lisa Davenport</therapist>
<therapist>Steve Matthews</therapist>
<secretary>Kelly Townsend</secretary>


</staff>
</company>

This representation is far more easily processable by machines. The term
metadata refers to such information: data about data. Metadata capture part
of the meaning of data, thus the term semantic in Semantic Web.
In our example scenarios in section 1.2 there seemed to be no barriers in the
access to information in Web pages: therapy details, calendars and appoint-
ments, prices and product descriptions, it seemed like all this information
could be directly retrieved from existing Web content. But, as we explained,
this will not happen using text-based manipulation of information but rather
by taking advantage of machine-processable metadata.
As with the current development of Web pages, users will not have to be
computer science experts to develop Web pages; they will be able to use tools
for this purpose. Still, the question remains why users should care, why they
should abandon HTML for Semantic Web languages. Perhaps we can give an
optimistic answer if we compare the situation today to the beginnings of the
Web. The first users decided to adopt HTML because it had been adopted
as a standard and they were expecting benefits from being early adopters.
Others followed when more and better Web tools became available. And
soon HTML was a universally accepted standard.
Similarly, we are currently observing the early adoption of XML. While not
sufficient in itself for the realization of the Semantic Web vision, XML is an
important first step. Early users, perhaps some large organizations interested
in knowledge management and B2B e-commerce, will adopt XML and RDF,
the current Semantic Web-related W3C standards. And the momentum will
lead to more and more tool vendors’ and end users’ adopting the technology.
This will be a decisive step in the Semantic Web venture, but it is also a
challenge. As we mentioned, the greatest current challenge is not scientific
but rather one of technology adoption.

1.3.2 Ontologies
The term ontology originates from philosophy. In that context, it is used as
the name of a subfield of philosophy, namely, the study of the nature of ex-
istence (the literal translation of the Greek word Oντ oλoγiα), the branch of
metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds
of things that actually exist, and how to describe them. For example, the ob-
servation that the world is made up of specific objects that can be grouped


university
people

staff students

academic administration technical
support undergraduate postgraduate
staff staff staff

regular research visiting
faculty
staff staff staff

Figure 1.1 A hierarchy

into abstract classes based on shared properties is a typical ontological com-
mitment.
However, in more recent years, ontology has become one of the many
words hijacked by computer science and given a specific technical meaning
that is rather different from the original one. Instead of “ontology” we now
speak of “an ontology.” For our purposes, we will use T. R. Gruber’s defini-
tion, later refined by R. Studer: An ontology is an explicit and formal specification
of a conceptualization.
In general, an ontology describes formally a domain of discourse. Typi-
cally, an ontology consists of a finite list of terms and the relationships be-
tween these terms. The terms denote important concepts (classes of objects) of
the domain. For example, in a university setting, staff members, students,
courses, lecture theaters, and disciplines are some important concepts.
The relationships typically include hierarchies of classes. A hierarchy spec-
ifies a class C to be a subclass of another class C if every object in C is also
included in C . For example, all faculty are staff members. Figure 1.1 shows
a hierarchy for the university domain.
Apart from subclass relationships, ontologies may include information
such as


• properties (X teaches Y),

• value restrictions (only faculty members may teach courses),

• disjointness statements (faculty and general staff are disjoint),

• specifications of logical relationships between objects (every department
must include at least ten faculty members).

In the context of the Web, ontologies provide a shared understanding of a do-
main. Such a shared understanding is necessary to overcome differences in
terminology. One application’s zip code may be the same as another applica-
tion’s area code. Another problem is that two applications may use the same
term with different meanings. In university A, a course may refer to a degree
(like computer science), while in university B it may mean a single subject
(CS 101). Such differences can be overcome by mapping the particular ter-
minology to a shared ontology or by defining direct mappings between the
ontologies. In either case, it is easy to see that ontologies support semantic
interoperability .
Ontologies are useful for the organization and navigation of Web sites.
Many Web sites today expose on the left-hand side of the page the top levels
of a concept hierarchy of terms. The user may click on one of them to expand
the subcategories.
Also, ontologies are useful for improving the accuracy of Web searches.
The search engines can look for pages that refer to a precise concept in an on-
tology instead of collecting all pages in which certain, generally ambiguous,
keywords occur. In this way, differences in terminology between Web pages
and the queries can be overcome.
In addition, Web searches can exploit generalization/specialization infor-
mation. If a query fails to find any relevant documents, the search engine
may suggest to the user a more general query. It is even conceivable for the
engine to run such queries proactively to reduce the reaction time in case the
user adopts a suggestion. Or if too many answers are retrieved, the search
engine may suggest to the user some specializations.
In Artificial Intelligence (AI) there is a long tradition of developing and us-
ing ontology languages. It is a foundation Semantic Web research can build
upon. At present, the most important ontology languages for the Web are
the following:

• RDF is a data model for objects (“resources”) and relations between them;


it provides a simple semantics for this data model; and these data models
can be represented in an XML syntax.

• RDF Schema is a vocabulary description language for describing prop-
erties and classes of RDF resources, with a semantics for generalization
hierarchies of such properties and classes.

• OWL is a richer vocabulary description language for describing proper-
ties and classes, such as relations between classes (e.g., disjointness), car-
dinality (e.g., “exactly one”), equality, richer typing of properties, charac-
teristics of properties (e.g., symmetry), and enumerated classes.

1.3.3 Logic
Logic is the discipline that studies the principles of reasoning; it goes back to
Aristotle. In general, logic offers, ﬁrst, formal languages for expressing know-
ledge. Second, logic provides us with well-understood formal semantics: in
most logics, the meaning of sentences is deﬁned without the need to oper-
ationalize the knowledge. Often we speak of declarative knowledge: we
describe what holds without caring about how it can be deduced.
And third, automated reasoners can deduce (infer) conclusions from the
given knowledge, thus making implicit knowledge explicit. Such reason-
ers have been studied extensively in AI. Here is an example of an inference.
Suppose we know that all professors are faculty members, that all faculty
members are staff members, and that Michael is a professor. In predicate
logic the information is expressed as follows:

prof (X) → f aculty(X)
f aculty(X) → staff(X)
prof (michael)

Then we can deduce the following:

f aculty(michael)
staff(michael)
prof (X) → staff(X)

Note that this example involves knowledge typically found in ontologies.
Thus logic can be used to uncover ontological knowledge that is implicitly


given. By doing so, it can also help uncover unexpected relationships and
inconsistencies.
But logic is more general than ontologies. It can also be used by intelligent
agents for making decisions and selecting courses of action. For example, a
shop agent may decide to grant a discount to a customer based on the rule

loyalCustomer(X) → discount(X, 5%)

where the loyalty of customers is determined from data stored in the cor-
porate database. Generally there is a trade-off between expressive power
and computational efficiency. The more expressive a logic is, the more com-
putationally expensive it becomes to draw conclusions. And drawing cer-
tain conclusions may become impossible if noncomputability barriers are
encountered. Luckily, most knowledge relevant to the Semantic Web seems
to be of a relatively restricted form. For example, our previous examples in-
volved rules of the form, “If conditions, then conclusion,” where conditions
and conclusion are simple statements, and only finitely many objects needed
to be considered. This subset of logic, called Horn logic, is tractable and
supported by efficient reasoning tools.
An important advantage of logic is that it can provide explanations for
conclusions: the series of inference steps can be retraced. Moreover AI re-
searchers have developed ways of presenting an explanation in a human-
friendly way, by organizing a proof as a natural deduction and by grouping
a number of low-level inference steps into metasteps that a person will typ-
ically consider a single proof step. Ultimately an explanation will trace an
answer back to a given set of facts and the inference rules used.
Explanations are important for the Semantic Web because they increase
users’ confidence in Semantic Web agents (see the physiotherapy example in
section 1.2.5). Tim Berners-Lee speaks of an “Oh yeah?” button that would
ask for an explanation.
Explanations will also be necessary for activities between agents. While
some agents will be able to draw logical conclusions, others will only have
the capability to validate proofs, that is, to check whether a claim made by
another agent is substantiated. Here is a simple example. Suppose agent
1, representing an online shop, sends a message “You owe me $80” (not in
natural language, of course, but in a formal, machine-processable language)
to agent 2, representing a person. Then agent 2 might ask for an explanation,
and agent 1 might respond with a sequence of the form

Web log of a purchase over $80


Proof of delivery (for example, tracking number of UPS)
Rule from the shop’s terms and conditions:

purchase(X, Item) ∧ price(Item, P rice) ∧ delivered(Item, X)
→ owes(X, P rice)
Thus facts will typically be traced to some Web addresses (the trust of which
will be verifiable by agents), and the rules may be a part of a shared com-
merce ontology or the policy of the online shop.
For logic to be useful on the Web it must be usable in conjunction with
other data, and it must be machine-processable as well. Therefore, there
is ongoing work on representing logical knowledge and proofs in Web lan-
guages. Initial approaches work at the level of XML, but in the future rules
and proofs will need to be represented at the level of RDF and ontology lan-
guages, such as DAML+OIL and OWL.

1.3.4 Agents
Agents are pieces of software that work autonomously and proactively. Con-
ceptually they evolved out of the concepts of object-oriented programming
and component-based software development.
A personal agent on the Semantic Web (figure 1.2) will receive some tasks
and preferences from the person, seek information from Web sources, com-
municate with other agents, compare information about user requirements
and preferences, select certain choices, and give answers to the user. An
example of such an agent is Michael’s private agent in the physiotherapy
example of section 1.2.5.
It should be noted that agents will not replace human users on the Seman-
tic Web, nor will they necessarily make decisions. In many, if not most, cases
their role will be to collect and organize information, and present choices for
the users to select from, as Michael’s personal agent did in offering a selec-
tion between the two best solutions it could find, or as a travel agent does
that looks for travel offers to fit a person’s given preferences.
Semantic Web agents will make use of all the technologies we have out-
lined:
• Metadata will be used to identify and extract information from Web
sources.
• Ontologies will be used to assist in Web searches, to interpret retrieved
information, and to communicate with other agents.


Today In the future

User User

Personal agent
Present in Search
Web browser engine

Intelligent
infrastructure
www services
docs

www
docs

Figure 1.2 Intelligent personal agents

• Logic will be used for processing retrieved information and for drawing
conclusions.

Further technologies will also be needed, such as agent communication lan-
guages. Also, for advanced applications it will be useful to represent for-
mally the beliefs, desires, and intentions of agents, and to create and main-
tain user models. However, these points are somewhat orthogonal to the
Semantic Web technologies. Therefore they are not discussed further in this
book.

1.3.5 The Semantic Web versus Artificial Intelligence
As we have said, most of the technologies needed for the realization of the
Semantic Web build upon work in the area of artificial intelligence. Given
that AI has a long history, not always commercially successful, one might
worry that, in the worst case, the Semantic Web will repeat AI’s errors: big
promises that raise too high expectations, which turn out not to be fulfilled
(at least not in the promised time frame).


This worry is unjustified. The realization of the Semantic Web vision does
not rely on human-level intelligence; in fact, as we have tried to explain, the
challenges are approached in a different way. The full problem of AI is a
deep scientific one, perhaps comparable to the central problems of physics
(explain the physical world) or biology (explain the living world). So seen,
the difficulties in achieving human-level Artificial Intelligence within ten or
twenty years, as promised at some points in the past, should not have come
as a surprise.
But on the Semantic Web partial solutions will work. Even if an intelligent
agent is not able to come to all conclusions that a human user might draw, the
agent will still contribute to a Web much superior to the current Web. This
brings us to another difference. If the ultimate goal of AI is to build an intel-
ligent agent exhibiting human-level intelligence (and higher), the goal of the
Semantic Web is to assist human users in their day-to-day online activities.
It is clear that the Semantic Web will make extensive use of current AI tech-
nology and that advances in that technology will lead to a better Semantic
Web. But there is no need to wait until AI reaches a higher level of achieve-
ment; current AI technology is already sufficient to go a long way toward
realizing the Semantic Web vision.

1.4 A Layered Approach

The development of the Semantic Web proceeds in steps, each step building
a layer on top of another. The pragmatic justification for this approach is that
it is easier to achieve consensus on small steps, whereas it is much harder
to get everyone on board if too much is attempted. Usually there are sev-
eral research groups moving in different directions; this competition of ideas
is a major driving force for scientific progress. However, from an engineer-
ing perspective there is a need to standardize. So, if most researchers agree
on certain issues and disagree on others, it makes sense to fix the points of
agreement. This way, even if the more ambitious research efforts should fail,
there will be at least partial positive outcomes.
Once a standard has been established, many more groups and companies
will adopt it, instead of waiting to see which of the alternative research lines
will be successful in the end. The nature of the Semantic Web is such that
companies and single users must build tools, add content, and use that con-
tent. We cannot wait until the full Semantic Web vision materializes — it may
take another ten years for it to be realized to its full extent (as envisioned


today, of course).
In building one layer of the Semantic Web on top of another, two principles
should be followed:

• Downward compatibility. Agents fully aware of a layer should also be
able to interpret and use information written at lower levels. For exam-
ple, agents aware of the semantics of OWL can take full advantage of
information written in RDF and RDF Schema.

• Upward partial understanding. The design should be such that agents
fully aware of a layer should be able to take at least partial advantage
of information at higher levels. For example, an agent aware only of the
RDF and RDF Schema semantics might interpret knowledge written in
OWL partly, by disregarding those elements that go beyond RDF and RDF
Schema. Of course, there is no requirement for all tools to provide this
functionality; the point is that this option should be enabled.

While these ideas are theoretically appealing and have been used as guiding
principles for the development of the Semantic Web, their realization in prac-
tice turned out to be difficult, and some compromises needed to be made.
This will become clear in chapter 4, where the layering of RDF and OWL is
discussed.
Figure 1.3 shows the “layer cake” of the Semantic Web (due to Tim Berners-
Lee), which describes the main layers of the Semantic Web design and vision.
At the bottom we find XML, a language that lets one write structured Web
documents with a user-defined vocabulary. XML is particularly suitable for
sending documents across the Web.
RDF is a basic data model, like the entity-relationship model, for writing
simple statements about Web objects (resources). The RDF data model does
not rely on XML, but RDF has an XML-based syntax. Therefore, in figure 1.3,
it is located on top of the XML layer.
RDF Schema provides modeling primitives for organizing Web objects into
hierarchies. Key primitives are classes and properties, subclass and subprop-
erty relationships, and domain and range restrictions. RDF Schema is based
on RDF.
RDF Schema can be viewed as a primitive language for writing ontolo-
gies. But there is a need for more powerful ontology languages that expand
RDF Schema and allow the representations of more complex relationships
between Web objects. The Logic layer is used to enhance the ontology lan-


Figure 1.3 A layered approach to the Semantic Web

guage further and to allow the writing of application-specific declarative
knowledge.
The Proof layer involves the actual deductive process as well as the repre-
sentation of proofs in Web languages (from lower levels) and proof valida-
tion.
Finally, the Trust layer will emerge through the use of digital signatures and
other kinds of knowledge, based on recommendations by trusted agents or
on rating and certification agencies and consumer bodies. Sometimes “Web
of Trust” is used to indicate that trust will be organized in the same dis-
tributed and chaotic way as the WWW itself. Being located at the top of the
pyramid, trust is a high-level and crucial concept: the Web will only achieve
its full potential when users have trust in its operations (security) and in the
quality of information provided.
This classical layer stack is currently being debated. Figure 1.4 shows an
alternative layer stack that takes recent developments into account. The main
differences, compared to the stack in figure 1.3, are the following:


Figure 1.4 An alternative Semantic Web stack

• The ontology layer is instantiated with two alternatives: the current stan-
dard Web ontology language, OWL, and a rule-based language. Thus an
alternative stream in the development of the Semantic Web appears.

• DLP is the intersection of OWL and Horn logic, and serves as a common
foundation.

The Semantic Web architecture is currently being debated and may be sub-
ject to reﬁnements and modiﬁcations in the future.

1.5 Book Overview 21

1.5 Book Overview

In this book we concentrate on the Semantic Web technologies that have
reached a reasonable degree of maturity.
In chapter 2 we discuss XML and related technologies. XML introduces
structure to Web documents, thus supporting syntactic interoperability. The
structure of a document can be made machine-accessible through DTDs and
XML Schema. We also discuss namespaces; accessing and querying XML
documents using XPath; and transforming XML documents with XSLT.
In chapter 3 we discuss RDF and RDF Schema. RDF is a language in which
we can express statements about objects (resources); it is a standard data
model for machine-processable semantics. RDF Schema offers a number of
modeling primitives for organizing RDF vocabularies in typed hierarchies.
Chapter 4 discusses OWL, the current proposal for a Web ontology lan-
guage. It offers more modeling primitives compared to RDF Schema, and it
has a clean, formal semantics.
Chapter 5 is devoted to rules, both monotonic and nonmonotonic, in the
framework of the Semantic Web. While this layer has not yet been fully de-
fined, the principles to be adopted are quite clear, so it makes sense to present
them.
Chapter 6 discusses several application domains and explains the benefits
that they will draw from the materialization of the Semantic Web vision.
Chapter 7 describes the development of ontology-based systems for the
Web and contains a miniproject that employs much of the technology de-
scribed in this book.
Finally, chapter 8 discusses briefly a few issues that are currently under
debate in the Semantic Web community.

1.6 Summary

• The Semantic Web is an initiative that aims at improving the current state
of the World Wide Web.

• The key idea is the use of machine-processable Web information.

• Key technologies include explicit metadata, ontologies, logic and infer-
encing, and intelligent agents.

• The development of the Semantic Web proceeds in layers.


Suggested Reading
An excellent introductory article, from which, among others, the scenario in
section 1.2.5 was adapted.

• T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientiﬁc
American 284 (May 2001): 34–43.

An inspirational book about the history (and the future) of the Web is

• T. Berners-Lee, with M. Fischetti. Weaving the Web. San Francisco: Harper,
1999.

Many introductory articles on the Semantic Web are available online. Here
we list a few:

• T. Berners-Lee. Semantic Web Road Map. September 1998.
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html>.

• T. Berners-Lee. Evolvability. March 1998.
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html>.

• T. Berners-Lee. What the Semantic Web Can Represent. September 1998.
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDFnot.html>.

• E. Dumbill. The Semantic Web: A Primer. November 1, 2000.
<http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/11/01/semanticweb/>.

• F. van Harmelen and D. Fensel. Practical Knowledge Representation
for the Web. 1999. <http://www.cs.vu.nl/∼frankh/postscript/IJCAI99-
III.html>.

• J. Hendler. Agents and the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16
(March-April 2001): 30–37.
Preprint at <http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler/AgentWeb.html>.

• S. Palmer. The Semantic Web, Taking Form.
<http://infomesh.net/2001/06/swform/>.

• S. Palmer. The Semantic Web: An Introduction.
<http://infomesh.net/2001/swintro/>.

• A. Swartz. The Semantic Web in Breadth.
<http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long>.


• A. Swartz and J. Hendler. The Semantic Web: A Network of Content for
the Digital City. 2001. <http://blogspace.com/rdf/SwartzHendler.html>.

A collection of educational material related to the semantic web is main-
tained at REASE (Repository, European Association for Semantic Web Ed-
ucation):

• <http://rease.semanticweb.org/ubp>.

A number of Web sites maintain up-to-date information about the Semantic
Web and related topics:

• <http://www.semanticweb.org/>.

• <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/>.

• <http://www.ontology.org/>.

There is a good selection of research papers providing technical information
on issues relating to the Semantic Web:

• D. Fensel, J. Hendler, H. Lieberman, and W. Wahlster, eds. Spinning the
Semantic Web. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.

• J. Davies, D. Fensel, and F. van Harmelen, eds. Towards the Semantic Web:
Ontology-Driven Knowledge Management. New York: Wiley, 2002.

• The conference series of the International Semantic Web Conference. See
<http://www.semanticweb.org/>.

Issues related to the Semantic Web architecture are discussed in the following
article:

• I. Horrocks, B. Parsia, P. Patel-Schneider and J. Hendler. Semantic Web
Architecture: Stack or Two Towers? In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on
Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning (PPSWR’05), LNCS 3703,
Springer 2005, 37–41.

Information about semantic wikis is found at

• <http://wiki.ontoworld.org/wiki/Semantic_Wiki_Interest_Group>.

2 Structured Web Documents: XML

2.1 Introduction
Today HTML (hypertext markup language) is the standard language in
which Web pages are written. HTML, in turn, was derived from SGML (stan-
dard generalized markup language), an international standard (ISO 8879) for
the deﬁnition of device- and system-independent methods of representing
information, both human- and machine-readable. Such standards are impor-
tant because they enable effective communication, thus supporting techno-
logical progress and business collaboration. In the WWW area, standards
are set by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium); they are called recom-
mendations, in acknowledgment of the fact that in a distributed environment
without central authority, standards cannot be enforced.
Languages conforming to SGML are called SGML applications. HTML is
such an application; it was developed because SGML was considered far too
complex for Internet-related purposes. XML (extensible markup language) is
another SGML application, and its development was driven by shortcomings
of HTML. We can work out some of the motivations for XML by considering
a simple example, a Web page that contains information about a particular
book.

<h2>Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Context-Dependent
Reasoning</h2>
<i>by <b>V. Marek</b> and <b>M. Truszczynski</b></i><br>
Springer 1993<br>
ISBN 0387976892

A typical XML representation of the same information might look like this:

25

26 2 Structured Web Documents: XML

<book>
<title>
Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Context-Dependent Reasoning
</title>
<author>V. Marek</author>
<author>M. Truszczynski</author>
<publisher>Springer</publisher>
<year>1993</year>
<ISBN>0387976892</ISBN>
</book>

Before we turn to differences between the HTML and XML representations,
let us observe a few similarities. First, both representations use tags, such as
<h2> and </year>. Indeed both HTML and XML are markup languages:
they allow one to write some content and provide information about what
role that content plays.
Like HTML, XML is based on tags. These tags may be nested (tags within
tags). All tags in XML must be closed (for example, for an opening tag
<title> there must be a closing tag </title>), whereas in HTML some
tags, such as <br>, may be left open. The enclosed content, together with
its opening and closing tags, is referred to as an element. (The recent devel-
opment of XHTML has brought HTML more in line with XML: any valid
XHTML document is also a valid XML document, and as a consequence,
opening and closing tags in XHTML are balanced.)
A less formal observation is that human users can read both HTML and
XML representations quite easily. Both languages were designed to be easily
understandable and usable by humans. But how about machines? Imagine
an intelligent agent trying to retrieve the names of the authors of the book
in the previous example. Suppose the HTML page could be located with
a Web search (something that is not at all clear; the limitations of current
search engines are well documented). There is no explicit information as to
who the authors are. A reasonable guess would be that the authors’ names
appear immediately after the title or immediately follow the word by. But
there is no guarantee that these conventions are always followed. And even
if they were, are there two authors, “V. Marek” and “M. Truszczynski”, or just
one, called “V. Marek and M. Truszczynski”? Clearly, more text processing is
needed to answer this question, processing that is open to errors.
The problems arise from the fact that the HTML document does not con-
tain structural information, that is, information about pieces of the document
and their relationships. In contrast, the XML document is far more eas-

2.1 Introduction 27

ily accessible to machines because every piece of information is described.
Moreover, some forms of their relations are also defined through the nest-
ing structure. For example, the <author> tags appear within the <book>
tags, so they describe properties of the particular book. A machine process-
ing the XML document would be able to deduce that the author element
refers to the enclosing book element, rather than having to infer this fact
from proximity considerations, as in HTML. An additional advantage is that
XML allows the definition of constraints on values (for example, that a year
must be a number of four digits, that the number must be less than 3,000).
XML allows the representation of information that is also machine-accessible.
Of course, we must admit that the HTML representation provides more
than the XML representation: the formatting of the document is also de-
scribed. However, this feature is not a strength but a weakness of HTML:
it must specify the formatting; in fact, the main use of an HTML document
is to display information (apart from linking to other documents). On the
other hand, XML separates content from formatting. The same information can
be displayed in different ways without requiring multiple copies of the same
content; moreover, the content may be used for purposes other than display.
Let us now consider another example, a famous law of physics. Consider
the HTML text
<h2>Relationship force-mass</h2>
<i>F = M × a</i>

and the XML representation
<equation>
<meaning>Relationship force-mass</meaning>
<leftside>F</leftside>
<rightside>M × a</rightside>
</equation>

If we compare the HTML document to the previous HTML document, we
notice that both use basically the same tags. That is not surprising, since
they are predefined. In contrast, the second XML document uses completely
different tags from the first XML document. This observation is related to
the intended use of representations. HTML representations are intended to
display information, so the set of tags is fixed: lists, bold, color, and so on.
In XML we may use information in various ways, and it is up to the user to
define a vocabulary suitable for the application. Therefore, XML is a metalan-
guage for markup: it does not have a fixed set of tags but allows users to define tags
of their own.


Just as people cannot communicate effectively if they don’t use a common
language, applications on the WWW must agree on common vocabularies
if they need to communicate and collaborate. Communities and business
sectors are in the process of defining their specialized vocabularies, creat-
ing XML applications (or extensions; thus the term extensible in the name of
XML). Such XML applications have been defined in various domains, for
example, mathematics (MathML), bioinformatics (BSML), human resources
(HRML), astronomy (AML), news (NewsML), and investment (IRML).
Also, the W3C has defined various languages on top of XML, such as SVG
and SMIL. This approach has also been taken for RDF (see chapter 3).
It should be noted that XML can serve as a uniform data exchange format
between applications. In fact, XML’s use as a data exchange format between
applications nowadays far outstrips its originally intended use as document
markup language. Companies often need to retrieve information from their
customers and business partners, and update their corporate databases ac-
cordingly. If there is not an agreed common standard like XML, then special-
ized processing and querying software must be developed for each partner
separately, leading to technical overhead; moreover, the software must be
updated every time a partner decides to change its own database format.

Chapter Overview
This chapter presents the main features of XML and associated languages. It
is organized as follows:

• Section 2.2 describes the XML language in more detail, and section 2.3
describes the structuring of XML documents.

• In relational databases the structure of tables must be defined. Similarly,
the structure of an XML document must be defined. This can be done
by writing a DTD (Document Type Definition), the older approach, or an
XML schema, the modern approach that will gradually replace DTDs.

• Section 2.4 describes namespaces, which support the modularization of
DTDs and XML schemas.

• Section 2.5 is devoted to the accessing and querying of XML documents,
using XPath.

• Finally, section 2.6 shows how XML documents can be transformed to be
displayed (or for other purposes) using XSL and XSLT.


2.2 The XML Language
An XML document consists of a prolog, a number of elements, and an optional
epilog (not discussed here).

2.2.1 Prolog
The prolog consists of an XML declaration and an optional reference to ex-
ternal structuring documents. Here is an example of an XML declaration:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16"?>

It specifies that the current document is an XML document, and defines the
version and the character encoding used in the particular system (such as
UTF-8, UTF-16, and ISO 8859-1). The character encoding is not mandatory,
but its specification is considered good practice. Sometimes we also specify
whether the document is self-contained, that is, whether it does not refer to
external structuring documents:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16" standalone="no"?>

A reference to external structuring documents looks like this:
<!DOCTYPE book SYSTEM "book.dtd">

Here the structuring information is found in a local file called book.dtd.
Instead, the reference might be a URL. If only a locally recognized name or
only a URL is used, then the label SYSTEM is used. If, however, one wishes
to give both a local name and a URL, then the label PUBLIC should be used
instead.

2.2.2 Elements
XML elements represent the “things” the XML document talks about, such
as books, authors, and publishers. They compose the main concept of XML
documents. An element consists of an opening tag, its content, and a closing
tag. For example,
<lecturer>David Billington</lecturer>

Tag names can be chosen almost freely; there are very few restrictions. The
most important ones are that the first character must be a letter, an under-
score, or a colon; and that no name may begin with the string “xml” in any
combination of cases (such as “Xml” and “xML”).


The content may be text, or other elements, or nothing. For example,

<lecturer>
<name>David Billington</name>
<phone>+61-7-3875 507</phone>
</lecturer>

If there is no content, then the element is called empty. An empty element
like

<lecturer></lecturer>

can be abbreviated as

<lecturer/>

2.2.3 Attributes
An empty element is not necessarily meaningless, because it may have some
properties in terms of attributes. An attribute is a name-value pair inside the
opening tag of an element:

<lecturer name="David Billington" phone="+61-7-3875 507"/>

Here is an example of attributes for a nonempty element:

<order orderNo="23456" customer="John Smith"
date="October 15, 2002">
<item itemNo="a528" quantity="1"/>
<item itemNo="c817" quantity="3"/>
</order>

The same information could have been written as follows, replacing at-
tributes by nested elements:

<order>
<orderNo>23456</orderNo>
<customer>John Smith</customer>
<date>October 15, 2002</date>
<item>
<itemNo>a528</itemNo>
<quantity>1</quantity>
</item>

<item>
<itemNo>c817</itemNo>
<quantity>3</quantity>
</item>
</order>

When to use elements and when attributes is often a matter of taste. How-
ever, note that attributes cannot be nested.

2.2.4 Comments
A comment is a piece of text that is to be ignored by the parser. It has the
form


2.2.5 Processing Instructions (PIs)
PIs provide a mechanism for passing information to an application about
how to handle elements. The general form is
<?target instruction?>

For example,
<?stylesheet type="text/css" href="mystyle.css"?>

PIs offer procedural possibilities in an otherwise declarative environment.

2.2.6 Well-Formed XML Documents
An XML document is well-formed if it is syntactically correct. The following
are some syntactic rules:

• There is only one outermost element in the document (called the root ele-
ment).
• Each element contains an opening and a corresponding closing tag.
• Tags may not overlap, as in
<author><name>Lee Hong</author></name>.
• Attributes within an element have unique names.
• Element and tag names must be permissible.


2.2.7 Tree Model of XML Documents
It is possible to represent well-formed XML documents as trees; thus trees
provide a formal data model for XML. This representation is often instruc-
tive. As an example, consider the following document:

<!DOCTYPE email SYSTEM "email.dtd">
<email>
<head>
<from name="Michael Maher"
address="michaelmaher@cs.gu.edu.au"/>
<to name="Grigoris Antoniou"
address="grigoris@cs.unibremen.de"/>
<subject>Where is your draft?</subject>
</head>
<body>
Grigoris, where is the draft of the paper
you promised me last week?
</body>
</email>

Figure 2.1 shows the tree representation of this XML document. It is an or-
dered labeled tree:

• There is exactly one root.

• There are no cycles.

• Each node, other than the root, has exactly one parent.

• Each node has a label.

• The order of elements is important.

However, whereas the order of elements is important, the order of attributes
is not. So, the following two elements are equivalent:

<person lastname="Woo" firstname="Jason"/>
<person firstname="Jason" lastname="Woo"/>

This aspect is not represented properly in the tree. In general, we would
require a more reﬁned tree concept; for example, we should also differenti-
ate between the different types of nodes (element node, attribute node, etc.).

2.3 Structuring 33

Root

email

head body

from to subject

name address name address
Grigoris,
where is the
draft of the
paper you
Michael michaelmaher@ Grigoris grigoris@ Where is promised me
Maher cs.gu.edu.au Antoniou cs.unibremen.de your draft? last week?

Figure 2.1 Tree representation of an XML document

However, here we use graphs as illustrations, so we do not go into further
detail.
Figure 2.1 also shows the difference between the root (representing the
XML document), and the root element, in our case the email element. This
distinction will play a role when we discuss addressing and querying XML
documents in section 2.5.

2.3 Structuring

An XML document is well-formed if it respects certain syntactic rules. How-
ever, those rules say nothing specific about the structure of the document.
Now, imagine two applications that try to communicate, and that they wish
to use the same vocabulary. For this purpose it is necessary to define all
the element and attribute names that may be used. Moreover, the structure
should also be defined: what values an attribute may take, which elements
may or must occur within other elements, and so on.
In the presence of such structuring information we have an enhanced pos-
sibility of document validation. We say that an XML document is valid if it


is well-formed, uses structuring information, and respects that structuring
information.
There are two ways of defining the structure of XML documents: DTDs,
the older and more restricted way, and XML Schema, which offers extended
possibilities, mainly for the definition of data types.

2.3.1 DTDs
External and Internal DTDs

The components of a DTD can be defined in a separate file (external DTD) or
within the XML document itself (internal DTD). Usually it is better to use ex-
ternal DTDs, because their definitions can be used across several documents;
otherwise duplication is inevitable, and the maintenance of consistency over
time becomes difficult.

Elements

Consider the element

<lecturer>
<phone>+61-7-3875 507</phone>
</lecturer>

from the previous section. A DTD for this element type1 looks like this:

<!ELEMENT lecturer (name,phone)>
<!ELEMENT name (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT phone (#PCDATA)>

The meaning of this DTD is as follows:

• The element types lecturer, name, and phone may be used in the doc-
ument.

• A lecturer element contains a name element and a phone element, in
that order.

1. The distinction between the element type lecturer and a particular element of this type,
such as David Billington, should be clear. All particular elements of type lecturer (re-
ferred to as lecturer elements) share the same structure, which is defined here.

2.3 Structuring 35

• A name element and a phone element may have any content. In DTDs,
#PCDATA is the only atomic type for elements.
We express that a lecturer element contains either a name element or a
phone element as follows:
<!ELEMENT lecturer (name|phone)>

It gets more difficult when we wish to specify that a lecturer element con-
tains a name element and a phone element in any order. We can only use the
trick
<!ELEMENT lecturer ((name,phone)|(phone,name))>

However, this approach suffers from practical limitations (imagine ten ele-
ments in any order).

Attributes

Consider the element
<order orderNo="23456" customer="John Smith"
date="October 15, 2002">
<item itemNo="a528" quantity="1"/>
<item itemNo="c817" quantity="3"/>
</order>

from the previous section. A DTD for it looks like this:
<!ELEMENT order (item+)>
<!ATTLIST order
orderNo ID #REQUIRED
customer CDATA #REQUIRED
date CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT item EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST item
itemNo ID #REQUIRED
quantity CDATA #REQUIRED
comments CDATA #IMPLIED>

Compared to the previous example, a new aspect is that the item element
type is defined to be empty. Another new aspect is the appearance of + after
item in the definition of the order element type. It is one of the cardinality
operators:


?: appears zero times or once.

*: appears zero or more times.
+: appears one or more times.

No cardinality operator means exactly once.
In addition to defining elements, we have to define attributes. This is done
in an attribute list. The first component is the name of the element type to
which the list applies, followed by a list of triplets of attribute name, attribute
type, and value type. An attribute name is a name that may be used in an
XML document using a DTD.

Attribute Types

Attribute types are similar to predefined data types, but the selection is very
limited. The most important attribute types are

• CDATA, a string (sequence of characters),

• ID, a name that is unique across the entire XML document,

• IDREF, a reference to another element with an ID attribute carrying the
same value as the IDREF attribute,

• IDREFS, a series of IDREFs,

• (v1 | . . . |vn ), an enumeration of all possible values.

The selection is not satisfactory. For example, dates and numbers cannot be
specified; they have to be interpreted as strings (CDATA); thus their specific
structure cannot be enforced.

Value Types

There are four value types:

• #REQUIRED. The attribute must appear in every occurrence of the ele-
ment type in the XML document. In the previous example, itemNo and
quantity must always appear within an item element.

• #IMPLIED. The appearance of the attribute is optional. In the example,
comments are optional.

2.3 Structuring 37

• #FIXED "value". Every element must have this attribute, which has
always the value given after #FIXED in the DTD. A value given in an XML
document is meaningless because it is overridden by the fixed value.

• "value". This specifies the default value for the attribute. If a specific
value appears in the XML document, it overrides the default value. For
example, the default encoding of the e-mail system may be “mime”, but
“binhex” will be used if specified explicitly by the user.

Referencing

Here is an example for the use of IDREF and IDREFS. First we give a DTD:

<!ELEMENT family (person*)>
<!ELEMENT person (name)>
<!ELEMENT name (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST person
id ID #REQUIRED
mother IDREF #IMPLIED
father IDREF #IMPLIED
children IDREFS #IMPLIED>

An XML element that respects this DTD is the following:

<family>

<person id="bob" mother="mary" father="peter">
<name>Bob Marley</name>
</person>

<person id="bridget" mother="mary">
<name>Bridget Jones</name>
</person>

<person id="mary" children="bob bridget">
<name>Mary Poppins</name>
</person>

<person id="peter" children="bob">
<name>Peter Marley</name>
</person>

</family>


Readers should study the references between persons.

XML Entities

An XML entity can play several roles, such as a placeholder for repeatable
characters (a type of shorthand), a section of external data (e.g., XML or
other), or as a part of a declaration for elements. A typical use of internal
entities, and the one used in subsequent chapters of this book, is similar to
constants in a programming language. For example, suppose that a doc-
ument has several copyright notices that refer to the current year. Then it
makes sense to declare an entity

<!ENTITY thisyear "2007">

Then, at each place the current year needs to be included, we can use the
entity reference &thisyear; instead. That way, updating the year value to
“2008” for the whole document will only mean changing the entity declara-
tion.

A Concluding Example

As a ﬁnal example we give a DTD for the email element from section 2.2.7:

<!ELEMENT email (head,body)>
<!ELEMENT head (from,to+,cc*,subject)>
<!ELEMENT from EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST from
name CDATA #IMPLIED
address CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT to EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST to
name CDATA #IMPLIED
<!ELEMENT cc EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST cc
name CDATA #IMPLIED
<!ELEMENT subject (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT body (text,attachment*)>
<!ELEMENT text (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT attachment EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST attachment

2.3 Structuring 39

encoding (mime|binhex) "mime"
file CDATA #REQUIRED>

We go through some interesting parts of this DTD:

• A head element contains a from element, at least one to element, zero or
more cc elements, and a subject element, in that order.

• In from, to, and cc elements the name attribute is not required; the
address attribute, on the other hand, is always required.

• A body element contains a text element, possibly followed by a number
of attachment elements.

• The encoding attribute of an attachment element must have either the
value “mime” or “binhex”, the former being the default value.

We conclude with two more remarks on DTDs. First, a DTD can be inter-
preted as an Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF). For example, the declara-
tion

<!ELEMENT email (head,body)>

is equivalent to the rule

email ::= head body

which means that an e-mail consists of a head followed by a body. And
second, recursive definitions are possible in DTDs. For example,

<!ELEMENT bintree ((bintree root bintree)|emptytree)>

defines binary trees: a binary tree is the empty tree, or consists of a left sub-
tree, a root, and a right subtree.

2.3.2 XML Schema
XML Schema offers a significantly richer language for defining the structure
of XML documents. One of its characteristics is that its syntax is based on
XML itself. This design decision provides a significant improvement in read-
ability, but more important, it also allows significant reuse of technology. It
is no longer necessary to write separate parsers, editors, pretty printers, and
so on, to obtain a separate syntax, as was required for DTDs; any XML will


do. An even more important improvement is the possibility of reusing and
refining schemas. XML Schema allows one to define new types by extend-
ing or restricting already existing ones. In combination with an XML-based
syntax, this feature allows one to build schemas from other schemas, thus
reducing the workload. Finally, XML Schema provides a sophisticated set of
data types that can be used in XML documents (DTDs were limited to strings
only).
An XML schema is an element with an opening tag like

<xsd:schema
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema"
version="1.0">

The element uses the schema of XML Schema found at the W3C Web site.
It is, so to speak, the foundation on which new schemas can be built. The
prefix xsd denotes the namespace of that schema (more on namespaces in
the next section). If the prefix is omitted in the xmlns attribute, then we are
using elements from this namespace by default:

<schema
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema"
version="1.0">

In the following we omit the xsd prefix.
Now we turn to schema elements. Their most important contents are
the definitions of element and attribute types, which are defined using data
types.

Element Types

The syntax of element types is

<element name=". . ."/>

and they may have a number of optional attributes, such as types,

type=". . ."

or cardinality constraints

• minOccurs="x", where x may be any natural number (including zero),

2.3 Structuring 41

• maxOccurs="x", where x may be any natural number (including zero)
or unbounded.

minOccurs and maxOccurs are generalizations of the cardinality operators
?, *, and +, offered by DTDs. When cardinality constraints are not provided
explicitly, minOccurs and maxOccurs have value 1 by default.
Here are a few examples.

<element name="email"/>

<element name="head" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>

<element name="to" minOccurs="1"/>

Attribute Types

The syntax of attribute types is

<attribute name=". . ."/>

and they may have a number of optional attributes, such as types,

type=". . ."

or existence (corresponds to #OPTIONAL and #IMPLIED in DTDs),

use="x", where x may be optional or required or prohibited,

or a default value (corresponds to #FIXED and default values in DTDs).
Here are examples:

<attribute name="id" type="ID" use="required"/>

<attribute name="speaks" type="Language" use="optional"
default="en"/>

Data Types

We have already recognized the very restricted selection of data types as
a key weakness of DTDs. XML Schema provides powerful capabilities for
deﬁning data type. First there is a variety of built-in data types. Here we list a
few:


• Numerical data types, including integer, short, Byte, long, float,
decimal

• String data types, including string, ID, IDREF, CDATA, language

• Date and time data types, including time, date, gMonth, gYear

There are also user-defined data types, comprising simple data types, which can-
not use elements or attributes, and complex data types, which can use elements
and attributes. We discuss complex types first, deferring discussion of simple
data types until we talk about restriction. Complex types are defined from
already existing data types by defining some attributes (if any) and using

• sequence, a sequence of existing data type elements, the appearance of
which in a predefined order is important,

• all, a collection of elements that must appear but the order of which is
not important,

• choice, a collection of elements, of which one will be chosen.

Here is an example:

<complexType name="lecturerType">
<sequence>
<element name="firstname" type="string"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element name="lastname" type="string"/>
</sequence>
<attribute name="title" type="string" use="optional"/>
</complexType>

The meaning is that an element in an XML document that is declared to be
of type lecturerType may have a title attribute; it may also include any
number of firstname elements and must include exactly one lastname
element.

Data Type Extension

Already existing data types can be extended by new elements or attributes.
As an example, we extend the lecturer data type.

2.3 Structuring 43

<complexType name="extendedLecturerType">
<extension base="lecturerType">
<sequence>
<element name="email" type="string"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</sequence>
<attribute name="rank" type="string" use="required"/>
</extension>
</complexType>

In this example, lecturerType is extended by an email element and a
rank attribute. The resulting data type looks like this:

<complexType name="extendedLecturerType">
<sequence>
<element name="lastname" type="string"/>
<element name="email" type="string"
</sequence>
<attribute name="title" type="string" use="optional"/>
<attribute name="rank" type="string" use="required"/>
</complexType>

A hierarchical relationship exists between the original and the extended type.
Instances of the extended type are also instances of the original type. They may
contain additional information, but neither less information nor information
of the wrong type.

Data Type Restriction

An existing data type may also be restricted by adding constraints on certain
values. For example, new type and use attributes may be added, or the
numerical constraints of minOccurs and maxOccurs tightened.
It is important to understand that restriction is not the opposite process
from extension. Restriction is not achieved by deleting elements or attributes.
Therefore, the following hierarchical relationship still holds: Instances of the
restricted type are also instances of the original type. They satisfy at least the
constraints of the original type and some new ones.
As an example, we restrict the lecturer data type as follows:


<complexType name="restrictedLecturerType">
<restriction base="lecturerType">
<sequence>
</sequence>
<attribute name="title" type="string" use="required"/>
</restriction>
</complexType>

The tightened constraints are shown in boldface. Readers should compare
them with the original ones.
Simple data types can also be defined by restricting existing data types.
For example, we can define a type dayOfMonth that admits values from 1
to 31 as follows:

<simpleType name="dayOfMonth">
<restriction base="integer">
<minInclusive value="1"/>
<maxInclusive value="31"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>

It is also possible to define a data type by listing all the possible values. For
example, we can define a data type dayOfWeek as follows:

<simpleType name="dayOfWeek">
<restriction base="string">
<enumeration value="Mon"/>
<enumeration value="Tue"/>
<enumeration value="Wed"/>
<enumeration value="Thu"/>
<enumeration value="Fri"/>
<enumeration value="Sat"/>
<enumeration value="Sun"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>

A Concluding Example

Here we define an XML schema for email, so that it can be compared to the
DTD provided on page 38.

2.3 Structuring 45

<element name="email" type="emailType"/>
<complexType name="emailType">
<sequence>
<element name="head" type="headType"/>
<element name="body" type="bodyType"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>

<complexType name="headType">
<sequence>
<element name="from" type="nameAddress"/>
<element name="to" type="nameAddress"
<element name="cc" type="nameAddress"
<element name="subject" type="string"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>

<complexType name="nameAddress">
<attribute name="name" type="string" use="optional"/>
<attribute name="address" type="string" use="required"/>
</complexType>

<complexType name="bodyType">
<sequence>
<element name="text" type="string"/>
<element name="attachment" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded">
<complexType>
<attribute name="encoding" use="optional"
default="mime">
<simpleType>
<restriction base="string">
<enumeration value="mime"/>
<enumeration value="binhex"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</attribute>
<attribute name="file" type="string"
use="required"/>
</complexType>


</element>
</sequence>
</complexType>

Note that some data types are defined separately and given names, while
others are defined within other types and defined anonymously (the types
for the attachment element and the encoding attribute). In general, if a
type is only used once, it makes sense to define it anonymously for local use.
However, this approach reaches its limitations quickly if nesting becomes too
deep.

2.4 Namespaces
One of the main advantages of using XML as a universal (meta) markup lan-
guage is that information from various sources may be accessed; in technical
terms, an XML document may use more than one DTD or schema. But since
each structuring document was developed independently, name clashes ap-
pear inevitable. If DTD A and DTD B define an element type e in different
ways, a parser that tries to validate an XML document in which an e element
appears must be told which DTD to use for validation purposes.
The technical solution is simple: disambiguation is achieved by using a
different prefix for each DTD or schema. The prefix is separated from the
local name by a colon:

prefix:name

As an example, consider an (imaginary) joint venture of an Australian uni-
versity, say, Griffith University, and an American university, say, University
of Kentucky, to present a unified view for online students. Each university
uses its own terminology, and there are differences. For example, lecturers
in the United States are not considered regular faculty, whereas in Australia
they are (in fact, they correspond to assistant professors in the United States).
The following example shows how disambiguation can be achieved.

<vu:instructors
xmlns:vu="http://www.vu.com/empDTD"
xmlns:gu="http://www.gu.au/empDTD"
xmlns:uky="http://www.uky.edu/empDTD">
<uky:faculty
uky:title="assistant professor"

2.5 Addressing and Querying XML Documents 47

uky:name="John Smith"
uky:department="Computer Science"/>
<gu:academicStaff
gu:title="lecturer"
gu:name="Mate Jones"
gu:school="Information Technology"/>
</vu:instructors>

So, namespaces are declared within an element and can be used in that ele-
ment and any of its children (elements and attributes). A namespace decla-
ration has the form:
xmlns:prefix="location"

where location may be the address of the DTD or schema. If a preﬁx is not
speciﬁed, as in
xmlns="location"

then the location is used by default. For example, the previous example is
equivalent to the following document:
<vu:instructors
xmlns:vu="http://www.vu.com/empDTD"
xmlns="http://www.gu.au/empDTD"
xmlns:uky="http://www.uky.edu/empDTD">
<uky:faculty
uky:title="assistant professor"
uky:name="John Smith"
uky:department="Computer Science"/>
<academicStaff
title="lecturer"
name="Mate Jones"
school="Information Technology"/>
</vu:instructors>

2.5 Addressing and Querying XML Documents
In relational databases, parts of a database can be selected and retrieved us-
ing query languages such as SQL. The same is true for XML documents, for
which there exist a number of proposals for query languages, such as XQL,
XML-QL, and XQuery.


The central concept of XML query languages is a path expression that spec-
iﬁes how a node, or a set of nodes, in the tree representation of the XML
document can be reached. We introduce path expressions in the form of
XPath because they can be used for purposes other than querying, namely,
for transforming XML documents.
XPath is a language for addressing parts of an XML document. It operates
on the tree data model of XML and has a non-XML syntax. The key concepts
are path expressions. They can be

• absolute (starting at the root of the tree); syntactically they begin with the
symbol /, which refers to the root of the document, situated one level
above the root element of the document;

• relative to a context node.

Consider the following XML document:

<!DOCTYPE library PUBLIC "library.dtd">
<library location="Bremen">
<author name="Henry Wise">
<book title="Artificial Intelligence"/>
<book title="Modern Web Services"/>
<book title="Theory of Computation"/>
</author>
<author name="William Smart">
<book title="Artificial Intelligence"/>
</author>
<author name="Cynthia Singleton">
<book title="The Semantic Web"/>
<book title="Browser Technology Revised"/>
</author>
</library>

Its tree representation is shown in ﬁgure 2.2.
In the following we illustrate the capabilities of XPath with a few examples
of path expressions.

1. Address all author elements.

/library/author

2.5
Addressing and Querying XML Documents
root
Figure 2.2

library
Tree representation of a library document

location author author author

name book book book name book name book book

Bremen
Henry title title title William title Cynthia title title
Wise Smart Singleton

Artificial Modern Theory Artificial The Browser
Intelligence Web of Intelligence Semantic Technology
Services Computation Web Revised

49


This path expression addresses all author elements that are children of
the library element node, which resides immediately below the root.
Using a sequence /t1 / . . . /tn , where each ti+1 is a child node of ti , we
define a path through the tree representation.

2. An alternative solution for the previous example is

//author

Here // says that we should consider all elements in the document and
check whether they are of type author. In other words, this path expres-
sion addresses all author elements anywhere in the document. Because
of the specific structure of our XML document, this expression and the
previous one lead to the same result; however, they may lead to different
results, in general.

3. Address the location attribute nodes within library element nodes.

/library/@location

The symbol @ is used to denote attribute nodes.

4. Address all title attribute nodes within book elements anywhere in the
document, which have the value “Artificial Intelligence” (see
figure 2.3).

//book/@title=[.="Artificial Intelligence"]

5. Address all books with title “Artificial Intelligence” (see figure
2.4).

//book[@title="Artificial Intelligence"]

We call a test within square brackets a filter expression. It restricts the set of
addressed nodes.
Note the difference between this expression and the one in query 4. Here
we address book elements the title of which satisfies a certain condition.
In query 4 we collected title attribute nodes of book elements. A com-
parison of figures 2.3 and 2.4 illustrates the difference.

2.5
Addressing and Querying XML Documents
root
Figure 2.3

library
Tree representation of query 4



Bremen


51

52
root
Figure 2.4

library
Tree representation of query 5


2

Structured Web Documents: XML
Bremen


2.6 Processing 53

6. Address the first author element node in the XML document.

//author[1]

7. Address the last book element within the first author element node in
the document.

//author[1]/book[last()]

8. Address all book element nodes without a title attribute.

//book[not (@title)]

These examples are meant to give a feeling of the expressive power of path
expressions. In general, a path expression consists of a series of steps, sep-
arated by slashes. A step consists of an axis specifier, a node test, and an
optional predicate.
• An axis specifier determines the tree relationship between the nodes to be
addressed and the context node. Examples are parent, ancestor, child (the
default), sibling, attribute node. // is such an axis specifier; it denotes
descendant or self.
• A node test specifies which nodes to address. The most common node tests
are element names (which may use namespace information), but there
are others. For example, * addresses all element nodes, comment() all
comment nodes, and so on.
• Predicates (or filter expressions) are optional and are used to refine the set of
addressed nodes. For example, the expression [1] selects the first node,
[position()=last()] selects the last node, [position() mod 2 =
0] the even nodes, and so on.
We have only presented the abbreviated syntax, XPath actually has a more
complicated full syntax. References are found at the end of this chapter.

2.6 Processing
So far we have not provided any information about how XML documents
can be displayed. Such information is necessary because unlike HTML doc-
uments, XML documents do not contain formatting information. The advan-
tage is that a given XML document can be presented in various ways, when
different style sheets are applied to it. For example, consider the XML element


<author>
<name>Grigoris Antoniou</name>
<affiliation>University of Bremen</affiliation>
<email>ga@tzi.de</email>
</author>

The output might look like the following, if a style sheet is used:

Grigoris Antoniou
University of Bremen
ga@tzi.de

Or it might appear as follows, if a different style sheet is used:

Grigoris Antoniou
University of Bremen

ga@tzi.de

Style sheets can be written in various languages, for example, in CSS2 (cas-
cading style sheets level 2). The other possibility is XSL (extensible stylesheet
language).
XSL includes both a transformation language (XSLT) and a formatting lan-
guage. Each of these is, of course, an XML application. XSLT specifies rules
with which an input XML document is transformed to another XML doc-
ument, an HTML document, or plain text. The output document may use
the same DTD or schema as the input document, or it may use a completely
different vocabulary.
XSLT (XSL transformations) can be used independently of the format-
ting language. Its ability to move data and metadata from one XML rep-
resentation to another makes it a most valuable tool for XML-based applica-
tions. Generally XSLT is chosen when applications that use different DTDs or
schemas need to communicate. XSLT is a tool that can be used for machine-
processing of content without any regard to displaying the information for
people to read. Despite this fact, in the following we use XSLT only to display
XML documents.
One way of defining the presentation of an XML document is to trans-
form it into an HTML document. Here is an example. We define an XSLT
document that will be applied to the author example.

2.6 Processing 55

<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">

<xsl:template match="/author">
<html>
<head><title>An author< /title></head>
<body bgcolor="white">
<b><xsl:value-of select="name"/></b><br></br>
<xsl:value-of select="affiliation"/><br></br>
<i><xsl:value-of select="email"/></i>
</body>
</html>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>

The output of this style sheet, applied to the previous XML document, pro-
duces the following HTML document (which now defines the presentation):

<html>
<head><title>An author< /title></head>
<b>Grigoris Antoniou</b><br>
University of Bremen<br>
<i>ga@tzi.de</i>
</body>
</html>

Let us make a few observations. XSLT documents are XML documents. So
XSLT resides on top of XML (that is, it is an XML application). The XSLT
document defines a template; in this case an HTML document, with some
placeholders for content to be inserted (see figure 2.5).
In the previous XSLT document, xsl:value-of retrieves the value of
an element and copies it into the output document. That is, it places some
content into the template.
Now suppose we had an XML document with details of several authors. It
would clearly be a waste of effort to treat each author element separately. In
such cases, a special template is defined for author elements, which is used
by the main template. We illustrate this approach referring to the following
input document:

<authors>

<html>
<head><title>An author</title></head>
<b>...</b><br>
...<br>
<i>...</i>
</body>
</html>

Figure 2.5 A template

<author>
<name>Grigoris Antoniou</name>
<affiliation>University of Bremen</affiliation>
<email>ga@tzi.de</email>
</author>
<author>
<affiliation>Griffith University</affiliation>
<email>david@gu.edu.net</email>
</author>
</authors>

We deﬁne the following XSLT document:


<xsl:template match="/">
<html>
<head><title>Authors< /title></head>
<xsl:apply-templates select="authors"/>

</body>
</html>
</xsl:template>

2.6 Processing 57

<xsl:template match="authors">
<xsl:apply-templates select="author"/>
</xsl:template>

<xsl:template match="author">
<h2><xsl:value-of select="name"/></h2>
Affiliation:<xsl:value-of select="affiliation"/><br>
Email: <xsl:value-of select="email"/>
<p>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>

The output produced is

<html>
<head><title>Authors< /title></head>
<h2>Grigoris Antoniou</h2>
Affiliation: University of Bremen<br>
Email: ga@tzi.de
<p>
<h2>David Billington</h2>
Affiliation: Griffith University<br>
Email: david@gu.edu.net
<p>
</body>
</html>

The xsl:apply-templates element causes all children of the context
node to be matched against the selected path expression. For example, if the
current template applies to / (that is, if the current context node is the root),
then the element xsl:apply-templates applies to the root element, in
this case, the authors element (remember that / is located above the root
element). And if the current node is the authors element, then the ele-
ment xsl:apply-templates select="author" causes the template for
the author elements to be applied to all author children of the authors
element.
It is good practice to deﬁne a template for each element type in the doc-
ument. Even if no speciﬁc processing is applied to certain elements, in our
example authors, the xsl:apply-templates element should be used.
That way, we work our way from the root to the leaves of the tree, and all
templates are indeed applied.


Now we turn our attention to attributes. Suppose we wish to process the
element

<person firstname="John" lastname="Woo"/>

with XSLT. Let us attempt the easiest task imaginable, a transformation of
the element to itself. One might be tempted to write

<xsl:template match="person">
<person
firstname="<xsl:value-of select="@firstname">"
lastname="<xsl:value-of select="@lastname">"/>
</xsl:template>

However, this is not a well-formed XML document because tags are not al-
lowed within the values of attributes. But the intention is clear; we wish to
add attribute values into the template. In XSLT, data enclosed in curly brack-
ets take the place of the xsl:value-of element. The correct way to deﬁne
a template for this example is as follows:

<xsl:template match="person">
<person
firstname="{@firstname}"
lastname="{@lastname}"/>
</xsl:template>

Finally, we give a transformation example from one XML document to an-
other, which does not specify the display. Again we use the authors docu-
ment as input and deﬁne an XSLT document as follows:


<xsl:template match="/">
<authors>
<xsl:apply-templates select="authors"/>
</authors>
</xsl:template>

<xsl:template match="authors">
<xsl:apply-templates select="author"/>

2.7 Summary 59

</xsl:template>

<xsl:template match="author">
<author>
<name><xsl:value-of select="name"/></name>
<contact>
<institute>
<xsl:value-of select="affiliation"/>
</institute>
<email><xsl:value-of select="email"/></email>
</contact>
</author>
</xsl:template>

</xsl:stylesheet>

The tree representation of the output document is shown in ﬁgure 2.6 to il-
lustrate the tree transformation character of XSLT.

2.7 Summary
• XML is a metalanguage that allows users to deﬁne markup for their doc-
uments using tags.

• Nesting of tags introduces structure. The structure of documents can be
enforced using schemas or DTDs.

• XML separates content and structure from formatting.

• XML is the de facto standard for the representation of structured informa-
tion on the Web and supports machine processing of information.

• XML supports the exchange of structured information across different ap-
plications through markup, structure, and transformations.

• XML is supported by query languages.

Some points discussed in subsequent chapters include

• The nesting of tags does not have standard meaning.

• The semantics of XML documents is not accessible to machines, only to
people.


root

authors

author author

name affiliation email name affiliation email

Grigoris University ga@tzi.de David Griffith david@gu.edu.net
Antoniou of Bremen Billington University

root

authors

author author

name contact name contact

Grigoris David
Antoniou institute email Billington institute email

University ga@tzi.de Griffith david@gu.edu.net
of Bremen University

Figure 2.6 XSLT as tree transformation


• Collaboration and exchange are supported if there is an underlying
shared understanding of the vocabulary. XML is well-suited for close col-
laboration, where domain- or community-based vocabularies are used. It
is not so well-suited for global communication.

Suggested Reading
Generally the ofﬁcial W3C documents are found at <http://www.w3.org/>.
Here we give a few of the most important links, together with some other
useful references.

• T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, E. Maler, and F. Yergeau, eds.
Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0, 4th ed. W3C Recommendation.
September 29, 2006. <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/>.

• T. Bray, D. Hollander, A. Layman, and R. Tobin, eds. Namespaces in XML
1.0, 2nd ed. W3C Recommendation. August 16, 2006.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/>.

• J. Clark, and S. DeRose, eds. XML Path Language (XPath) Version 1.0.
W3C Recommendation, November 16, 1999.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath>.

• A. Berglund, ed. Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) Version 1.1. W3C
Recommendation. December 5, 2006. <http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/>.

• J. Clark, ed. XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0. W3C Recommenda-
tion. November 16, 1999. <http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt>.

Recent trends in XML querying may be found at

• <http://www.w3.org/XML/Query/>.

XML has attracted a lot of attention in industry, and many books covering
the technicalities in depth exist. Two books for further reading on XML are

• E. R. Harold. XML 1.1 Bible, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley 2004.

• W. Willard. HTML: A Beginner’s Guide, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill
(Osborne), 2006.

Several sites have teaching material on XML and related technologies:


• <http://www.xml.com/>, where the following papers may be found:

– N. Walsh. A Technical Introduction to XML. October 3, 1998.
– T. Bray. XML Namespaces by Example. January 19, 1999.
– E. van der Vlist. Using W3C XML Schema. October 17, 2001.
– G. Holman. What Is XSLT? (I): The Context of XSL Transformations
and the XML Path Language. August 16, 2000.

• <http://www.w3schools.com/>.

• <http://www.topxml.com/>.

• <http://www.zvon.org/>.

• <http://www.xslt.com/>.

Exercises and Projects
2.1 In our e-mail example we specified the body of an e-mail to contain
exactly one text and a number of attachments. Modify the schema to
allow for an arbitrary number of texts and attachments in any order.

2.2 Search the Web for XML applications, with keywords such as “XML
DTD” or “XML schema”.

2.3 Read the official W3C documents on namespaces, XPath, XSL, and
XSLT. Identify some issues that were not covered in this chapter, in
particular, the general notation and capabilities of XPath. Write small
documents that use these new aspects.

2.4 In this chapter we did not cover links, a crucial ingredient of Web
pages. XLink provides linking capabilities that go beyond HTML links.
Check out XLink on the official W3C pages. Note that simple links can
be created as follows:

<mylink xmlns:xlink=http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="target.html">
Click here </mylink>

2.5 Discuss the relevance of XSLT for defining views on Web sites (“views”
hide certain parts of Web sites and display only those parts meant for
the particular user’s viewing).


2.6 Draw a comparison between document markup using XML and using
TeX/LaTeX, also between XML transformations and BibTeX.

For the following projects you are asked to “design a vocabulary”. This
includes designing a vocabulary, writing a corresponding DTD or schema,
writing sample XML documents, and transforming these documents into
HTML and viewing them in a Web browser.

2.7 Design a vocabulary to model (parts of) your workplace. For example,
if you are at a university, design a vocabulary about courses, teaching
staff, rooms, publications, and so on.

2.8 For one of your hobbies, design a vocabulary for exchanging informa-
tion with others who share your interest.

2.9 Perhaps you read books of certain categories? Design a vocabulary for
describing them and communicating about them with other people.

2.10 Are you an investor? Design a vocabulary about available investment
options and their properties (for example, risk, return, investor age,
investor character).

2.11 Do you like cooking? Design a vocabulary about foods, tastes, and
recipes.

2.12 For each of the above vocabularies, consider writing a second XSL style
sheet, this time not translating the XML to HTML but instead to a
different markup language, such as WML, the markup language for
WAP-enabled mobile telephones. Such a style sheet should be geared
toward displaying the information on small mobile devices with lim-
ited bandwidth and limited screen space. You could use one of the
freely available WAP simulators to display the results.

3 Describing Web Resources: RDF

3.1 Introduction

XML is a universal metalanguage for deﬁning markup. It provides a uni-
form framework, and a set of tools like parsers, for interchange of data and
metadata between applications. However, XML does not provide any means
of talking about the semantics (meaning) of data. For example, there is no
intended meaning associated with the nesting of tags; it is up to each appli-
cation to interpret the nesting. Let us illustrate this point using an example.
Suppose we want to express the following fact:

David Billington is a lecturer of Discrete Mathematics.

There are various ways of representing this sentence in XML. Three possibil-
ities are

<course name="Discrete Mathematics">
</course>

<lecturer name="David Billington">
<teaches>Discrete Mathematics</teaches>
</lecturer>

<teachingOffering>
<course>Discrete Mathematics</course>
</teachingOffering>

65

66 3 Describing Web Resources: RDF

Note that the first two formalizations include essentially an opposite nesting
although they represent the same information. So there is no standard way
of assigning meaning to tag nesting.
Although often called a “language” (and we commit this sin ourselves in
this book), RDF (Resource Description Framework) is essentially a data model.
Its basic building block is an object-attribute-value triple, called a statement.
The preceding sentence about Billington is such a statement. Of course, an
abstract data model needs a concrete syntax in order to be represented and
transmitted, and RDF has been given a syntax in XML. As a result, it inher-
its the benefits associated with XML. However, it is important to understand
that other syntactic representations of RDF, not based on XML, are also pos-
sible; XML-based syntax is not a necessary component of the RDF model.
RDF is domain-independent in that no assumptions about a particular do-
main of use are made. It is up to users to define their own terminology in a
schema language called RDF Schema (RDFS). The name RDF Schema is now
widely regarded as an unfortunate choice. It suggests that RDF Schema has a
similar relation to RDF as XML Schema has to XML, but in fact this is not the
case. XML Schema constrains the structure of XML documents, whereas RDF
Schema defines the vocabulary used in RDF data models. In RDFS we can
define the vocabulary, specify which properties apply to which kinds of ob-
jects and what values they can take, and describe the relationships between
objects. For example, we can write

Lecturer is a subclass of academic staff member.

This sentence means that all lecturers are also academic staff members. It is
important to understand that there is an intended meaning associated with
“is a subclass of”. It is not up to the application to interpret this term; its in-
tended meaning must be respected by all RDF processing software. Through
fixing the semantics of certain ingredients, RDF/RDFS enables us to model
particular domains.
We illustrate the importance of RDF Schema with an example. Consider
the following XML elements:

<academicStaffMember>Grigoris Antoniou</academicStaffMember>
<professor>Michael Maher</professor>
<course name="Discrete Mathematics">
<isTaughtBy>David Billington</isTaughtBy>
</course>


Suppose we want to collect all academic staff members. A path expression
in Xpath might be

//academicStaffMember

The result is only Grigoris Antoniou. While correct from the XML viewpoint,
this answer is semantically unsatisfactory. Human readers would have also
included Michael Maher and David Billington in the answer because

• all professors are academic staff members (that is, professor is a sub-
class of academicStaffMember);

• courses are only taught by academic staff members.

This kind of information makes use of the semantic model of the particular
domain and cannot be represented in XML or in RDF but is typical of know-
ledge written in RDF Schema. Thus RDFS makes semantic information machine-
accessible, in accordance with the Semantic Web vision.

Chapter Overview
Sections 3.2 and 3.3 discuss the basic ideas of RDF and its XML-based syntax,
and sections 3.4 and 3.5 introduce the basic concepts and the language of RDF
Schema.
Section 3.6 shows the deﬁnition of some elements of the namespaces of
RDF and RDF Schema. Section 3.7 presents an axiomatic semantics for RDF
and RDFS. This semantics uses predicate logic and formalizes the intuitive
meaning of the modeling primitives of the languages.
Section 3.8 provides a direct semantics based on inference rules, and sec-
tion 3.9 is devoted to the querying of RDF/RDFS documents using SPARQL.

3.2 RDF: Basic Ideas
The fundamental concepts of RDF are resources, properties, and statements.

3.2.1 Resources
We can think of a resource as an object, a “thing” we want to talk about.
Resources may be authors, books, publishers, places, people, hotels, rooms,
search queries, and so on. Every resource has a URI, a Uniform Resource
Identiﬁer. A URI can be a URL (Uniform Resource Locator, or Web address)


or some other kind of unique identifier; note that an identifier does not nec-
essarily enable access to a resource. URI schemes have been defined not only
for Web locations but also for such diverse objects as telephone numbers,
ISBN numbers, and geographic locations. There has been a long discussion
about the nature of URIs, even touching philosophical questions (for exam-
ple, what is an appropriate unique identifier for a person?), but we will not
go into detail here. In general, we assume that a URI is the identifier of a Web
resource.

3.2.2 Properties
Properties are a special kind of resources; they describe relations between
resources, for example “written by”, “age”, “title”, and so on. Properties in
RDF are also identified by URIs (and in practice by URLs). This idea of using
URIs to identify “things” and the relations between them is quite impor-
tant. This choice gives us in one stroke a global, worldwide, unique naming
scheme. The use of such a scheme greatly reduces the homonym problem
that has plagued distributed data representation until now.

3.2.3 Statements
Statements assert the properties of resources. A statement is an object-
attribute-value triple, consisting of a resource, a property, and a value. Val-
ues can either be resources or literals. Literals are atomic values (strings), the
structure of which we do not discuss further.

3.2.4 Three Views of a Statement
An example of a statement is

David Billington is the owner of the Web page
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/∼db.

The simplest way of interpreting this statement is to use the definition and
consider the triple

(http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~db,
http://www.mydomain.org/site-owner, #DavidBillington).

We can think of this triple (x, P, y) as a logical formula P (x, y), where the
binary predicate P relates the object x to the object y. In fact, RDF offers only


site−owner
www.cit.gu.edu.au/~db #DavidBillington

Figure 3.1 Graphic representation of a triple

binary predicates (properties). Note that the property “site-owner” and both of
the two objects are identified by URLs.
A second view is graph-based. Figure 3.1 shows the graph corresponding
to the preceding statement. It is a directed graph with labeled nodes and
arcs; the arcs are directed from the resource (the subject of the statement) to
the value (the object of the statement). This kind of graph is known in the
Artificial Intelligence community as a semantic net.
As we have said, the value of a statement may be a resource. Therefore, it
may be linked to other resources. Consider the following triples:

(http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~db,
http://www.mydomain.org/site-owner,
#DavidBillington)

(#DavidBillington, http://www.mydomain.org/phone,
"3875507")

(#DavidBillington, http://www.mydomain.org/uses,
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~arock/defeasible/Defeasible.cgi)

(http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~arock/defeasible/Defeasible.cgi,
http://www.mydomain.org/site-owner, ‘‘Andrew Rock’’)

The graphic representation is found in figure 3.2.
Graphs are a powerful tool for human understanding. But the Semantic
Web vision requires machine-accessible and machine-processable represen-
tations.
Therefore, there is a third representation possibility based on XML. Ac-
cording to this possibility, an RDF document is represented by an XML ele-
ment with the tag rdf:RDF. The content of this element is a number of de-
scriptions, which use rdf:Description tags. Every description makes a
statement about a resource, which is identified in one of three different ways:

• An about attribute, referencing an existing resource


site−owner phone
www.cit.gu.edu.au/~db #DavidBillington 3875 507

uses

site−owner
Andrew Rock www.cit.gu.edu.au/~arock/defeasible/Defeasible.cgi

Figure 3.2 A semantic net

• An ID attribute, creating a new resource

• Without a name, creating an anonymous resource

We will discuss the XML-based syntax of RDF in section 3.3; here we just
show the representation of our first statement:

<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:mydomain="http://www.mydomain.org/my-rdf-ns">

<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~db">
<mydomain:site-owner rdf:resource="#DavidBillington"/>
</rdf:Description>

</rdf:RDF>

The first line specifies that we are using XML. In the following examples we
omit this line.
The rdf:Description element makes a statement about the resource
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/∼db. Within the description the property
is used as a tag, and the content is the value of the property.
The descriptions are given in a certain order; in other words, the XML
syntax imposes a serialization. The order of descriptions (or resources) is not
significant according to the abstract model of RDF. This again shows that the
graph model is the real data model of RDF and that XML is just a possible
serial representation of the graph.


3.2.5 Reification
In RDF it is possible to make statements about statements, such as

Grigoris believes that David Billington is the creator of the Web page
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/∼db.

This kind of statement can be used to describe belief or trust in other state-
ments, which is important in some kinds of applications. The solution is to
assign a unique identifier to each statement, which can be used to refer to the
statement. RDF allows this using a reification mechanism (see section 3.3.6).
The key idea is to introduce an auxiliary object, say, belief1, and relate it
to each of the three parts of the original statement through the properties
subject, predicate, and object. In the preceding example the subject of belief1
would be David Billington, the predicate would be creator, and the object
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/∼db. Note that this rather cumbersome approach is
necessary because there are only triples in RDF; therefore we cannot add an
identifier directly to a triple (then it would be a quadruple).

3.2.6 Data Types
Consider the telephone number “3875507”. A program reading this RDF
data model cannot know if the literal “3875507” is to be interpreted as an
integer (an object which it would make sense to, say, divide by 17) or as a
string, or indeed if it is a integer, whether it is in decimal or hexadecimal
representation. A program can only know how to interpret this resource if
the application is explicitly given the information that the literal is intended
to represent a number, and which number the literal is supposed to represent.
The common practice in programming languages or database systems is to
provide this kind of information by associating a data type with the literal,
in this case, a data type like decimal or integer. In RDF, typed literals are used
to provide this kind of information.
Using a typed literal, we could describe David Billington’s age as being
the integer number 27 using the triple
(#DavidBillington, http://www.mydomain.org/age,
"27"^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer )

This example shows two things: the use of the ^^ notation to indicate the
type of a literal,1 and the use of data types that are predefined by XML

1. This notation takes a different form in the XML-based syntax described in section 3.3.


X
referee

player1
chessGame Y

player2

Z

Figure 3.3 Representation of a tertiary predicate

Schema. Strictly speaking, the use of any externally defined data typing
scheme is allowed in RDF documents, but in practice the most widely used
data typing scheme will be the one by XML Schema. XML Schema prede-
fines a large range of data types, including Booleans, integers, floating-point
numbers, times, and dates.

3.2.7 A Critical View of RDF
We have already pointed out that RDF uses only binary properties. This
restriction seems quite serious because often we use predicates with more
than two arguments. Luckily, such predicates can be simulated by a number
of binary predicates. We illustrate this technique for a predicate referee with
three arguments. The intuitive meaning of referee(X, Y, Z) is

X is the referee in a chess game between players Y and Z.

We now introduce a new auxiliary resource chessGame and the binary pred-
icates ref, player1, and player2. Then we can represent referee(X, Y, Z) as fol-
lows:

ref(chessGame, X)
player1(chessGame, Y)
player2(chessGame, Z)

The graphic representation is shown in figure 3.3. Although the solution is
sound, the problem remains that the original predicate with three arguments
was simpler and more natural.


Another problem with RDF has to do with the handling of properties. As
mentioned, properties are special kinds of resources. Therefore, properties
themselves can be used as the object in an object-attribute-value triple (state-
ment). While this possibility offers flexibility, it is rather unusual for model-
ing languages, and can be confusing for modelers.
Also, the reification mechanism is quite powerful and appears misplaced
in a simple language like RDF. Making statements about statements intro-
duces a level of complexity that is not necessary for a basic layer of the Se-
mantic Web. Instead, it would have appeared more natural to include it in
more powerful layers, which provide richer representational capabilities.
Finally, the XML-based syntax of RDF is well suited for machine process-
ing but is not particularly human-friendly.
In summary, RDF has its idiosyncrasies and is not an optimal modeling
language. However, we have to live with the fact that it is already a de facto
standard. In the history of technology, often the better technology was not
adopted. For example, the video system VHS was probably the technically
weakest of the three systems that were available on the market at one time
(the others were Beta and Video 2000), not to mention hardware and software
standards in personal computing, which were arguably not adopted because
of their technical merit.
On the positive side, it is true that RDF has sufficient expressive power
(at least as a basis on which more layers can be built). And ultimately the
Semantic Web will not be programmed in RDF, but rather with user-friendly
tools that will automatically translate higher representations into RDF. Using
RDF offers the benefit that information maps unambiguously to a model.
And since it is likely that RDF will become a standard, the benefits of drafting
data in RDF can be seen as similar to drafting information in HTML in the
early days of the Web.

3.3 RDF: XML-Based Syntax

An RDF document consists of an rdf:RDF element, the content of which is
a number of descriptions. For example, consider the domain of university
courses and lecturers at Griffith University in the year 2001.

<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
<!ENTITY xsd "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#">
]>


<rdf:RDF
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"
xmlns:uni="http://www.mydomain.org/uni-ns#">

<rdf:Description rdf:about="949352">
<uni:name>Grigoris Antoniou</uni:name>
<uni:title>Professor</uni:title>
</rdf:Description>

<uni:name>David Billington</uni:name>
<uni:title>Associate Professor</uni:title>
<uni:age rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">27</uni:age>
</rdf:Description>

<uni:name>Michael Maher</uni:name>
<uni:title>Professor</uni:title>
</rdf:Description>

<rdf:Description rdf:about="CIT1111">
<uni:courseName>Discrete Mathematics</uni:courseName>
<uni:isTaughtBy>David Billington</uni:isTaughtBy>
</rdf:Description>

<uni:courseName>Concrete Mathematics</uni:courseName>
<uni:isTaughtBy>Grigoris Antoniou</uni:isTaughtBy>
</rdf:Description>

<uni:courseName>Programming III</uni:courseName>
<uni:isTaughtBy>Michael Maher</uni:isTaughtBy>
</rdf:Description>

<uni:courseName>Theory of Computation</uni:courseName>
<uni:isTaughtBy>David Billington</uni:isTaughtBy>
</rdf:Description>



<uni:courseName>Knowledge Representation</uni:courseName>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Let us make a few comments. First, the namespace mechanism of XML is
used, but in an expanded way. In XML namespaces are only used for dis-
ambiguation purposes. In RDF external namespaces are expected to be RDF
documents defining resources, which are then used in the importing RDF
document. This mechanism allows the reuse of resources by other people
who may decide to insert additional features into these resources. The result
is the emergence of large, distributed collections of knowledge.
Second, the rdf:about attribute of the element rdf:Description is,
strictly speaking, equivalent in meaning to that of an ID attribute, but it is
often used to suggest that the object about which a statement is made has
already been “defined” elsewhere. Formally speaking, a set of RDF state-
ments together simply forms a large graph, relating things to other things
through properties, and there is no such thing as “defining” an object in one
place and referring to it elsewhere. Nevertheless, in the serialized XML syn-
tax, it is sometimes useful (if only for human readability) to suggest that one
location in the XML serialization is the “defining” location, while other lo-
cations state “additional” properties about an object that has been “defined”
elsewhere.
In fact the preceding example is slightly misleading. If we wanted to be
absolutely correct, we should replace all occurrences of course and staff IDs,
such as 949352 and CIT3112, by references to the external namespace, for
example

<rdf:Description
rdf:about="http://www.mydomain.org/uni-ns/#CIT3112">

We have refrained from doing so to improve readability of our initial exam-
ple because we are primarily interested here in the ideas of RDF. However,
readers should be aware that this would be the precise way of writing a cor-
rect RDF document.
The content of rdf:Description elements are called property elements.
For example, in the description

<uni:courseName>Knowledge Representation</uni:courseName>


</rdf:Description>

the two elements uni:courseName and uni:isTaughtBy both define
property-value pairs for CIT3116. The preceding description corresponds
to two RDF statements.
Third, the attribute rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer" is used to indi-
cate the data type of the value of the age property. Even though the age
property has been defined to have "&xsd;integer" as its range, it is still
required to indicate the type of the value of this property each time it is used.
This is to ensure that an RDF processor can assign the correct type of the
property value even if it has not seen the corresponding RDF Schema defini-
tion before (a scenario that is quite likely to occur in the unrestricted World
Wide Web).
Finally, the property elements of a description must be read conjunctively.
In the preceding example, the subject is called “Knowledge Representation”
and is taught by Grigoris Antoniou.

3.3.1 The rdf:resource Attribute
The preceding example was not satisfactory in one respect: the relationships
between courses and lecturers were not formally defined but existed implic-
itly through the use of the same name. To a machine, the use of the same
name may just be a coincidence; for example, the David Billington who
teaches CIT3112 may not be the same person as the person with ID 949318
who happens to be called David Billington. What we need instead is a for-
mal specification of the fact that, for example, the teacher of CIT1111 is the
staff member with number 949318, whose name is David Billington. We can
achieve this effect using an rdf:resource attribute:

<uni:isTaughtBy rdf:resource="949318"/>
</rdf:Description>

</rdf:Description>

We note that in case we had defined the resource of the staff member with ID
number 939318 in the RDF document using the ID attribute instead of the


about attribute, we would have had to use a # symbol in front of 949318 in
the value of rdf:resource:

<uni:isTaughtBy rdf:resource="#949318"/>
</rdf:Description>

<rdf:Description rdf:ID="949318">
</rdf:Description>

The same is true for externally defined resources: for example, we refer to
the externally defined resource CIT1111 by using

http://www.mydomain.org/uni-ns/#CIT1111

as the value of rdf:about, where www.mydomain.org/uni-ns/ is the
URI where the definition of CIT1111 is found. In other words, a descrip-
tion with an ID defines a fragment URI, which can be used to reference the
defined description.

3.3.2 Nested Descriptions
Descriptions may be defined within other descriptions. For example, we may
replace the descriptions of the previous example with the following, nested
description:

<uni:isTaughtBy>
</rdf:Description>
</uni:isTaughtBy>
</rdf:Description>

Other courses, such as CIT3112, can still refer to the new resource 949318. In
other words, although a description may be defined within another descrip-
tion, its scope is global.


3.3.3 The rdf:type Element
In our examples so far, the descriptions fall into two categories: courses and
lecturers. This fact is clear to human readers, but has not been formally de-
clared anywhere, so it is not accessible to machines. In RDF it is possible to
make such statements using the rdf:type element. Here are a couple of
descriptions that include typing information.

<rdf:type rdf:resource="&uni;course"/>
</rdf:Description>

<rdf:type rdf:resource="&uni;lecturer"/>
</rdf:Description>

Note that rdf:type allows us to introduce some structure to the RDF docu-
ment. More structuring possibilities are introduced later in this chapter when
we discuss RDF Schema.

3.3.4 Abbreviated Syntax
It is possible to abbreviate the syntax of RDF documents. The simpliﬁcation
rules are as follows:

1. Childless property elements within description elements may be replaced
by XML attributes, as in XML.

2. For description elements with a typing element we can use the name spec-
iﬁed in the rdf:type element instead of rdf:Description.

For example, the description

<rdf:Description rdf:ID="CIT1111">
</rdf:Description>


is (according to rule 1 applied to uni:courseName) equivalent to

<rdf:Description rdf:ID="CIT1111"
uni:courseName="Discrete Mathematics">
</rdf:Description>

and also (by rule 2) to

<uni:course rdf:ID="CIT1111"
</uni:course>

Keep in mind that these three representations are just syntactic variations of
the same RDF statement. That is, they are equivalent according to the RDF
data model, although they have different XML syntax.

3.3.5 Container Elements
Container elements are used to collect a number of resources or attributes
about which we want to make statements as a whole. In our example, we may
wish to talk about the courses given by a particular lecturer. Three types of
containers are available in RDF:

rdf:Bag, an unordered container, which may contain multiple occurrences
(not true for a set). Typical examples are members of the faculty board and
documents in a folder — examples where an order is not imposed.

rdf:Seq, an ordered container, which may contain multiple occurrences.
Typical examples are the modules of a course, items on an agenda, an
alphabetized list of staff members — examples where an order is imposed.

rdf:Alt, a set of alternatives. Typical examples are the document home
and mirrors, and translations of a document in various languages.

The contents of container elements are elements which are named rdf:_1,
rdf:_2, and so on. Let us reformulate our entire RDF document.

<rdf:RDF
xmlns:uni="http://www.mydomain.org/uni-ns#">


<uni:lecturer rdf:about="949352"
uni:name="Grigoris Antoniou"
uni:title="Professor">
<uni:coursesTaught>
<rdf:Bag>
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="CIT1112"/>
</rdf:Bag>
</uni:coursesTaught>
</uni:lecturer>

uni:name="David Billington"
uni:title="Associate Professor">
<uni:coursesTaught>
<rdf:Bag>
</rdf:Bag>
</uni:lecturer>

uni:name="Michael Maher"
uni:title="Professor">
<uni:coursesTaught rdf:resource="CIT2112"/>
</uni:lecturer>

<uni:course rdf:about="CIT1111"
</uni:course>

uni:courseName="Concrete Mathematics">
</uni:course>

uni:courseName="Programming III">


</uni:course>

uni:courseName="Theory of Computation">
</uni:course>

uni:courseName="Knowledge Representation">
</uni:course>

</rdf:RDF>

Instead of rdf:_1, rdf:_2 . . . it is possible to write rdf:li. We use this
syntactic variant in the following example. Suppose the course CIT1111 is
taught by either Grigoris Antoniou or David Billington:
<uni:lecturer>
<rdf:Alt>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="949352"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="949318"/>
</rdf:Alt>
</uni:lecturer>
</uni:course>

The container elements have an optional ID attribute, with which the con-
tainer can be identiﬁed and referred to:
uni:title="Associate Professor">
<uni:coursesTaught>
<rdf:Bag rdf:ID="DBcourses">
</rdf:Bag>
</uni:lecturer>

A typical application of container elements is the representation of predi-
cates with more than two arguments. We reconsider the example referee(X, Y,


Y

rdf:_1

X

rdf:_2
Z

Figure 3.4 Representation of a tertiary predicate

Z), where X is the referee of a chess game between players Y and Z. One so-
lution is to distinguish the referee X from the players Y and Z. The graphic
representation is found in figure 3.4. The solution in XML-based syntax looks
like this:

<referee rdf:about=". . .#X">
<players>
<rdf:Bag>
<rdf:li rdf:resource=". . .#Y"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource=". . .#Z"/>
</rdf:Bag>
</players>
</referee>

Note that rdf:Bag defines an anonymous auxiliary resource. We chose to
use a bag because we assumed that no distinction between the players is
made. If order were important, say the first-named player has White and the
second Black, we would use a sequence instead.
A limitation of these containers is that there is no way to close them, to
say “these are all the members of the container.” This is because, while one
graph may describe some of the members, there is no way to exclude the
possibility that there is another graph somewhere that describes additional
members. RDF provides support for describing groups containing only the
specified members, in the form of RDF collections. An RDF collection is a
group of things represented as a list structure in the RDF graph. This list
structure is constructed using a predefined collection vocabulary consisting
of the predefined type rdf:List, the predefined properties rdf:first


and rdf:rest, and the predefined resource rdf:nil. This allows us to
write

<uni:isTaughtBy>
<rdf:List>
<rdf:first>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="949111"/>
</rdf:first>
<rdf:rest>
<rdf:List>
<rdf:first>
</rdf:first>
<rdf:rest>
<rdf:List>
<rdf:first>
</rdf:first>
<rdf:rest>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="&rdf;nil"/>
</rdf:rest>
</rdf:List>
</rdf:rest>
</rdf:List>
</rdf:rest>
</rdf:List>
</uni:isTaughtBy>
</rdf:Description>

This states that CIT2112 is taught by teachers identified as the resources
949111, 949352, and 949318, and nobody else (indicated by the termina-
tor symbol nil). A shorthand syntax for this has been defined, using the
“Collection” value for the rdf:parseType attribute:

<uni:isTaughtBy rdf:parseType="Collection">
</uni:isTaughtBy>
</rdf:Description>


3.3.6 Reification
As we have said, sometimes we wish to make statements about other state-
ments. To do so we must be able to refer to a statement using an identifier.
RDF allows such reference through a reification mechanism, which turns a
statement into a resource. For example, the description
</rdf:Description>

reifies as
<rdf:Statement rdf:about="StatementAbout949352">
<rdf:subject rdf:resource="949352"/>
<rdf:predicate rdf:resource="&uni;name"/>
<rdf:object>Grigoris Antoniou</rdf:object>
</rdf:Statement>

Note that rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, and rdf:object allow us to
access the parts of a statement.
The ID of the statement can be used to refer to it, as can be done for any
description. We can either write an rdf:Description if we don’t want to
talk about it further, or an rdf:Statement if we wish to refer to it.
If more than one property element is contained in a description element,
the elements correspond to more than one statement. These statements can
either be placed in a bag and referred to as an entity, or they can reify sepa-
rately (see exercise 3.1).

3.4 RDF Schema: Basic Ideas
RDF is a universal language that lets users describe resources using their
own vocabularies. RDF does not make assumptions about any particular
application domain, nor does it define the semantics of any domain. Is it up
to the user to do so in RDF Schema (RDFS).

3.4.1 Classes and Properties
How do we describe a particular domain? Let us consider the domain of
courses and lecturers at Griffith University. First we have to specify the
“things” we want to talk about. Here we make a first, fundamental distinc-
tion. On one hand, we want to talk about particular lecturers, such as David


Billington, and particular courses, such as Discrete Mathematics; we have
already done so in RDF. But we also want to talk about courses, first-year
courses, lecturers, professors, and so on. What is the difference? In the first
case we talk about individual objects (resources), in the second we talk about
classes that define types of objects.
A class can be thought of as a set of elements. Individual objects that
belong to a class are referred to as instances of that class. We have al-
ready defined the relationship between instances and classes in RDF using
rdf:type.
An important use of classes is to impose restrictions on what can be stated
in an RDF document using the schema. In programming languages, typing
is used to prevent nonsense from being written (such as A + 1, where A is an
array; we lay down that the arguments of + must be numbers). The same is
needed in RDF. After all, we would like to disallow statements such as

Discrete Mathematics is taught by Concrete Mathematics.
Room MZH5760 is taught by David Billington.

The first statement is nonsensical because we want courses to be taught by
lecturers only. This imposes a restriction on the values of the property “is
taught by”. In mathematical terms, we restrict the range of the property.
The second statement is nonsensical because only courses can be taught.
This imposes a restriction on the objects to which the property can be applied.
In mathematical terms, we restrict the domain of the property.

3.4.2 Class Hierarchies and Inheritance
Once we have classes we would also like to establish relationships between
them. For example, suppose that we have classes for
staff members assistant professors
academic staff members administrative staff members
professors technical support staff members
associate professors
These classes are not unrelated to each other. For example, every professor is
an academic staff member. We say that “professor” is a subclass of “academic
staff member”, or equivalently, that “academic staff member” is a superclass
of “professor”. The subclass relationship defines a hierarchy of classes, as
shown in figure 3.5. In general, A is a subclass of B if every instance of A is
also an instance of B. There is no requirement in RDF Schema that the classes


staff
member

administration technical
academic support staff
staff member member
staff member

associate assistant
professor professor professor

Figure 3.5 A hierarchy of classes

together form a strict hierarchy. In other words, a subclass graph as in figure
3.5 need not be a tree. A class may have multiple superclasses. If a class A is
a subclass of both B1 and B2 , this simply means that every instance of A is
both an instance of B1 and an instance of B2 .
A hierarchical organization of classes has a very important practical sig-
nificance, which we outline now. Consider the range restriction

Courses must be taught by academic staff members only.

Suppose Michael Maher were defined as a professor. Then, according to the
preceding restriction, he is not allowed to teach courses. The reason is that
there is no statement specifying that Michael Maher is also an academic staff
member. It would be counterintuitive to overcome this difficulty by adding
that statement to our description. Instead we would like Michael Maher to
inherit the ability to teach from the class of academic staff members. Exactly
this is done in RDF Schema.
By doing so, RDF Schema fixes the semantics of “is a subclass of”. Now
it is not up to an application to interpret “is a subclass of”; instead its in-
tended meaning must be used by all RDF processing software. By making
such semantic definitions RDFS is a (still limited) language for defining the


semantics of particular domains. Stated another way, RDF Schema is a prim-
itive ontology language.
Classes, inheritance, and properties are, of course, known in other fields
of computing, for example, in object-oriented programming. But while there
are many similarities, there are differences, too. In object-oriented program-
ming, an object class defines the properties that apply to it. To add new
properties to a class means to modify the class.
However, in RDFS, properties are defined globally, that is, they are not
encapsulated as attributes in class definitions. It is possible to define new
properties that apply to an existing class without changing that class.
On one hand, this is a powerful mechanism with far-reaching conse-
quences: we may use classes defined by others and adapt them to our re-
quirements through new properties. On the other hand, this handling of
properties deviates from the standard approach that has emerged in the area
of modeling and object-oriented programming. It is another idiosyncratic
feature of RDF/RDFS.

3.4.3 Property Hierarchies
We saw that hierarchical relationships between classes can be defined. The
same can be done for properties. For example, “is taught by” is a subproperty
of “involves”. If a course c is taught by an academic staff member a, then
c also involves a. The converse is not necessarily true. For example, a may
be the convener of the course, or a tutor who marks student homework but
does not teach c.
In general, P is a subproperty of Q if Q(x, y) whenever P (x, y).

3.4.4 RDF versus RDFS Layers
As a final point, we illustrate the different layers involved in RDF and RDFS
using a simple example. Consider the RDF statement

Discrete Mathematics is taught by David Billington.

The schema for this statement may contain classes such as lecturers, acade-
mic staff members, staff members, first-year courses, and properties such as
is taught by, involves, phone, employee ID. Figure 3.6 illustrates the layers of
RDF and RDF Schema for this example. In this figure, blocks are properties,
ellipses above the dashed line are classes, and ellipses below the dashed line
are instances.


literal
range range

id phone

domain domain
staff
member
involves

range subClassOf
subPropertyOf

domain academic
range staff
isTaughtBy
member

domain
subClassOf
course subClassOf
subClassOf

professor associate assistant
professor professor

type type
RDFS

RDF

isTaughtBy
Discrete Mathematics David Billington

Figure 3.6 RDF and RDFS layers

The schema in ﬁgure 3.6 is itself written in a formal language, RDF
Schema, that can express its ingredients: subClassOf, Class, Property,
subPropertyOf, Resource, and so on. Next we describe the language of
RDF Schema in more detail.

3.5 RDF Schema: The Language

RDF Schema provides modeling primitives for expressing the information
described in section 3.4. One decision that must be made is what formal lan-


guage to use. It should not be surprising that RDF itself will be used: the
modeling primitives of RDF Schema are defined using resources and prop-
erties. This choice can be justified by looking at figure 3.6. We presented this
figure as displaying a class/property hierarchy plus instances, but it is, of
course, itself simply a labeled graph that can be encoded in RDF. Remember
that RDF allows one to express any statement about any resource, and that
anything with a URI can be a resource. So, if we wish to say that the class
“lecturer” is a subclass of “academic staff member”, we may

1. define the required resources for lecturer, academicStaffMember,
and subClassOf;

2. define subClassOf to be a property;

3. write the triple (lecturer,subClassOf,academicStaffMember).

All these steps are within the capabilities of RDF. So, an RDFS document (that
is, an RDF schema) is just an RDF document, and we use the XML-based
syntax of RDF. In particular, all syntactic definitions of section 3.3 must be
followed.
Now we define the modeling primitives of RDF Schema.

3.5.1 Core Classes
The core classes are

rdfs:Resource, the class of all resources

rdfs:Class, the class of all classes

rdfs:Literal, the class of all literals (strings)

rdf:Property, the class of all properties

rdf:Statement, the class of all reified statements

For example, a class lecturer can be defined as follows:

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="lecturer">
...
</rdfs:Class>


3.5.2 Core Properties for Defining Relationships
The core properties for defining relationships are
rdf:type, which relates a resource to its class (see section 3.3.3). The re-
source is declared to be an instance of that class.

rdfs:subClassOf, which relates a class to one of its superclasses. All
instances of a class are instances of its superclass. Note that a class
may be a subclass of more than one class. As an example, the class
femaleProfessor may be a subclass of both female and professor.

rdfs:subPropertyOf, which relates a property to one of its superprop-
erties.
Here is an example stating that all lecturers are staff members:

<rdfs:Class rdf:about="lecturer">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="staffMember"/>
</rdfs:Class>

Note that rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf are transitive,
by definition. Also, it is interesting that rdfs:Class is a subclass of
rdfs:Resource (every class is a resource), and rdfs:Resource is an in-
stance of rdfs:Class (rdfs:Resource is the class of all resources, so it is
a class!). For the same reason, every class is an instance of rdfs:Class.

3.5.3 Core Properties for Restricting Properties
The core properties for restricting properties are

rdfs:domain, which specifies the domain of a property P and states that
any resource that has a given property is an instance of the domain classes.

rdfs:range, which specifies the range of a property P and states that the
values of a property are instances of the range classes.

Here is an example stating that whenever any resource has a phone number,
it is (by inference) a staff member and that its value is a literal:

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="phone">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#staffMember"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/>
</rdf:Property>


3.5.4 Useful Properties for Reification
The following are some useful properties for reification (see section 3.3.6):

rdf:subject, which relates a reified statement to its subject

rdf:predicate, which relates a reified statement to its predicate

rdf:object, which relates a reified statement to its object

3.5.5 Container Classes
As mentioned in section 3.3.5, the container elements are

rdf:Bag, the class of bags,

rdf:Seq, the class of sequences,

rdf:Alt, the class of alternatives,

rdfs:Container, a superclass of all container classes, including the three
preceding ones.

3.5.6 Utility Properties
A resource may be defined and described in many places on the Web. The
following properties allow us to define links to those addresses:

rdfs:seeAlso relates a resource to another resource that explains it.

rdfs:isDefinedBy is a subproperty of rdfs:seeAlso and relates a re-
source to the place where its definition, typically an RDF schema, is found.

Often it is useful to provide more information, intended for human readers.
This can be done with the following properties:

rdfs:comment. Comments, typically longer text, can be associated with a
resource.

rdfs:label. A human-friendly label (name) is associated with a resource.
Among other purposes, it may serve as the name of a node in a graphic
representation of the RDF document.


3.5.7 Example: A University
We refer to the courses and lecturers example, and provide a conceptual
model of the domain, that is, an ontology.

<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="lecturer">
<rdfs:comment>
The class of lecturers
All lecturers are academic staff members.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="academicStaffMember">
<rdfs:comment>
The class of academic staff members
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#staffMember"/>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="staffMember">
<rdfs:comment>The class of staff members</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="course">
<rdfs:comment>The class of courses</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="involves">
<rdfs:comment>
It relates only courses to lecturers.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#course"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#lecturer"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="isTaughtBy">
<rdfs:comment>
Inherits its domain ("course") and range ("lecturer")


motorVehicle

van truck

passengerVehicle

miniVan

Figure 3.7 Class hierarchy for the motor vehicles example

from its superproperty "involves"
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#involves"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="phone">
<rdfs:comment>
It is a property of staff members
and takes literals as values.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#staffMember"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/>
</rdf:Property>
</rdf:RDF>

3.5.8 Example: Motor Vehicles
Here we present a simple ontology of motor vehicles. The class relationships
are shown in ﬁgure 3.7.

<rdf:RDF



<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="motorVehicle"/>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="van">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#motorVehicle"/>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="truck">
</rdfs:Class>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="passengerVehicle">
</rdfs:Class>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="miniVan">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#passengerVehicle"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#van"/>
</rdfs:Class>
</rdf:RDF>

3.6 RDF and RDF Schema in RDF Schema
Now that we know the main components of the RDF and RDFS languages,
it may be instructive to look at the definitions of RDF and RDFS. These defi-
nitions are expressed in the language of RDF Schema. One task is to see how
easily they can be read now that the meaning of each component has been
clarified.
The following definitions are just part of the full language specification.
The remaining parts are found in the namespaces specified in rdf:RDF.

3.6.1 RDF
<rdf:RDF

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Statement"
rdfs:comment="The class of triples consisting of a

3.6 RDF and RDF Schema in RDF Schema 95

predicate, a subject and an object
(that is, a reified statement)"/>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Property"
rdfs:comment="The class of properties"/>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Bag"
rdfs:comment="The class of unordered collections"/>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Seq"
rdfs:comment="The class of ordered collections"/>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Alt"
rdfs:comment="The class of collections of alternatives"/>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="predicate"
rdfs:comment="Identifies the property used in a statement
when representing the statement
in reified form">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Statement"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Property"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="subject"
rdfs:comment="Identifies the resource that a statement is
describing when representing the statement
in reified form">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Statement"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="object"
rdfs:comment="Identifies the object of a statement
when representing the statement
in reified form"/>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="type"
rdfs:comment="Identifies the class of a resource.
The resource is an instance
of that class."/>

</rdf:RDF>


3.6.2 RDF Schema
<rdf:RDF

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Resource"
rdfs:comment="The most general class"/>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="comment"
rdfs:comment="Use this for descriptions">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Resource"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Literal"/>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Class"
rdfs:comment="The concept of classes.
All classes are resources.">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Resource"/>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="subClassOf">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Class"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Class"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="subPropertyOf">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/>
</rdf:Property>

</rdf:RDF>

The namespaces do not provide the full definition of RDF and RDF Schema.
Consider, for example, rdfs:subClassOf. The namespace specifies only
that it applies to classes and has a class as a value. The meaning of being
a subclass, namely, that all instances of one class are also instances of its
superclass, is not expressed anywhere. In fact, it cannot be expressed in an
RDF document. If it could, there would be no need for defining RDF Schema.
We provide a formal semantics in the next section. Of course, RDF parsers
and other software tools for RDF (including query processors) must be aware
of the full semantics.


3.7 An Axiomatic Semantics for RDF and RDF Schema
In this section we formalize the meaning of the modeling primitives of RDF
and RDF Schema. Thus we capture the semantics of RDF and RDFS.
The formal language we use is predicate logic, universally accepted as the
foundation of all (symbolic) knowledge representation. Formulas used in the
formalization are referred to as axioms.
By describing the semantics of RDF and RDFS in a formal language like
logic we make the semantics unambiguous and machine-accessible. Also, we
provide a basis for reasoning support by automated reasoners manipulating
logical formulas.

3.7.1 The Approach
All language primitives in RDF and RDF Schema are represented by con-
stants: Resource, Class, P roperty, subClassOf , and so on. A few predefined
predicates are used as a foundation for expressing relationships between the
constants.
An auxiliary theory of lists is used. It has function symbols

nil (empty list),

cons(x, l) (adds an element to the front of the list),

f irst(l) (returns the first element),

rest(l) (returns the rest of the list),

and predicate symbols

item(x, l) (true iff an element occurs in the list),

list(l) (true iff l is a list).

Lists are used to represent containers in RDF. They are also needed to capture
the meaning of certain constructs (such as cardinality constraints) in richer
ontology languages.
Most axioms provide typing information. For example,
T ype(subClassOf, P roperty)

says that subClassOf is a property. We use predicate logic with equality.
Variable names begin with ?. All axioms are implicitly universally quanti-
fied.


Here we show the deﬁnition of most elements of RDF and RDF Schema.
The axiomatic semantics of the full languages is found in an online docu-
ment; see Fikes and McGuinness (2001) in Suggested Reading.

3.7.2 Basic Predicates
The basic predicates are

P ropV al(P, R, V ), a predicate with three arguments, which is used to rep-
resent an RDF statement with resource R, property P , and value V

T ype(R, T ), short for P ropV al(type, R, T ), which speciﬁes that the resource
R has the type T

T ype(?r, ?t) ←→ P ropV al(type, ?r, ?t)

3.7.3 RDF
An RDF statement (triple) (R, P, V ) is represented as P ropV al(P, R, V ).

Classes

In our language we have constants Class, Resource, P roperty, Literal. All
classes are instances of Class, that is, they have the type Class:

T ype(Class, Class)
T ype(Resource, Class)
T ype(P roperty, Class)
T ype(Literal, Class)

Resource is the most general class: every object is a resource. Therefore,
every class and every property is a resource:

T ype(?p, P roperty) −→ T ype(?p, Resource)
T ype(?c, Class) −→ T ype(?c, Resource)

Finally, the predicate in an RDF statement must be a property:

P ropV al(?p, ?r, ?v) −→ T ype(?p, P roperty)


The type Property

type is a property:

T ype(type, P roperty)

Note that it is equivalent to P ropV al(type, type, P roperty): the type of type
is P roperty. type can be applied to resources and has a class as its value:

T ype(?r, ?c) −→ (T ype(?r, Resource) ∧ T ype(?c, Class))

The Auxiliary FuncProp Property

A functional property is a property that is a function: it relates a resource to
at most one value. Functional properties are not a concept of RDF but are
used in the axiomatization of other primitives.
The constant F uncP rop represents the class of all functional properties. P
is a functional property if, and only if, it is a property, and there are no x, y1 ,
and y2 such that P (x, y1 ), P (x, y2 ), and y1 = y2 .

T ype(?p, F uncP rop) ←→
(T ype(?p, P roperty) ∧ ∀?r∀?v1∀?v2
(P ropV al(?p, ?r, ?v1) ∧ P ropV al(?p, ?r, ?v2) −→?v1 =?v2))

Reified Statements

The constant Statement represents the class of all reified statements. All
reified statements are resources, and Statement is an instance of Class:

T ype(?s, Statement) −→ T ype(?s, Resource)
T ype(Statement, Class)

A reified statement can be decomposed into the three parts of an RDF triple:

T ype(?st, Statement) −→
∃?p∃?r∃?v(P ropV al(P redicate, ?st, ?p)∧
P ropV al(Subject, ?st, ?r) ∧ P ropV al(Object, ?st, ?v))

Subject, P redicate, and Object are functional properties, that is, every state-
ment has exactly one subject, one predicate, and one object:


T ype(Subject, F uncP rop)
T ype(P redicate, F uncP rop)
T ype(Object, F uncP rop)

Their typing information is

P ropV al(Subject, ?st, ?r) −→
(T ype(?st, Statement) ∧ T ype(?r, Resource))
P ropV al(P redicate, ?st, ?p) −→
(T ype(?st, Statement) ∧ T ype(?p, P roperty))
P ropV al(Object, ?st, ?v) −→
(T ype(?st, Statement) ∧ (T ype(?v, Resource) ∨ T ype(?v, Literal)))

The last axiom says, if Object appears as the property in an RDF statement,
then it must apply to a reiﬁed statement and have as value either a resource
or a literal.

Containers

All containers are resources:

T ype(?c, Container) −→ T ype(?c, Resource)

Containers are lists:

T ype(?c, Container) −→ list(?c)

Containers are bags or sequences or alternatives:

T ype(?c, Container) ←→
(T ype(?c, Bag) ∨ T ype(?c, Seq) ∨ T ype(?c, Alt))

Bags and sequences are disjoint:

¬(T ype(?x, Bag) ∧ T ype(?x, Seq))

For every natural number n > 0, there is the selector _n, which selects the
nth element of a container. It is a functional property

T ype(_n, F uncP rop)

and applies to containers only:
P ropV al(_n, ?c, ?o) −→ T ype(?c, Container)


3.7.4 RDF Schema
Subclasses and Subproperties

subClassOf is a property:

T ype(subClassOf, P roperty)

If a class C is a subclass of a class C , then all instances of C are also instances
of C :

P ropV al(subClassOf, ?c, ?c ) ←−
(T ype(?c, Class) ∧ T ype(?c , Class)∧
∀?x(T ype(?x, ?c) −→ T ype(?x, ?c )))

Similarly for subPropertyOf: P is a subproperty of P if P (x, y) whenever
P (x, y):

T ype(subP ropertyOf, P roperty)
P ropV al(subP ropertyOf, ?p, ?p ) ←→
(T ype(?p, P roperty) ∧ T ype(?p , P roperty)∧
∀?r∀?v(P ropV al(?p, ?r, ?v) −→ P ropV al(?p , ?r, ?v)))

Constraints

Every constraint resource is a resource:

P ropV al(subClassOf, ConstraintResource, Resource)

Constraint properties are all properties that are also constraint resources:

T ype(?cp, ConstraintP roperty) ←→
(T ype(?cp, ConstraintResource) ∧ T ype(?cp, P roperty))

domain and range are constraint properties:

T ype(domain, ConstraintP roperty)
T ype(range, ConstraintP roperty)

domain and range deﬁne the domain, respectively range, of a property.
Recall that the domain of a property P is the set of all objects to which P
applies. If the domain of P is D, then for every P (x, y), x ∈ D.


P ropV al(domain, ?p, ?d) −→
∀?x∀?y(P ropV al(?p, ?x, ?y) −→ T ype(?x, ?d))

The range of a property P is the set of all values P can take. If the range of
P is R, then for every P (x, y), y ∈ R.

P ropV al(range, ?p, ?r) −→
∀?x∀?y(P ropV al(?p, ?x, ?y) −→ T ype(?y, ?r))

Formulas that can be inferred from the precedings ones:

P ropV al(domain, range, P roperty)
P ropV al(range, range, Class)
P ropV al(domain, domain, P roperty)
P ropV al(range, domain, Class)

Thus we have formalized the semantics of RDF and RDFS. An agent
equipped with this knowledge is able to draw interesting conclusions. For
example, given that the domain of teaches is academicStaffMember, that aca-
demicStaffMember is a subclass of staffMembers, and that teaches(DB, DiMa),
the agent can automatically deduce staffMember(DB) using the predicate logic
semantics or one of the predicate logic proof systems.

3.8 A Direct Inference System for RDF and RDFS

As stated, the axiomatic semantics detailed in section 3.7 can be used for
automated reasoning with RDF and RDF Schema. However, it requires a
ﬁrst-order logic proof system to do so. This is a very heavy requirement and
also one that is unlikely to scale when millions of statements are involved
(e.g., millions of statements of the form T ype(?r, ?c)).
For this reason, RDF has also been given a semantics (and an inference
system that is sound and complete for this semantics) directly in terms of
RDF triples instead of restating RDF in terms of ﬁrst-order logic, as was done
in the axiomatic semantics of section 3.7.
This inference system consists of rules of the form

IF E contains certain triples
THEN add to E certain additional triples


(where E is an arbitrary set of RDF triples).
Without repeating the entire set of inference rules (which can be found in
the official RDF documents), we give here a few basic examples:
IF E contains the triple (?x, ?p, ?y)
THEN E also contains the triple (?p, rdf : type, rdf : property)

This states that any resource ?p that is used in the property position of a triple
can be inferred to be a member of the class rdf:Property.
A somewhat more interesting example is the following rule:
IF E contains the triples (?u, rdfs : subClassOf, ?v)
and (?v, rdfs : subclassOf, ?w)
THEN E also contains the triple (?u, rdfs : subClassOf, ?w)

which encodes the transitivity of the subclass relation.
Closely related is the rule
IF E contains the triples (?x, rdf : type, ?u)
and (?u, rdfs : subClassOf, ?v)
THEN E also contains the triple (?x, rdf : type, ?v)

which is the essential definition of the meaning of rdfs:subClassOf.
A final example often comes as a surprise to people first looking at RDF
Schema:
IF E contains the triples (?x, ?p, ?y)
and (?p, rdfs : range, ?u)
THEN E also contains the triple (?y, rdf : type, ?u)

This rule states that any resource ?y which appears as the value of a property
?p can be inferred to be a member of the range of ?p. This shows that range
definitions in RDF Schema are not used to restrict the range of a property, but
rather to infer the membership of the range.
The total set of these closure rules is no larger than a few dozen and can be
efficiently implemented without sophisticated theorem-proving technology.

3.9 Querying in SPARQL
In this section we introduce a query language for RDF. Before doing so, we
have to say why we need a new query language instead of using an XML
query language. The answer is that XML is located at a lower level of abstrac-
tion than RDF. This fact would lead to complications if we were querying
RDF documents with an XML-based language. Let us illustrate this point.


As we have already seen, there are various ways of syntactically represent-
ing an RDF statement in XML. For example, suppose we wish to retrieve the
titles of all lecturers. The description of a particular lecturer might look like
this:

<rdf:type rdf:resource="&uni;lecturer"/>
</rdf:Description>

An appropriate Xpath query is

/rdf:Description[rdf:type=
"http://www.mydomain.org/uni-ns#lecturer"]/uni:title

But we could have written the same description as follows:

<uni:lecturer rdf:about="949318">
</uni:lecturer>

Now the previous XPath query does not work; we have to write

//uni:lecturer/uni:title

instead. And a third possible representation of the same description is

uni:title="Associate Professor"/>

For this syntactic variation, yet another XPath query must be provided:

//uni:lecturer/@uni:title

Since each description of an individual lecturer may have any of these equiv-
alent forms, we must write different XPath queries.
A better way is, of course, to write queries at the level of RDF. An appro-
priate query language must understand RDF, that is, it must understand not
only the syntax but also the data model of RDF and the semantics of RDF
vocabulary.


The SPARQL Query Language2 is a W3C Candidate Recommendation for
querying RDF, and as such is fast becoming the standard query language for
this purpose. At the time of writing, almost all major RDF query tools had
begun implementing support for the SPARQL query language. Even though
other query languages (e.g., SeRQL3 and RQL4 ) have existed longer and
have a more mature implementation base and more expressive feature set,
they typically are supported by only one or two tools, hindering interoper-
ability. We therefore concentrate here on the SPARQL query language.

3.9.1 Basic Queries
The SPARQL query language is based on matching graph patterns. The sim-
plest graph pattern is the triple pattern, which is like an RDF triple but with
the possibility of a variable instead of an RDF term in the subject, predicate,
or object positions. Combining triple patterns gives a basic graph pattern,
where an exact match to a graph is needed to fulfill a pattern.
As a simple example, consider the following query:

PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>
PREFIX rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>
SELECT ?c
WHERE
{
?c rdf:type rdfs:Class .
}

This query retrieves all triple patterns where the property is rdf:type and
the object is rdfs:Class. In other words, this query, when executed, will
retrieve all classes.
Note that like the namespace mechanism used for writing RDF in XML,
SPARQL allows us to define prefixes for namespaces and use these in the
query pattern, to make queries shorter and easier to read. In the rest of this
chapter, we omit the declaration of the rdf and rdfs prefixes for brevity.
To get all instances of a particular class, for example, course, we write:

PREFIX uni: <http://www.mydomain.org/uni-ns#>
SELECT ?i
WHERE

2. <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/>.
3. <http://www.openrdf.org/doc/SeRQLmanual.html>.
4. <http://athena.ics.forth.gr:9090/RDF/RQL/>.


{
?i rdf:type uni:course .
}

SPARQL makes no explicit commitment to support RDFS semantics.
Therefore, the result of this query depends on whether the system answer-
ing the query supports RDFS semantics. If it does, then the result of this
query will include all instances of the subclasses of course as well. If it
does not support RDFS semantics, it will only retrieve those instances that
are explicitly of type course.

3.9.2 Using select-from-where
As in SQL, SPARQL queries have a SELECT-FROM-WHERE structure:

SELECT speciﬁes the projection: the number and order of retrieved data.
FROM is used to specify the source being queried. This clause is optional;
when it is not speciﬁed, we can simply assume we are querying the know-
ledge base of a particular system.
WHERE imposes constraints on possible solutions in the form of graph pat-
tern templates and boolean constraints.

For example, to retrieve all phone numbers of staff members, we can write
SELECT ?x ?y
WHERE
{
?x uni:phone ?y .
}

Here ?x and ?y are variables, and ?x uni:phone ?y represents a resource-
property-value triple pattern.
We can create more elaborate graph patterns to get more complex informa-
tion from our queries. For example, to retrieve all lecturers and their phone
numbers, we can write
SELECT ?x ?y
WHERE
{
?x rdf:type uni:Lecturer ;
uni:phone ?y .
}


Here the clause ?x rdf:type uni:Lecturer collects all instances of the
class Lecturer, as discussed, and binds the result to the variable ?x. The
second part collects all triples with predicate phone. But there is an implicit
join here, in that we restrict the second pattern only to those triples whose
subject is in the variable ?x. Note that in this case we use a syntax shortcut as
well: a semicolon indicates that the following triple pattern shares its subject
with the previous one. Thus the above query is equivalent to writing

SELECT ?x ?y
WHERE
{
?x rdf:type uni:Lecturer .
?x uni:phone ?y .
}

We demonstrate an explicit join by a query that retrieves the name of all
courses taught by the lecturer with ID 949352.

SELECT ?n
WHERE
{
?x rdf:type uni:Course ;
uni:isTaughtBy :949352 .
?c uni:name ?n .
FILTER (?c = ?x).
}

In SPARQL we use a FILTER condition to indicate a boolean constraint. In
this case the constraint is the explicit join of the variables ?c and ?x by using
an equality (=) operator.

3.9.3 Optional Patterns
The graph patterns we have seen so far are mandatory patterns. Either the
knowledge base matches the complete pattern, in which case an answer is
returned, or it doesn’t, in which case the query does not produce a result.
However, in many cases we may wish to be more ﬂexible. Consider, for
example, the following RDF excerpt:

<uni:lecturer rdf:about="949352">
</uni:lecturer>


<uni:professor rdf:about="949318">
<uni:email>david@work.example.org</uni:email>
</uni:professor>

This fragment contains information on two lecturers. For one lecturer it
only lists the name; for the other it also lists the e-mail address. Now we
want to query for all lecturers and their e-mail addresses:
SELECT ?name ?email
WHERE
{ ?x rdf:type uni:Lecturer ;
uni:name ?name ;
uni:email ?email .
}

The result of this query would be
?name ?email
David Billington david@work.example.org
So, despite the fact that Grigoris Antoniou is listed as a lecturer, the query
does not return his name. The query pattern does not match because he has
no e-mail address.
As a solution we can adapt the query to use an optional pattern:
SELECT ?name ?email
WHERE
{ ?x rdf:type uni:Lecturer ;
uni:name ?name .
OPTIONAL { ?x uni:email ?email }
}

The meaning is roughly "give us all the names of lecturers, and if known
also their e-mail addresses" and the result looks like this:
?name ?email
Grigoris Antoniou
David Billington david@work.example.org
This covers the basics of the SPARQL query language. For a full overview
of the SPARQL language and an explanation of more advanced features, such
as named graphs, we recommend reading the SPARQL speciﬁcation.5
5. <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/>.

3.10 Summary 109

3.10 Summary
• RDF provides a foundation for representing and processing metadata.

• RDF has a graph-based data model. Its key concepts are resource, prop-
erty, and statement. A statement is a resource-property-value triple.

• RDF has an XML-based syntax to support syntactic interoperability. XML
and RDF complement each other because RDF supports semantic inter-
operability.

• RDF has a decentralized philosophy and allows incremental building of
knowledge, and its sharing and reuse.

• RDF is domain-independent. RDF Schema provides a mechanism for de-
scribing specific domains.

• RDF Schema is a primitive ontology language. It offers certain modeling
primitives with fixed meaning. Key concepts of RDF Schema are class,
subclass relations, property, subproperty relations, and domain and range
restrictions.

• There exist query languages for RDF and RDFS, including SPARQL.

Some points that will be discussed in the next chapter:

• RDF Schema is quite primitive as a modeling language for the Web. Many
desirable modeling primitives are missing.

• Therefore we need an ontology layer on top of RDF/RDFS.

Suggested Reading
The following are some official online documents:

• G. Klyne and J. Carroll, eds. Resource Description Framework (RDF):
Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation. February 10,
2004.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/>.

• D. Brickley and R.V. Guha, eds. RDF Vocabulary Description Language
1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation. February 10, 2004.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/>.


• P. Hayes, ed. RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation. February 10, 2004.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/>.

• D. Beckett, ed. RDF/XML Syntax Speciﬁcation (Revised). W3C Recom-
mendation. February 10, 2004.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/>.

• F. Manola and E. Miller, eds. RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation. Febru-
ary 10, 2004.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/>.

• R. Fikes and D. McGuinness. An Axiomatic Semantics for RDF, RDF
Schema and DAML+OIL. March 2001.
<http://www.daml.org/2001/03/axiomatic-semantics.html>.

• E. Prud’hommeaux and A. Seaborne, eds. SPARQL Query Language for
RDF. W3C Candidate Recommendation. June 14, 2007.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/>.
Here are some further useful readings:

• S. Decker et al. The Semantic Web: The Roles of XML and RDF. IEEE
Internet Computing 15,3 (2000): 63–74.

• D. Dodds et al. Professional XML Meta Data. Birmingham, U.K.: Wrox
Press, 2001.

• J. Hjelm. Creating the Semantic Web with RDF. New York: Wiley, 2001.

• G. Karvounarakis, A. Maganaraki, S. Alexaki, V. Christophides, D. Plex-
ousakis, M. Scholl, K. Tolle. Querying the Semantic Web with RQL. Com-
puter Networks and ISDN Systems Journal 42,5 (2003): 617–640.

• M. Nic. RDF Tutorial - Part I: Basic Syntax and Containers.
<http://www.zvon.org/xxl/RDFTutorial/General/book.html>.

• L. Dodds. Introducing SPARQL: Querying the Semantic Web. November
16, 2005.
<http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/1628>.

An extensive list of tools and other resources is maintained at

• <http://http://planetrdf.com/guide//>.

• <http://www.w3.org/RDF>.



3.1 Read the RDFS namespace, and try to understand the elements that
were not presented in this chapter.

3.2 Read the SPARQL Tutorial by Leigh Dodds (see Suggested Reading),
focusing on points not discussed here.

3.3 The RDFS specification allows more than one domain to be defined for
a property and uses the intersection of these domains. Discuss the pros
and cons of taking the union versus taking the intersection of domains.

3.4 In an older version of the RDFS specification, rdfs:subClassOf was
not allowed to have cycles. Try to imagine situations where a cyclic
class relationship would be beneficial. (Hint: Think of equivalence be-
tween classes.)

3.5 Discuss the difference between the following statements, and draw
graphs to illustrate the difference:

X supports the proposal; Y supports the proposal; Z supports the proposal.
The group of X, Y, and Z supports the proposal.

3.6 Compare rdfs:subClassOf with type extensions in XML Schema.

3.7 Consider the formal specification of rdf:_n in the axiomatic seman-
tics. Does it capture the intended meaning of rdf:_n as the selector of
the nth element of a collection? If not, suggest a full axiomatization.

3.8 Prove the inferred formulas at the end of section 3.7 using the previous
axioms.

3.9 Discuss why RDF and RDFS do not allow logical contradictions. Any
RDF/S document is consistent; thus it has at least one model.

3.10 Try to map the relational database model on RDF.

3.11 Compare entity-relationship modeling to RDF.

3.12 Model part of a library in RDF Schema: books, authors, publishers,
years, copies, dates, and so on. Then write some statements in RDF,
and query them using SPARQL.


3.13 Write an ontology about geography: cities, countries, capitals, borders,
states, and so on.

3.14 In chapter 2 you were asked to consider various domains and develop
appropriate vocabularies for them. Try to model these domains by
defining suitable classes and properties, and a conceptual model. Then
write sample statements in RDF.

In the following you are asked to think about limitations of RDFS. Specifi-
cally, what should actually be expressed, and can it be represented in RDF
Schema? These limitations will be relevant in chapter 4, where we present a
richer modeling language.

3.15 Consider the classes of males and females. Name a relationship be-
tween them that should be included in an ontology.

3.16 Consider the classes of persons, males, and females. Name a relation-
ship between all three that should be included in an ontology. Which
part of this relationship can be expressed in RDF Schema?

3.17 Suppose we declare Bob and Peter to be the father of Mary. Obviously
there is a semantic error here. How should the semantic model make
this error impossible?

3.18 What relationship exists between “is child of” and “is parent of”?

3.19 Consider the property eats with domain animal and range animal or
plant. Suppose we define a new class vegetarian. Name a desirable re-
striction on eats for this class. Do you think that this restriction can be
expressed in RDF Schema by using rdfs:range?

3.20 Evaluate some SPARQL queries against the RDF repositories that are
available at <http://sesame.aduna.biz/>.

3.21 Construct an RDF Schema vocabulary on a topic of your choice, and
use the FRODO RDFSViz visualization tool6 to construct a class and
property diagram for your vocabulary.

6. <http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/frodo/RDFSViz/>.

4 Web Ontology Language: OWL

4.1 Introduction

The expressivity of RDF and RDF Schema that we described in the previ-
ous chapter is deliberately very limited. RDF is (roughly) limited to binary
ground predicates, and RDF Schema is (roughly) limited to a subclass hier-
archy and a property hierarchy, with domain and range definitions of these
properties.
However, the Web Ontology Working Group of W3C1 identified a number
of characteristic use cases for the Semantic Web that would require much
more expressiveness than RDF and RDF Schema offer.
A number of research groups in both the United States and Europe had al-
ready identified the need for a more powerful ontology modeling language.
This led to a joint initiative to define a richer language, called DAML+OIL2
(the name is a join of the names of the U.S. proposal DAML-ONT,3 and the
European language OIL4 ).
DAML+OIL in turn was taken as the starting point for the W3C Web On-
tology Working Group in defining OWL, the language that is aimed to be the
standardized and broadly accepted ontology language of the Semantic Web.
In this chapter, we first describe the motivation for OWL in terms of its
requirements, and its resulting nontrivial relation with RDF Schema. We
then describe the various language elements of OWL in some detail.

1. <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/>.
2. <http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-index.html>.
3. <http://www.daml.org/2000/10/daml-ont.html>.
4. <http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/>.

113

114 4 Web Ontology Language: OWL

Chapter Overview
Section 4.2 describes the motivation for OWL in terms of its requirements and
its resulting nontrivial relation with RDF Schema; section 4.3 describes three
OWL sublanguages. Section 4.4 describes the various language elements in
some detail, and section 4.5 specifies which features may be used in which
sublanguage. Several examples are given in section 4.6. A description of
OWL in terms of itself appears in section 4.7. Section 4.8 looks at future
extensions of ontology languages.

4.2 OWL and RDF/RDFS

4.2.1 Requirements for Ontology Languages
Ontology languages allow users to write explicit, formal conceptualizations
of domain models. The main requirements are a well-defined syntax, effi-
cient reasoning support, a formal semantics, sufficient expressive power and
convenience of expression.
The importance of a well-defined syntax is clear and known from the area of
programming languages; it is a necessary condition for machine processing
of information. All the languages we have presented so far have a well-
defined syntax. DAML+OIL and OWL build upon RDF and RDFS and have
the same kind of syntax.
Of course, it is questionable whether the XML-based RDF syntax is very
user-friendly; there are alternatives better suited to human users (for exam-
ple, see the OIL syntax). However, this drawback is not very significant
because ultimately users will be developing their own ontologies using au-
thoring tools, or more generally, ontology development tools, instead of writing
them directly in DAML+OIL or OWL.
A formal semantics describes the meaning of knowledge precisely. Precisely
here means that the semantics does not refer to subjective intuitions, nor is
it open to different interpretations by different people (or machines). The
importance of a formal semantics is well-established in the domain of math-
ematical logic, for instance.
One use of a formal semantics is to allow people to reason about the know-
ledge. For ontological knowledge, we may reason about the following:

• Class membership. If x is an instance of a class C, and C is a subclass of
D, then we can infer that x is an instance of D.

4.2 OWL and RDF/RDFS 115

• Equivalence of classes. If class A is equivalent to class B, and class B is
equivalent to class C, then A is equivalent to C, too.

• Consistency. Suppose we have declared x to be an instance of the class A
and that A is a subclass of B ∩ C, A is a subclass of D, and B and D are
disjoint. Then we have an inconsistency because A should be empty but
has the instance x. This is an indication of an error in the ontology.

• Classification. If we have declared that certain property-value pairs are a
sufficient condition for membership in a class A, then if an individual x
satisfies such conditions, we can conclude that x must be an instance of A.

Semantics is a prerequisite for reasoning support. Derivations such as the
preceding ones can be made mechanically instead of being made by hand.
Reasoning support is important because it allows one to

• check the consistency of the ontology and the knowledge,

• check for unintended relationships between classes,

• automatically classify instances in classes.

Automated reasoning support allows one to check many more cases than
could be checked manually. Checks like the precedings ones are valuable
for designing large ontologies, where multiple authors are involved, and for
integrating and sharing ontologies from various sources.
A formal semantics and reasoning support are usually provided by map-
ping an ontology language to a known logical formalism, and by using auto-
mated reasoners that already exist for those formalisms. OWL is (partially)
mapped on a description logic, and makes use of existing reasoners such as
FaCT and RACER. Description logics are a subset of predicate logic for which
efficient reasoning support is possible.

4.2.2 Limitations of the Expressive Power of RDF Schema
RDF and RDFS allow the representation of some ontological knowledge. The
main modeling primitives of RDF/RDFS concern the organization of vocab-
ularies in typed hierarchies: subclass and subproperty relationships, domain
and range restrictions, and instances of classes. However, a number of other
features are missing. Here we list a few:


• Local scope of properties. rdfs:range defines the range of a property,
say eats, for all classes. Thus in RDF Schema we cannot declare range
restrictions that apply to some classes only. For example, we cannot say
that cows eat only plants, while other animals may eat meat, too.

• Disjointness of classes. Sometimes we wish to say that classes are disjoint.
For example, male and female are disjoint. But in RDF Schema we can
only state subclass relationships, e.g., female is a subclass of person.

• Boolean combinations of classes. Sometimes we wish to build new classes
by combining other classes using union, intersection, and complement.
For example, we may wish to define the class person to be the disjoint
union of the classes male and female. RDF Schema does not allow such
definitions.

• Cardinality restrictions. Sometimes we wish to place restrictions on how
many distinct values a property may or must take. For example, we
would like to say that a person has exactly two parents, or that a course is
taught by at least one lecturer. Again, such restrictions are impossible to
express in RDF Schema.

• Special characteristics of properties. Sometimes it is useful to say that a
property is transitive (like “greater than”), unique (like “is mother of”), or
the inverse of another property (like “eats” and “is eaten by”).

Thus we need an ontology language that is richer than RDF Schema, a lan-
guage that offers these features and more. In designing such a language
one should be aware of the trade-off between expressive power and effi-
cient reasoning support. Generally speaking, the richer the language, the
more inefficient the reasoning support becomes, often crossing the border of
noncomputability. Thus we need a compromise, a language that can be sup-
ported by reasonably efficient reasoners while being sufficiently expressive
to express large classes of ontologies and knowledge.

4.2.3 Compatibility of OWL with RDF/RDFS
Ideally, OWL would be an extension of RDF Schema, in the sense that
OWL would use the RDF meaning of classes and properties ( rdfs:Class,
rdfs:subClassOf, etc.) and would add language primitives to support
the richer expressiveness required. Such an extension of RDF Schema would

4.3 Three Sublanguages of OWL 117

also be consistent with the layered architecture of the Semantic Web (see fig-
ure 1.3).
Unfortunately, simply extending RDF Schema would work against obtain-
ing expressive power and efficient reasoning. RDF Schema has some very
powerful modeling primitives. Constructions such as rdfs:Class (the
class of all classes) and rdf:Property (the class of all properties) are very
expressive and would lead to uncontrollable computational properties if the
logic were extended with such expressive primitives.

4.3 Three Sublanguages of OWL
The full set of requirements for an ontology language that seem unobtain-
able: efficient reasoning support and convenience of expression for a lan-
guage as powerful as a combination of RDF Schema with a full logic.
Indeed, these requirements have prompted W3C’s Web Ontology Working
Group to define OWL as three different sublanguages, each geared toward
fulfilling different aspects of this full set of requirements.

4.3.1 OWL Full
The entire language is called OWL Full and uses all the OWL language prim-
itives. It also allows the combination of these primitives in arbitrary ways
with RDF and RDF Schema. This includes the possibility (also present in
RDF) of changing the meaning of the predefined (RDF or OWL) primitives
by applying the language primitives to each other. For example, in OWL
Full, we could impose a cardinality constraint on the class of all classes, es-
sentially limiting the number of classes that can be described in any ontology.
The advantage of OWL Full is that it is fully upward-compatible with RDF,
both syntactically and semantically: any legal RDF document is also a legal
OWL Full document, and any valid RDF/RDF Schema conclusion is also a
valid OWL Full conclusion. The disadvantage of OWL Full is that the lan-
guage has become so powerful as to be undecidable, dashing any hope of
complete (or efficient) reasoning support.

4.3.2 OWL DL
In order to regain computational efficiency, OWL DL (short for Description
Logic) is a sublanguage of OWL Full that restricts how the constructors from
OWL and RDF may be used. Essentially application of OWL’s constructors


to each other is disallowed, thus ensuring that the language corresponds to
a well-studied description logic.
The advantage of this is that it permits efﬁcient reasoning support. The
disadvantage is that we lose full compatibility with RDF. An RDF document
will in general have to be extended in some ways and restricted in others
before it is a legal OWL DL document. Every legal OWL DL document is a
legal RDF document.

4.3.3 OWL Lite
An even further restriction limits OWL DL to a subset of the language con-
structors. For example, OWL Lite excludes enumerated classes, disjointness
statements, and arbitrary cardinality.
The advantage of this is a language that is both easier to grasp (for users)
and easier to implement (for tool builders). The disadvantage is, of course, a
restricted expressivity.

Ontology developers adopting OWL should consider which sublanguage
best suits their needs. The choice between OWL Lite and OWL DL depends
on the extent to which users require the more expressive constructs provided
by OWL DL. The choice between OWL DL and OWL Full mainly depends on
the extent to which users require the metamodeling facilities of RDF Schema
(e.g., deﬁning classes of classes, or attaching properties to classes). When us-
ing OWL Full as compared to OWL DL, reasoning support is less predictable
because complete OWL Full implementations will be impossible.
There are strict notions of upward compatibility between these three sub-
languages:

• Every legal OWL Lite ontology is a legal OWL DL ontology.

• Every legal OWL DL ontology is a legal OWL Full ontology.

• Every valid OWL Lite conclusion is a valid OWL DL conclusion.

• Every valid OWL DL conclusion is a valid OWL Full conclusion.

OWL still uses RDF and RDF Schema to a large extent:

• All varieties of OWL use RDF for their syntax.

• Instances are declared as in RDF, using RDF descriptions and typing in-
formation.


rdfs:Resource

rdfs:Class rdf:Property

owl:Class owl:ObjectProperty owl:DatatypeProperty

Figure 4.1 Subclass relationships between OWL and RDF/RDFS

• OWL constructors like owl:Class, and owl:DatatypeProperty, and
owl:ObjectProperty are specializations of their RDF counterparts.

Figure 4.1 shows the subclass relationships between some modeling primi-
tives of OWL and RDF/RDFS.
One of the main motivations behind the layered architecture of the Se-
mantic Web (see figure 1.3) is a hope for downward compatibility with cor-
responding reuse of software across the various layers. However, the advan-
tage of full downward compatibility for OWL (any OWL-aware processor
will also provide correct interpretations of any RDF Schema document) is
only achieved for OWL Full, at the cost of computational intractability.

4.4 Description of the OWL Language

4.4.1 Syntax
OWL builds on RDF and RDF Schema and uses RDF’s XML-based syntax.
Since this is the primary syntax for OWL, we use it here, but RDF/XML does
not provide a very readable syntax. Because of this, other syntactic forms for
OWL have also been defined:

• An XML-based syntax5 that does not follow the RDF conventions and is
thus more easily read by human users.

5. Defined in <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/>.


• An abstract syntax, used in the language specification document6 , that
is much more compact and readable then either the XML syntax or the
RDF/XML syntax. Appendix A lists all the RDF/XML code in this chap-
ter in this abstract syntax.

• A graphic syntax based on the conventions of UML (Unified Modeling
Language), which is widely used and is thus an easy way for people to
become familiar with OWL.

4.4.2 Header
OWL documents are usually called OWL ontologies and are RDF documents.
The root element of an OWL ontology is an rdf:RDF element, which also
specifies a number of namespaces:

<rdf:RDF
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:rdf ="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:xsd ="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#">

An OWL ontology may start with a collection of assertions for housekeeping
purposes. These assertions are grouped under an owl:Ontology element,
which contains comments, version control, and inclusion of other ontologies.
For example

<owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
<rdfs:comment>An example OWL ontology</rdfs:comment>
<owl:priorVersion
rdf:resource="http://www.mydomain.org/uni-ns-old"/>
<owl:imports
rdf:resource="http://www.mydomain.org/persons"/>
<rdfs:label>University Ontology</rdfs:label>
</owl:Ontology>

Only one of these assertions has any consequences for the logical meaning of
the ontology: owl:imports, which lists other ontologies whose content is
assumed to be part of the current ontology. Note that while namespaces are
used for disambiguation, imported ontologies provide definitions that can

6. <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/>.


be used. Usually there will be an import element for each namespace used,
but it is possible to import additional ontologies, for example, ontologies that
provide definitions without introducing any new names.
Also note that owl:imports is a transitive property: if ontology A im-
ports ontology B, and ontology B imports ontology C, then ontology A also
imports ontology C.

4.4.3 Class Elements
Classes are defined using an owl:Class element.7 For example, we can
define a class associateProfessor as follows:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="associateProfessor">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/>
</owl:Class>

We can also say that this class is disjoint from the assistantProfessor
and professor classes using owl:disjointWith elements. These ele-
ments can be included in the preceding definition, or added by referring to
the ID using rdf:about. This mechanism is inherited from RDF.

<owl:Class rdf:about="#associateProfessor">
<owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#professor"/>
<owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#assistantProfessor"/>
</owl:Class>

Equivalence of classes can be defined using an owl:equivalentClass ele-
ment:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="faculty">
<owl:equivalentClass rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/>
</owl:Class>

Finally, there are two predefined classes, owl:Thing and owl:Nothing.
The former is the most general class, which contains everything (everything
is a thing), and the latter is the empty class. Thus every class is a subclass of
owl:Thing and a superclass of owl:Nothing.

7. owl:Class is a subclass of rdfs:Class.


4.4.4 Property Elements
In OWL there are two kinds of properties:

• Object properties, which relate objects to other objects. Examples are
isTaughtBy and supervises.

• Data type properties, which relate objects to data type values. Examples
are phone, title, and age. OWL does not have any predefined data
types, nor does it provide special definition facilities. Instead, it allows
one to use XML Schema data types, thus making use of the layered archi-
tecture of the Semantic Web.

Here is an example of a data type property:

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="age">
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
#nonNegativeInteger"/>
</owl:DatatypeProperty>

User-defined data types will usually be collected in an XML schema and then
used in an OWL ontology.
Here is an example of an object property:

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="isTaughtBy">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#course"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/>
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#involves"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>

More than one domain and range may be declared. In this case the intersec-
tion of the domains, respectively ranges, is taken.
OWL allows us to relate inverse properties. A typical example is the pair
isTaughtBy and teaches:

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="teaches">
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#course"/>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/>
<owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#isTaughtBy"/>

Figure 4.2 illustrates the relationship between a property and its inverse. Ac-
tually, domain and range can be inherited from the inverse property (inter-
change domain with range).


teaches

l c

isTaughtBy

Figure 4.2 Inverse properties

Equivalence of properties can be defined through the use of the element
owl:equivalentProperty.

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="lecturesIn">
<owl:equivalentProperty rdf:resource="#teaches"/>

4.4.5 Property Restrictions
With rdfs:subClassOf we can specify a class C to be subclass of another
class C ; then every instance of C is also an instance of C .
Suppose we wish to declare instead that the class C satisfies certain con-
ditions, that is, all instances of C satisfy the conditions. This is equivalent to
saying that C is subclass of a class C , where C collects all objects that satisfy
the conditions. That is exactly how it is done in OWL. Note that, in general,
C can remain anonymous.
The following element requires first-year courses to be taught by profes-
sors only (according to a questionable view, older and more senior academics
are better at teaching):

<owl:Class rdf:about="#firstYearCourse">
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#isTaughtBy"/>
<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Professor"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

owl:allValuesFrom is used to specify the class of possible values the
property specified by owl:onProperty can take (in other words, all values


of the property must come from this class). In our example, only professors
are allowed as values of the property isTaughtBy.
We can declare that mathematics courses are taught by David Billington as
follows:

<owl:Class rdf:about="#mathCourse">
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#949318"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

owl:hasValue states a specific value that the property specified by
owl:onProperty must have.
And we can declare that all academic staff members must teach at least
one undergraduate course:

<owl:Class rdf:about="#academicStaffMember">
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#teaches"/>
<owl:someValuesFrom
rdf:resource="#undergraduateCourse"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

Let us compare owl:allValuesFrom and owl:someValuesFrom. The
example using the former requires every person who teaches an instance of
the class, a first-year subject, to be a professor. In terms of logic, we have a
universal quantification.
The example using the latter requires that there exists an undergraduate
course taught by an instance of the class, an academic staff member. It is still
possible that the same academic teaches postgraduate courses in addition. In
terms of logic, we have an existential quantification.
In general, an owl:Restriction element contains an owl:onProperty
element and one or more restriction declarations. One type of restriction
declaration defines restrictions on the kinds of values the property can take:
owl:allValuesFrom, owl:hasValue, and owl:someValuesFrom. An-


other type deﬁnes cardinality restrictions. For example, we can require every
course to be taught by at least someone:

<owl:Class rdf:about="#course">
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:minCardinality
rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">
1
</owl:minCardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

Notice that we had to specify that the literal “1” is to be interpreted as
nonNegativeInteger (instead of, say, a string), and that we used the
xsd namespace declaration made in the header element to refer to the XML
Schema document.
Or we might specify that, for practical reasons, a department must have at
least ten and at most thirty members:

<owl:Class rdf:about="#department">
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasMember"/>
<owl:minCardinality
10
</owl:minCardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasMember"/>
<owl:maxCardinality
30
</owl:maxCardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>


It is possible to specify a precise number, for example, a Ph.D. student must
have exactly two supervisors. This can be achieved by using the same
number in owl:minCardinality and owl:maxCardinality. For con-
venience, OWL offers also owl:cardinality.
We conclude by noting that owl:Restriction defines an anonymous
class which has no ID, is not defined by owl:Class, and has only local
scope: it can only be used in the one place where the restriction appears.
When we talk about classes, keep in mind the twofold meaning: classes de-
fined by owl:Class with an ID, and local anonymous classes as collections
of objects that satisfy certain restriction conditions, or as combinations of
other classes. The latter are sometimes called class expressions.

4.4.6 Special Properties
Some properties of property elements can be defined directly:

owl:TransitiveProperty defines a transitive property, such as “has
better grade than”, “is taller than”, or “is ancestor of”.

owl:SymmetricProperty defines a symmetric property, such as “has
same grade as” or “is sibling of”.

owl:FunctionalProperty defines a property that has at most one value
for each object, such as “age”, “height”, or “directSupervisor”.

owl:InverseFunctionalProperty defines a property for which two
different objects cannot have the same value, for example, the property
“isTheSocialSecurityNumberfor” (a social security number is assigned to
one person only).

An example of the syntactic forms for these is

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasSameGradeAs">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;TransitiveProperty" />
<rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;SymmetricProperty" />
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#student" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#student" />


4.4.7 Boolean Combinations
It is possible to talk about Boolean combinations (union, intersection, com-
plement) of classes (be they deﬁned by owl:Class or by class expressions).
For example, we can say that courses and staff members are disjoint:

<owl:Class rdf:about="#course">
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Class>
<owl:complementOf rdf:resource="#staffMember"/>
</owl:Class>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

This says that every course is an instance of the complement of staff mem-
bers, that is, no course is a staff member. Note that this statement could also
have been expressed using owl:disjointWith.
The union of classes is built using owl:unionOf:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="peopleAtUni">
<owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<owl:Class rdf:about="#staffMember"/>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#student"/>
</owl:unionOf>
</owl:Class>

This does not say that the new class is a subclass of the union, but rather
that the new class is equal to the union. In other words, we have stated an
equivalence of classes. Also, we did not specify that the two classes must be
disjoint: it is possible for a staff member to also be a student.
Intersection is stated with owl:intersectionOf:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="facultyInCS">
<owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<owl:Class rdf:about="#faculty"/>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#belongsTo"/>
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#CSDepartment"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</owl:intersectionOf>
</owl:Class>


Note that we have built the intersection of two classes, one of which was
defined anonymously: the class of all objects belonging to the CS depart-
ment. This class is intersected with faculty to give us the faculty in the CS
department.
Boolean combinations can be nested arbitrarily. The following example
defines administrative staff to be those staff members that are neither faculty
nor technical support staff:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="adminStaff">
<owl:Class rdf:about="#staffMember"/>
<owl:Class>
<owl:complementOf>
<owl:Class>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#faculty"/>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#techSupportStaff"/>
</owl:unionOf>
</owl:Class>
</owl:complementOf>
</owl:Class>
</owl:Class>

4.4.8 Enumerations
An enumeration is an owl:oneOf element, used to define a class by listing
all its elements:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="weekdays">
<owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Monday"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Tuesday"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Wednesday"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Thursday"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Friday"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Saturday"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Sunday"/>
</owl:oneOf>
</owl:Class>


4.4.9 Instances
Instances of classes are declared as in RDF:
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="949352">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/>
</rdf:Description>

or equivalently
<academicStaffMember rdf:ID="949352"/>

We can also provide further details, such as
<academicStaffMember rdf:ID="949352">
<uni:age rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">39</uni:age>
</academicStaffMember>

Unlike typical database systems, OWL does not adopt the unique-names as-
sumption; just because two instances have a different name or ID does not
imply that they are different individuals. For example, if we state that each
course is taught by at most one staff member
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="isTaughtBy">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;FunctionalProperty" />

and we subsequently state that a given course is taught by two staff members
<course rdf:ID="CIT1111">
<isTaughtBy rdf:resource="#949318"/>
<isTaughtBy rdf:resource="#949352"/>
</course>

this does not cause an OWL reasoner to ﬂag an error. After all, the system
could validly infer that the resources "949318" and "949352" are appar-
ently equal. To ensure that different individuals are indeed recognized as
such, we must explicitly assert their inequality:
<lecturer rdf:ID="949318">
<owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="#949352"/>
</lecturer>

Because such inequality statements occur frequently, and the required num-
ber of such statements would explode if we wanted to state the inequality of
a large number of individuals, OWL provides a shorthand notation to assert
the pairwise inequality of all individuals in a given list:


<owl:AllDifferent>
<owl:distinctMembers rdf:parseType="Collection">
<lecturer rdf:about="#949318"/>
</owl:distinctMembers>
</owl:AllDifferent>

Note that owl:distinctMembers can only be used in combination with
owl:allDifferent.

4.4.10 Data Types
Although XML Schema provides a mechanism to construct user-defined data
types (e.g., the data type of adultAge as all integers greater than 18, or the
data type of all strings starting with a number), such derived data types can-
not be used in OWL. In fact, not even all of the many built-in XML Schema
data types can be used in OWL. The OWL reference document lists all the
XML Schema data types that can be used, but these include the most fre-
quently used types such as string, integer, Boolean, time, and date.

4.4.11 Versioning Information
We have already seen the owl:priorVersion statement as part of the
header information to indicate earlier versions of the current ontology. This
information has no formal model-theoretic semantics but can be exploited
by human readers and programs alike for the purposes of ontology manage-
ment.
Besides owl:priorVersion, OWL has three more statements to indicate
further informal versioning information. None of these carry any formal
meaning.

owl:versionInfo generally contains a string giving information about
the current version, for example RCS/CVS keywords.

owl:backwardCompatibleWith contains a reference to another ontol-
ogy. This identifies the specified ontology as a prior version of the contain-
ing ontology and further indicates that it is backward-compatible with it.
In particular, this indicates that all identifiers from the previous version
have the same intended interpretations in the new version. Thus, it is a
hint to document authors that they can safely change their documents to


commit to the new version (by simply updating namespace declarations
and owl:imports statements to refer to the URL of the new version).

owl:incompatibleWith, on the other hand, indicates that the containing
ontology is a later version of the referenced ontology but is not backward-
compatible with it. Essentially, this is for use by ontology authors who
want to be explicit that documents cannot upgrade to use the new version
without checking whether changes are required.

4.5 Layering of OWL
Now that we have discussed all the language constructors of OWL, we can
completely specify which features of the language may be used in which
sublanguage (OWL Full, OWL DL, or OWL Lite).

4.5.1 OWL Full
In OWL Full, all the language constructors may be used in any combination
as long as the result is legal RDF.

4.5.2 OWL DL
In order to exploit the formal underpinnings and computational tractability
of Description Logics, the following constraints must be obeyed in an OWL
DL ontology:
• Vocabulary partitioning. Any resource is allowed to be only a class, a data
type, a data type property, an object property, an individual, a data value,
or part of the built-in vocabulary, and not more than one of these. This
means that, for example, a class cannot at the same time be an individual,
or that a property cannot have some values from a data type and some
values from a class (this would make it both a data type property and an
object property).

• Explicit typing. Not only must all resources be partitioned (as prescribed
in the previous constraint) but this partitioning must be stated explicitly.
For example, if an ontology contains the following:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="C1">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:about="#C2" />
</owl:Class>


this already entails that C2 is a class (by virtue of the range specification of
rdfs:subClassOf). Nevertheless, an OWL DL ontology must explicitly
state this information:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="C2"/>

• Property separation. By virtue of the first constraint, the set of object prop-
erties and data type properties are disjoint. This implies that the following
can never be specified for data type properties:
owl:inverseOf,
owl:FunctionalProperty,
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, and
owl:SymmetricProperty.

• No transitive cardinality restrictions. No cardinality restrictions may be
placed on transitive properties (or their superproperties, which are of
course also transitive, by implication).

• Restricted anonymous classes. Anonymous classes are only allowed
to occur as the domain and range of either owl:equivalentClass
or owl:disjointWith, and as the range (but not the domain) of
rdfs:subClassOf.

4.5.3 OWL Lite
An OWL Lite ontology must be an OWL DL ontology and must further sat-
isfy the following constraints:

• The constructors owl:oneOf, owl:disjointWith, owl:unionOf,
owl:complementOf, and owl:hasValue are not allowed.

• Cardinality statements ( minimal, maximal, and exact cardinality) can
only be made on the values 0 or 1 and no longer on arbitrary non-negative
integers.

• owl:equivalentClass statements can no longer be made between
anonymous classes but only between class identifiers.

4.5.4 OWL DLP
As explained, OWL is based on Description Logic. Since this is a fragment of
first-order logic, it inherits many of the properties of that logic. In particular,


it inherits the open-world assumption and the non-unique-name assump-
tion. We explain both of those here, their consequences for ontology design
and application, and why they are controversial. This has led to the defi-
nition of an interesting sublanguage of OWL DL, named OWL DLP. OWL
DLP is not part of the official W3C OWL species layering but is nevertheless
sufficiently interesting to deserve some discussion here.
The open-world assumption says that we cannot conclude some statement x
to be false simply because we cannot show x to be true. After all, our axioms
may be simply noncommittal on the status of x. In other words, we may not
deduce falsity from the absence of truth. The opposite assumption (closed-
world, CWA) would allow deriving falsity from the inability to derive truth.
Here’s a simple example where this matters:

Question: “Did it rain in Tokyo yesterday?”
Answer: “I don’t know that it rained, but that’s not enough reason to
conclude that it didn’t rain.”

Clearly, for this question, the open-world assumption is appropriate. How-
ever, consider the following:

Question: “Was there a big earthquake disaster in Tokyo yesterday?”
Answer: “I don’t know that there was, but if there had been such a
disaster, I’d have heard about it. Therefore I conclude that there wasn’t
such a disaster.”

Apparently, for this question, the closed-world assumption is appropriate
and allows us to draw the reasonable conclusion that the open-world as-
sumption would have blocked. So, the fact that OWL is strictly committed
to the open-world assumption is in some applications not the right choice.
The unique-name assumption (UNA) says that when two individuals are
known by different names, they are in fact different individuals. Again, this
is an assumption that sometimes works well and sometimes doesn’t. When
talking about something like product codes in a catalog, it makes sense to
assume that when two products are known by different codes, they are in-
deed different products. But when talking about people in our social envi-
ronment, it often happens that we only later find out that two people with
different identifiers (e.g., “Prof. van Harmelen” and “Frank”) are in fact the
same person. OWL does not make the unique-name assumption, although
it is possible to explicitly assert of a set of identifiers that they are all unique
(using owl:allDifferent).


Figure 4.3 relation of OWL DLP to other languages

Traditionally, systems such as databases and logic-programming systems
have tended to support closed worlds and unique names, whereas know-
ledge representation systems and theorem provers support open worlds and
non-unique names. Ontologies are sometimes in need of one and sometimes
in need of the other. Consequently, discussions can be found in the literature
and on the WWW about whether OWL should be more like a knowledge rep-
resentation system or more like a database system. This debate was nicely
resolved by Volz and Horrocks (see the Grosof, Horrocks, Volz and Decker
item in the further readings), who identiﬁed a fragment of OWL called DLP
(Description Logic Programming). This fragment is the largest fragment on
which the choice for CWA and UNA does not matter, see ﬁgure 4.3. That is,
OWL DLP is weak enough so that the differences between the choices don’t
show up. The advantage of this is that people or applications that wish to
make different choices on these assumptions can still exchange ontologies in
OWL DLP without harm. Of course, as soon as they go outside OWL DLP,
they will notice that they draw different conclusions from the same state-
ments. In other words, they will notice that they disagree on the semantics.
Fortunately, DLP is still large enough to enable useful representation
and reasoning tasks. It allows the use of such OWL constructors as class
and property equivalence; equality and inequality between individuals; in-

4.6 Examples 135

animal plant

herbivore carnivore tree

giraffe lion

Figure 4.4 Classes and subclasses of the African wildlife ontology

verse, transitive, symmetric and functional properties; and the intersection of
classes. It excludes, however, constructors such as intersection and arbitrary
cardinality constraints.
These constructors not only allow useful expressivity for many practical
cases, while guaranteeing correct interchange between OWL reasoners inde-
pendent of CWA and UNA, but also allow for translation into efﬁciently im-
plementable reasoning techniques based on databases and logic programs.
More on this topic is discussed in section 5.5.

4.6 Examples

4.6.1 An African Wildlife Ontology
This example shows an ontology that describes African wildlife. Figure 4.4
shows the basic classes and their subclass relationships. Note that the sub-
class information is only part of the information included in the ontology.
The entire graph is much larger. Figure 4.5 shows the graphic representation
of the statement that branches are parts of trees.
The ontology includes comments written using rdfs:comment.
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">

<owl:Ontology rdf:about="xml:base"/>


isPartOf
onProperty

branch isSubclassOf

allValuesFrom
tree

Figure 4.5 Branches are parts of trees

<owl:Class rdf:ID="animal">
<rdfs:comment>Animals form a class.</rdfs:comment>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="plant">
<rdfs:comment>
Plants form a class disjoint from animals.
</rdfs:comment>
<owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#animal"/>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="tree">
<rdfs:comment>Trees are a type of plant.</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#plant"/>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="branch">
<rdfs:comment>Branches are parts of trees.</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#is_part_of"/>
<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#tree"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="leaf">
<rdfs:comment>Leaves are parts of branches.</rdfs:comment>

4.6 Examples 137

<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#branch"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="herbivore">
<rdfs:comment>
Herbivores are exactly those animals that eat only plants
or parts of plants.
</rdfs:comment>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#animal"/>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#eats"/>
<owl:allValuesFrom>
<owl:Class>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#plant"/>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#plant"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</owl:unionOf>
</owl:Class>
</owl:allValuesFrom>
</owl:Restriction>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="carnivore">
<rdfs:comment>
Carnivores are exactly those animals that eat animals.
</rdfs:comment>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#animal"/>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#animal"/>
</owl:Restriction>


</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="giraffe">
<rdfs:comment>
Giraffes are herbivores, and they eat only leaves.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#herbivore"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#leaf"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="lion">
<rdfs:comment>
Lions are animals that eat only herbivores.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#carnivore"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#herbivore"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="tasty_plant">
<rdfs:comment>
Tasty plants are plants that are eaten
both by herbivores and carnivores.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#plant"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#eaten_by"/>
<owl:someValuesFrom>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#herbivore"/>
</owl:someValuesFrom>
</owl:Restriction>

4.6 Examples 139

</rdfs:subClassOf>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#eaten_by"/>
<owl:someValuesFrom>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#carnivore"/>
</owl:someValuesFrom>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

<owl:TransitiveProperty rdf:ID="is_part_of"/>

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="eats">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#animal"/>

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="eaten_by">
<owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#eats"/>

</rdf:RDF>

4.6.2 A Printer Ontology
Classes and subclass relationships in this example are shown in ﬁgure 4.6.

<!DOCTYPE owl [
<!ENTITY xsd "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
]>

<rdf:RDF
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns="http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/printer.owl#">

<owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
<owl:versionInfo>
My example version 1.2, 17 October 2002


product

padid hpProduct

printer

laserJetPrinter personalPrinter hpPrinter

hpLaserJetPrinter

1100series

1100se 1100xi

Figure 4.6 Classes and subclasses of the printer ontology

</owl:versionInfo>
</owl:Ontology>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="product">
<rdfs:comment>Products form a class.</rdfs:comment>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="padid">
<rdfs:comment>
Printing and digital imaging devices
form a subclass of products.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:label>Device</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#product"/>
</owl:Class>

4.6 Examples 141

<owl:Class rdf:ID="hpProduct">
<rdfs:comment>
HP products are exactly those products
that are manufactured by Hewlett Packard.
</rdfs:comment>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#product"/>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#manufactured_by"/>
<owl:hasValue rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">
Hewlett Packard
</owl:hasValue>
</owl:Restriction>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="printer">
<rdfs:comment>
Printers are printing and digital imaging devices.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#padid"/>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="personalPrinter">
<rdfs:comment>
Printers for personal use form a subclass of printers.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#printer"/>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="hpPrinter">
<rdfs:comment>
HP printers are HP products and printers.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#printer"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#hpProduct"/>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="laserJetPrinter">
<rdfs:comment>
Laser jet printers are exactly those
printers that use laser jet printing technology.


</rdfs:comment>
<owl:Class rdf:about="#printer"/>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#printingTechnology"/>
laser jet
</owl:hasValue>
</owl:Restriction>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="hpLaserJetPrinter">
<rdfs:comment>
HP laser jet printers are HP products
and laser jet printers.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#laserJetPrinter"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#hpPrinter"/>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="1100series">
<rdfs:comment>
1100series printers are HP laser jet printers with
8ppm printing speed and 600dpi printing resolution.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#hpLaserJetPrinter"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#printingSpeed"/>
8ppm
</owl:hasValue>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#printingResolution"/>
600dpi
</owl:hasValue>
</owl:Restriction>

4.6 Examples 143

</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="1100se">
<rdfs:comment>
1100se printers belong to the 1100 series and cost $450.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#1100series"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#price"/>
<owl:hasValue rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">
450
</owl:hasValue>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="1100xi">
<rdfs:comment>
1100xi printers belong to the 1100 series and cost $350.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#1100series"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#price"/>
<owl:hasValue rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">
350
</owl:hasValue>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="manufactured_by">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#product"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;string"/>

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="price">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#product"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger"/>


<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="printingTechnology">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#printer"/>

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="printingResolution">

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="printingSpeed">

</rdf:RDF>

This ontology demonstrates that siblings in a hierarchy tree need not be
disjoint. For example, a personal printer may be an HP printer or a LaserJet
printer, although the three classes involved are subclasses of the class of all
printers.

4.7 OWL in OWL

Here we present a part of the deﬁnition of OWL in terms of itself. The full
description is found on the Web (see Suggested Reading). In our presentation
we comment on some aspects of OWL that have not been discussed so far.

4.7.1 Namespaces
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE owl [
<!ENTITY rdf "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<!ENTITY rdfs "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<!ENTITY xsd "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#">
<!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"> ]>
<rdf:RDF
xml:base ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl"
xmlns ="&owl;"

4.7 OWL in OWL 145

xmlns:owl ="&owl;"
xmlns:rdf ="&rdf;"
xmlns:rdfs="&rdfs;"
xmlns:dc ="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">

The URI of the current document (the OWL definition) is defined as the
default namespace. Therefore, the prefix owl: will not be used in the fol-
lowing. Also, note the use of XML entity definitions, which allows us to
abbreviate URLs appearing in attribute values.

4.7.2 Classes of Classes (Metaclasses)
The class of all OWL classes is itself a subclass of the class of all RDF Schema
classes:

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Class">
<rdfs:label>Class</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment>The class of all OWL classes</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/>
</rdfs:Class>

Thing is the most general object class in OWL, and Nothing the most spe-
cific, that is, the empty object class. The following relationships hold:

T hing = N othing ∪ N othing c
N othing = T hing c = N othing c ∩ N othing cc = ∅

<Class rdf:ID="Thing">
<rdfs:label>Thing</rdfs:label>
<unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<Class rdf:about="#Nothing"/>
<Class>
<complementOf rdf:resource="#Nothing"/>
</Class>
</unionOf>
</Class>

<Class rdf:ID="Nothing">
<rdfs:label>Nothing</rdfs:label>
<complementOf rdf:resource="#Thing"/>
</Class>


4.7.3 Class Equivalence
Class equivalence, expressed by owl:EquivalentClass, implies a sub-
class relationship and is always stated between two classes. This is analogous
for owl:EquivalentProperty. Disjointness statements can only be stated
between classes.

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="EquivalentClass">
<rdfs:label>EquivalentClass</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;subClassOf"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="EquivalentProperty">
<rdfs:label>EquivalentProperty</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;subPropertyOf"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="disjointWith">
<rdfs:label>disjointWith</rdfs:label>
</rdf:Property>

Equality and inequality can be stated between arbitrary things; in OWL Full
this statement can also be applied to classes. owl:sameAs is simply a syn-
onym for owl:sameIndividualAs.

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="sameIndividualAs">
<rdfs:label>sameIndividualAs</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Thing"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Thing"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="differentFrom">
<rdfs:label>differentFrom</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Thing"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Thing"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="sameAs">
<rdfs:label>sameAs</rdfs:label>

4.7 OWL in OWL 147

<EquivalentProperty rdf:resource="#sameIndividualAs"/>
</rdf:Property>

owl:distinctMembers can only be used for owl:AllDifferent:

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="AllDifferent">
<rdfs:label>AllDifferent</rdfs:label>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="distinctMembers">
<rdfs:label>distinctMembers</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#AllDifferent"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;List"/>
</rdf:Property>

4.7.4 Building Classes from Other Classes
owl:unionOf builds a class from a list (assumed to be a list of other class
expressions).

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="unionOf">
<rdfs:label>unionOf</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;List"/>
</rdf:Property>

owl:intersectionOf and owl:oneOf also build classes from a list, al-
though for these constructs the list is assumed to be a list of individuals.
owl:complementOf deﬁnes a class in terms of a single other class.

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="complementOf">
<rdfs:label>complementOf</rdfs:label>
</rdf:Property>

4.7.5 Restricting Properties of Classes
Restrictions in OWL deﬁne the class of those objects that satisfy some at-
tached conditions.

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Restriction">
<rdfs:label>Restriction</rdfs:label>


<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Class"/>
</rdfs:Class>

All the following properties are only allowed to occur within a restriction
definition; that is, their domain is owl:Restriction, but they differ with
respect to their range:

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="onProperty">
<rdfs:label>onProperty</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Restriction"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="allValuesFrom">
<rdfs:label>allValuesFrom</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="hasValue">
<rdfs:label>hasValue</rdfs:label>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="minCardinality">
<rdfs:label>minCardinality</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger"/>
</rdf:Property>

owl:maxCardinality and owl:cardinality are defined analogously
to owl:minCardinality, and owl:someValuesFrom is defined analo-
gously to owl:allValuesFrom
It is also worth noting that owl:onProperty allows the restriction on an
object or data type property. Therefore, the range of the restricting properties
like owl:allValuesFrom is not owl:Class (object classes) but the more
general rdfs:Class.

4.7.5.1 Properties

owl:ObjectProperty is a special case of rdf:Property,

4.7 OWL in OWL 149

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="ObjectProperty">
<rdfs:label>ObjectProperty</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/>
</rdfs:Class>

and similarly for owl:DatatypeProperty.
owl:TransitiveProperty can only be applied to object properties,

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="TransitiveProperty">
<rdfs:label>TransitiveProperty</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#ObjectProperty"/>
</rdfs:Class>

and similarly for symmetric, functional, and inverse functional properties.
Finally, owl:inverseOf relates two object properties:

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="inverseOf">
<rdfs:label>inverseOf</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#ObjectProperty"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#ObjectProperty"/>
</rdf:Property>

Although not stated in the online references, the following would also seem
to be true:

<TransitiveProperty rdf:ID="&rdfs;subClassOf"/>
<TransitiveProperty rdf:ID="&rdfs;subProperty/>

<TransitiveProperty rdf:ID="EquivalentClass"/>
<SymmetricProperty rdf:ID="EquivalentClass"/>

<SymmetricProperty rdf:ID="disjointWith"/>

<TransitiveProperty rdf:ID="EquivalentProperty"/>
<SymmetricProperty rdf:ID="EquivalentProperty"/>

<TransitiveProperty rdf:ID="sameIndividualAs"/>
<SymmetricProperty rdf:ID="sameIndividualAs"/>

<SymmetricProperty rdf:ID="differentFrom"/>

<SymmetricProperty rdf:ID="complementOf"/>
<rdf:Property rdf:about="complementOf">


<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="disjointWith"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:about="cardinality">
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="mincardinality"/>
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="maxcardinality"/>
</rdf:Property>

<SymmetricProperty rdf:ID="inverseOf"/>

<rdf:Property rdf:about="inverseOf">
<inverseOf rdf:resource="inverseOf"/>
</rdf:Property>

Although this captures some of OWL’s meaning in OWL, it does not cap-
ture the entire semantics, so a separate semantic specification (as given in the
OWL standard) remains necessary.

4.8 Future Extensions

Clearly, OWL is not the final word on ontology languages for the Semantic
Web. A number of additional features have already been identified in the
OWL Requirements Document, and many others are under discussion. In
this section, we briefly list a few of these possible extensions and improve-
ments to OWL.

4.8.1 Modules and Imports
Importing ontologies defined by others will be the norm on the Semantic
Web. However, the importing facility of OWL is very trivial; it only allows
importing of an entire ontology, specified by location. Even if one would
want to use only a small portion of another ontology, one would be forced
to import that entire ontology. Module constructions in programming lan-
guages are based on a notion of information hiding. The module promises
to provide some functionality to the outside world (the export clause of the
module), but the importing module need not concern itself with how this
functionality is achieved. It is an open research question what a correspond-
ing notion of information hiding for ontologies would be, and how it could
be used as the basis for a good import construction

4.8 Future Extensions 151

4.8.2 Defaults
Many practical knowledge representation systems allow inherited values to
be overridden by more specific classes in the hierarchy, treating the inherited
values as defaults. Although this is widely used in practice, no consensus
has been reached on the right formalization for the nonmonotonic behavior
of default values.

4.8.3 Closed-World Assumption
The semantics of OWL currently adopts the standard logical model of an
open-world assumption: a statement cannot be assumed true on the basis
of a failure to prove it. Clearly, on the huge and only partially knowable
World Wide Web, this is the correct assumption. Nevertheless, the opposite
approach (a closed-world assumption: a statement is true when its negation
cannot be proved) is also useful in certain applications. The closed-world
assumption is closely tied to the notion of defaults and leads to the same
nonmonotonic behavior, a reason for it not to be included in OWL.

4.8.4 Unique-Names Assumption
Typical database applications assume that individuals with different names
are indeed different individuals. OWL follows the usual logical paradigm
where this is not the case. If two individuals (or classes or properties) have
different names, we may still derive by inference that they must be the same.
As with the non-closed-world assumption, the non-unique-names assump-
tion is the most plausible one to make on the World Wide Web, but as before,
situations exist where the unique-names assumption is useful. More subtly,
one may want to indicate portions of the ontology for which the assumption
does or does not hold.

4.8.5 Procedural Attachment
A common concept in knowledge representation is to define the meaning of
a term not through explicit definitions in the language (as is done in OWL)
but by attaching a piece of code to be executed for computing the meaning
of the term. Although widely used, this concept does not lend itself very
well to integration in a system with a formal semantics, and it has not been
included in OWL.


4.8.6 Rules for Property Chaining
As explained previously, for reasons of decidability OWL does not currently
allow the composition of properties, but of course in many applications this
is a useful operation. Even more generally, one would want to define prop-
erties as general rules (Horn or otherwise) over other properties. Such in-
tegration of rule-based knowledge representation and DL-style knowledge
representation is currently an active area of research. (See chapter 5 for an
extensive discussion on this topic).
Some of the issues mentioned here (rules, nonmonotonicity) are addressed
in chapter 5.

4.9 Summary

• OWL is the proposed standard for Web ontologies. It allows us to describe
the semantics of knowledge in a machine-accessible way.

• OWL builds upon RDF and RDF Schema; XML-based RDF syntax is used;
instances are defined using RDF descriptions; and most RDFS modeling
primitives are used.

• Formal semantics and reasoning support is provided through the map-
ping of OWL on logics. Predicate logic and description logics have been
used for this purpose.

While OWL is sufficiently rich to be used in practice, extensions are in the
making. They will provide further logical features, including rules.

Suggested Reading

Here are the key references for OWL:

• D. McGuinness and F van Harmelen, eds. OWL Web Ontology Language
Overview. W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/>.

• S. Bechhofer, F. van Harmelen, J. Hendler, I. Horrocks, D. McGuinness, P.
Patel-Schneider, and L. Stein, OWL Web Ontology Language Reference.
W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/>.


• M. Smith, C. Welty, and D. McGuinness, eds. OWL Web Ontology Lan-
guage: Guide. W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/>.

Interesting articles related to DAML+OIL and OIL include the following

• J. Broekstra, M. Klein, S. Decker, D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, and I. Hor-
rocks, Enabling Knowledge Representation on the Web by Extending RDF
Schema. In Proceedings of the 10th World Wide Web Conference (WWW10),
2001, 467–478. <http://www10.org/cdrom/papers/291/>

• D. Fensel, I. Horrocks, F. van Harmelen, D. McGuinness, and P. Patel-
Schneider. OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IEEE
Intelligent Systems 16 (March-April 2001): 38–45.
<http://www.cs.vu.nl/∼frankh/abstracts/IEEE-IS01.html>.

• D. McGuinness. Ontologies Come of Age. In Spinning the Semantic Web,
ed. D. Fensel, J. Hendler, H. Lieberman, and W. Wahlster. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 2003.

• P. Patel-Schneider, I. Horrocks, and F. van Harmelen. Reviewing the De-
sign of DAML+OIL: An Ontology Language for the Semantic Web. In
Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence (AAAI02),
2002. <http://www.cs.vu.nl/∼frankh/abstracts/AAAI02.html>.

Here are a few references regarding description logics:

• F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. Patel-Schneider,
eds. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applica-
tions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

• E. Franconi. Description Logics Course Information.
<http://www.inf.unibz.it/∼franconi/dl/course/>.

• I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. Ontology Reasoning in the SHOQ(D) Descrip-
tion Logic. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artiﬁ-
cial Intelligence (IJCAI-01), 2001, 199–204.

• I. Horrocks. Tutorial on Description Logic.
<http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/∼horrocks/Slides/IJCAR-tutorial/Print/>.


• Benjamin Grosof, Ian Horrocks, Raphael Volz, Stefan Decker. Description
logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In Pro-
ceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, (WWW03),
2003, 48–57.

Web sites with information on the various languages:

• <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/>. Information on OWL.

• <http://www.daml.org/>. Information on DAML+OIL. See especially
the pages /language, /ontologies, and /tools.

• <http://logic.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/>. Information on OWL DLP.

The following are a few links related to the general notion of ontologies but
quite different in nature from the content of this chapter. Thesauri are simple
kinds of informal ontologies.

• <http://www.topicmaps.org/>. Topic maps constitute a simple ontology
language in use today.

• <http://dublincore.org/>. The Dublin Core is an example of an ontology
used extensively in the digital library domain.

4.1 Read the online speciﬁcation and the complete namespace of OWL (see
Suggested Reading).

4.2 Give three different ways of stating that two classes are disjoint.

4.3 Express the fact that all mathematics courses are taught by David
Billington only (no other lecturer may be involved). Also express the
fact that the mathematics courses are exactly the courses taught by
David Billington. Is the difference clear?

4.4 Strictly speaking, the notion of SymmetricProperty was not needed
in OWL because it could have been expressed in terms of other lan-
guage primitives. Explain how this can be done. (Hint: Consider the
inverse, too.)

4.5 Similar question for FunctionalProperty. Show how it can be ex-
pressed using other OWL language constructions.


4.6 Determine in general which features of OWL are necessary and which
are only convenient but can be simulated by other modeling primitives.
4.7 In the example African wildlife ontology, what problem would emerge
if we replaced owl:allValuesFrom by owl:someValuesFrom in
the definition of carnivores? (Hint: Consider the definition of tasty
plants.)
4.8 State the relationship between the concepts FunctionalProperty,
InverseFunctionalProperty, and Inverseof.
4.9 Explain why it was necessary to declare owl:Class as a subclass of
rdfs:Class.
4.10 In chapter 3 we presented an axiomatic semantics for RDF. A similar
axiomatic semantics can be developed for OWL. Define the axiomatic
semantics of intersectionOf.
4.11 Define the axiomatic semantics of inverseOf.
4.12 In this exercise you are asked to develop an axiomatic semantics for
cardinality restrictions.

(a) Define noRepeatsList. L is a “no repeats list” if there is not an
element that occurs in L more than once. The concept is not part
of the OWL language but will be used to count the elements for
cardinality restrictions.
(b) Define minCardinality and maxCardinality as properties
with domain Restriction and range NonNegativeInteger.
(c) Give an axiom that captures the meaning of minCardinality:
If onP roperty(R, P ) and minCardinality(R, n) then x is an in-
stance of R if, and only if, there is a “no repeats list” L of length
≥ n, such that P (x, y) for all y ∈ L.
(d) Express the meaning of maxCardinality in a similar way.

4.13 Look at some ontologies at <http://www.daml.org/ontologies>.
4.14 Write your own ontologies in OWL.
4.15 OIL is a predecessor of OWL. Read the pages about the OIL language
and some of the example ontologies. Compare the OIL language to
the OWL language, paying attention both to commonalities and differ-
ences.


4.16 Compare the online documents on OWL to those for DAML+OIL.

4.17 Rewrite some examples from the DAML+OIL documents using OWL
terminology.

4.18 Try to think of features that are still missing in OWL. Hint: Think of
projects and persons involved. What should be true for each project,
and what for each person (to be valuable to their company)? Can you
express these conditions in OWL?

5 Logic and Inference: Rules

5.1 Introduction
From an abstract viewpoint, the subjects of the previous chapters were re-
lated to the representation of knowledge: knowledge about the content of Web
resources, and knowledge about the concepts of a domain of discourse and
their relationships (ontology).
Knowledge representation had been studied long before the emergence of
the World Wide Web, in the area of artiﬁcial intelligence and, before that,
in philosophy. In fact, it can be traced back to ancient Greece; Aristotle is
considered to be the father of logic. Logic is still the foundation of knowledge
representation, particularly in the form of predicate logic (also known as ﬁrst-
order logic). Here we list a few reasons for the popularity and importance of
logic:
• It provides a high-level language in which knowledge can be expressed
in a transparent way. And it has a high expressive power.
• It has a well-understood formal semantics, which assigns an unambigu-
ous meaning to logical statements.
• There is precise notion of logical consequence, which determines whether
a statement follows semantically from a set of other statements (premises).
In fact, the primary original motivation of logic was the study of objective
laws of logical consequence.
• There exist proof systems that can automatically derive statements syn-
tactically from a set of premises.
• There exist proof systems for which semantic logical consequence coin-
cides with syntactic derivation within the proof system. Proof systems

157

158 5 Logic and Inference: Rules

should be sound (all derived statements follow semantically from the
premises) and complete (all logical consequences of the premises can be
derived in the proof system).

• Predicate logic is unique in the sense that sound and complete proof sys-
tems do exist. More expressive logics (higher-order logics) do not have
such proof systems.

• Because of the existence of proof systems, it is possible to trace the proof
that leads to a logical consequence. In this sense, the logic can provide
explanations for answers.

The languages of RDF and OWL (Lite and DL) can be viewed as specializa-
tions of predicate logic. The correspondence was illustrated by the axiomatic
semantics in the form of logical axioms.
One justification for the existence of such specialized languages is that they
provide a syntax that fits well with the intended use (in our case, Web lan-
guages based on tags). The other major justification is that they define rea-
sonable subsets of logic. As mentioned in section 4.1, there is a trade-off
between the expressive power and the computational complexity of certain
logics: the more expressive the language, the less efficient (in the worst case)
the corresponding proof systems. As we stated, OWL Lite and OWL DL cor-
respond roughly to a description logic, a subset of predicate logic for which
efficient proof systems exist.
Another subset of predicate logic with efficient proof systems comprises
the so-called rule systems (also known as Horn logic or definite logic programs).
A rule has the form

A1 , . . . An → B

where Ai and B are atomic formulas. In fact, there are two intuitive ways of
reading such a rule:

1. If A1 , . . . , An are known to be true, then B is also true. Rules with this
interpretation are referred to as deductive rules.

2. If the conditions A1 , . . . , An are true, then carry out the action B. Rules
with this interpretation are referred to as reactive rules.

Both views have important applications. However, in this chapter we take
the deductive approach. We study the language and possible queries that


one can ask, as well as appropriate answers. Also we outline the working of
a proof mechanism that can return such answers.
It is interesting to note that description logics and Horn logic are orthog-
onal in the sense that neither of them is a subset of the other. For example,
it is impossible to express the relation uncleOf (X, Y ). This relation requires
the ability to constrain the value of the property brotherOf of one term (X)
to be the value of the property childOf of another term (Y ). Stated another
way, the property brotherOf applied to X must produce a result that is also
a value of childOf when applied to Y . This “joining” of predicates is be-
yond the expressive capabilities of OWL. On the other hand, this piece of
knowledge can easily be represented using rules:

brother(X, Y ), childOf (Z, Y ) → uncle(X, Z)

On the other hand, rules cannot (in the general case) assert (a) nega-
tion/complement of classes; (b) disjunctive information, for instance, that a
person is either a man or a woman; (c) existential quantiﬁcation, for instance,
that all persons have a father. In contrast, OWL is able to express complement
and union of classes and certain forms of existential quantiﬁcation.
Then we turn our attention to another kind of rules. We give a simple
example. Suppose an online vendor wants to give a special discount if it is a
customer’s birthday. An easy way to represent this application with rules is
as follows:

R1 : If birthday, then special discount.
R2 : If not birthday, then not special discount.

This solution works properly in case the birthday is known. But imagine a
customer who refuses to provide his birthday because of privacy concerns.
In such a case, the preceding rules cannot be applied because their premises
are not known. To capture this situation we need to write something like

R1 : If birthday, then special discount.
R2 : If birthday is not known, then not special discount.

However, the premise of rule R2 is not within the expressive power of predi-
cate logic. Thus we need a new kind of rule system. We note that the solution
with rules R1 and R2 works in case we have complete information about the
situation (for example, either birthday or not birthday). The new kind of


rule system will find application in cases where the available information is
incomplete.
Predicate logic and its special cases are monotonic in the following sense. If
a conclusion can be drawn, it remains valid even if new knowledge becomes
available. But if rule R2 is applied to derive “not special discount,” then this
conclusion may become invalid if the customer’s birthday becomes known at
a later stage and it happens to coincide with the purchase date. Thus we talk
of nonmonotonic rules to distinguish them from monotonic rules (which are
a special case of predicate logic). In this chapter we discuss both monotonic
and nonmonotonic rules.
Our final concern is the exchange of rules across different applications. For
example, an online store might wish to make its pricing, refund, and privacy
policies, which are expressed using rules, accessible to intelligent agents. The
Semantic Web approach is to express the knowledge in a machine-accessible
way using one of the Web languages we have already discussed. In this
chapter we show how rules can be expressed in XML-like languages (“rule
markup languages”). Some applications of rule systems are discussed in
chapter 6.

Chapter Overview
Readers who are not comfortable with the notation and basic notions of pred-
icate logic are advised to read some introductory chapters of logic books, like
those listed at the end of this chapter.

• Section 5.2 provides an example using monotonic rules (that is, of the sub-
set of predicate logic called Horn logic).

• Sections 5.3 and 5.4 describe the syntax and semantics of Horn logic.

• Sections 5.5 and 5.6 describe DLP and SWRL, two approaches to combin-
ing rules with description logics (OWL DL).

• Section 5.7 describes the syntax of nonmonotonic rules, and section 5.8
presents an example of nonmonotonic rules.

• Finally, section 5.9 briefly describes RuleML, a major standardization ac-
tivity for rule markup on the Web.

5.2 Example of Monotonic Rules: Family Relationships 161

5.2 Example of Monotonic Rules: Family Relationships
Imagine a database of facts about some family relationships. Suppose that
the database contains facts about the following base predicates:

mother(X, Y ) X is the mother of Y
f ather(X, Y ) X is the father of Y
male(X) X is male
f emale(X) X is female

Then we can infer further relationships using appropriate rules. First, we can
define a predicate parent: a parent is either a father or a mother.

mother(X, Y ) → parent(X, Y )
f ather(X, Y ) → parent(X, Y )

Then we can define a brother to be a male person sharing a parent:

male(X), parent(P, X), parent(P, Y ), notSame(X, Y ) →
brother(X, Y )

The predicate notSame denotes inequality; we assume that such facts are
kept in a database. Of course, every practical logical system offers conve-
nient ways of expressing equality and inequality, but we chose the abstract
solution to keep the discussion general.
Similarly, sister is defined as follows:

f emale(X), parent(P, X), parent(P, Y ), notSame(X, Y ) →
sister(X, Y )

An uncle is a brother of a parent:

brother(X, P ), parent(P, Y ) → uncle(X, Y )

A grandmother is the mother of a parent:

mother(X, P ), parent(P, Y ) → grandmother(X, Y )

An ancestor is either a parent or an ancestor of a parent:

parent(X, Y ) → ancestor(X, Y )
ancestor(X, P ), parent(P, Y ) → ancestor(X, Y )


5.3 Monotonic Rules: Syntax
Let us consider a simple rule stating that all loyal customers aged over 60 are
entitled to a special discount:

loyalCustomer(X), age(X) > 60 → discount(X)

We distinguish some ingredients of rules:

• variables, which are placeholders for values: X

• constants, which denote fixed values: 60

• predicates, which relate objects: loyalCustomer, >

• function symbols, which return a value for certain arguments: age

Rules
A rule has the form

B1 , . . . , Bn → A

where A, B1 , . . . , Bn are atomic formulas. A is the head of the rule, and
B1 , . . . , Bn are the premises of the rule. The set {B1 , . . . , Bn } is referred to
as the body of the rule.
The commas in the rule body are read conjunctively: if B1 and B2 and . . .
and Bn are true, then A is also true (or equivalently, to prove A it is sufficient
to prove all B1 , . . . , Bn ).
Note that variables may occur in A, B1 , . . . , Bn . For example,

loyalCustomer(X), age(X) > 60 → discount(X)

This rule is applied for any customer: if a customer happens to be loyal and
over 60, then she gets the discount. In other words, the variable X is implic-
itly universally quantified (using ∀X). In general, all variables occurring in
a rule are implicitly universally quantified.
In summary, a rule r

B1 , . . . , Bn → A

is interpreted as the following formula, denoted by pl(r):

5.3 Monotonic Rules: Syntax 163

∀X1 . . . ∀Xk ((B1 ∧ . . . ∧ Bn ) → A)

or equivalently,

∀X1 . . . ∀Xk (A ∨ ¬B1 ∨ . . . ∨ ¬Bn )

where X1 , . . . , Xk are all variables occurring in A, B1 , . . . , Bn .

Facts
A fact is an atomic formula, such as loyalCustomer(a345678); it says that
the customer with ID a345678 is loyal. The variables of a fact are implicitly
universally quantified.

Logic Programs
A logic program P is a finite set of facts and rules. Its predicate logic transla-
tion pl(P ) is the set of all predicate logic interpretations of rules and facts in
P.

Goals
A goal denotes a query G asked to a logic program. It has the form

B1 , . . . , Bn →

If n = 0 we have the empty goal 2.
Our next task is to interpret goals in predicate logic. Using the ideas we de-
veloped before (interpretations of commas as conjunction, implicit universal
quantification), we get the following interpretation:

∀X1 . . . ∀Xk (¬B1 ∨ . . . ∨ ¬Bn )

This formula is the same as pl(r), with the only difference that the rule head
A is omitted1 .
An equivalent representation in predicate logic is

¬∃X1 . . . ∃Xk (B1 ∧ . . . ∧ Bn )

1. Note that the formula is equivalent to ∀X1 . . . ∀Xk (f alse ∨ ¬B1 ∨ . . . ∨ ¬Bn ), so a missing
rule head can be thought of as a contradiction f alse.


where X1 , . . . , Xk are all variables occurring in B1 , . . . , Bn . Let us briefly
explain this formula. Suppose we know

p(a)

and we have the goal

p(X) →

Actually, we want to know whether there is a value for which p is true. We
expect a positive answer because of the fact p(a). Thus p(X) is existentially
quantified. But then why do we negate the formula? The explanation is that
we use a proof technique from mathematics called proof by contradiction. This
technique proves that a statement A follows from a statement B by assuming
that A is false and deriving a contradiction, when combined with B. Then A
must follow from B.
In logic programming we prove that a goal can be answered positively by
negating the goal and proving that we get a contradiction using the logic
program. For example, given the logic program

p(a)

and the goal

¬∃Xp(X)

we get a logical contradiction: the second formula says that no element has
the property p, but the first formula says that the value of a does have the
property p. Thus ∃Xp(X) follows from p(a).

5.4 Monotonic Rules: Semantics

Predicate Logic Semantics
One way of answering a query is to use the predicate logic interpretation of
rules, facts, and queries, and to make use of the well-known semantics of
predicate logic. To be more precise, given a logic program P and a query

B1 , . . . , Bn →

with the variables X1 , . . . , Xk , we answer positively if, and only if,

5.4 Monotonic Rules: Semantics 165

pl(P ) |= ∃X1 . . . ∃Xk (B1 ∧ . . . ∧ Bn ) (1)

or equivalently, if

pl(P ) ∪ {¬∃X1 . . . ∃Xk (B1 ∧ . . . ∧ Bn )} is unsatisfiable (2)

In other words, we give a positive answer if the predicate logic representa-
tion of the program P , together with the predicate logic interpretation of the
query, is unsatisfiable (a contradiction).
The formal definition of the semantic concepts of predicate logic is found
in the literature. Here we just give an informal presentation. The compo-
nents of the logical language (signature) may have any meaning we like. A
predicate logic model A assigns a certain meaning. In particular, it consists of

• a domain dom(A), a nonempty set of objects about which the formulas
make statements,

• an element from the domain for each constant,

• a concrete function on dom(A) for every function symbol,

• a concrete relation on dom(A) for every predicate.

The meanings of the logical connectives ¬, ∨, ∧, →, ∀, ∃ are defined according
to their intuitive meaning: not, or, and, implies, for all, there is. This way we
define when a formula is true in a model A, denoted as A |= ϕ.
A formula ϕ follows from a set M of formulas if ϕ is true in all models A in
which M is true (that is, all formulas in M are true in A).
Now we are able to explain (1) and (2). Regardless of how we interpret the
constants, predicates, and function symbols occurring in P and the query,
once the predicate logic interpretation of P is true, ∃X1 . . . ∃Xk (B1 ∧ . . . ∧ Bn )
must be true, too. That is, there are values for the variables X1 , . . . , Xk such
that all atomic formulas Bi become true.
For example, suppose P is the program

p(a)
p(X) → q(X)

Consider the query

q(X) →


Clearly, q(a) follows from pl(P ). Therefore, ∃Xq(X) follows from pl(P ), thus
pl(P ) ∪ {¬∃Xq(X)} is unsatisﬁable, and we give a positive answer. But if we
consider the query

q(b) →

then we must give a negative answer because q(b) does not follow from
pl(P ).

Least Herbrand Model Semantics
The other kind of semantics for logic programs, least Herbrand model se-
mantics, requires more technical treatment, and is described in standard logic
textbooks (see Suggested Reading).

Ground and Parameterized Witnesses
So far we have focused on yes/no answers to queries. However, such an-
swers are not necessarily optimal. Suppose that we have the fact

p(a)

and the query

p(X) →

The answer yes is correct but not satisfactory. It resembles the joke where
you are asked, “Do you know what time it is?” and you look at your watch
and answer “yes.” In our example, the appropriate answer is a substitution

{X/a}

which gives an instantiation for X, making the answer positive. The constant
a is called a ground witness. Given the facts

p(a)
p(b)

there are two ground witnesses to the same query: a and b. Or equivalently,
we should return the substitutions:

{X/a}
{X/b}


While valuable, ground witnesses are not always the optimal answer. Con-
sider the logic program

add(X, 0, X)
add(X, Y, Z) → add(X, s(Y ), s(Z))

This program computes addition, if we read s as the “successor function,”
which returns as value the value of its argument plus 1. The third argument
of add computes the sum of its first two arguments. Consider the query

add(X, s8 (0), Z) →

Possible ground witnesses are determined by the substitutions

{X/0, Z/s8 (0)}
{X/s(0), Z/s9 (0)}
{X/s(s(0)), Z/s10 (0)}
...

However, the parameterized witness Z = s8 (X) is the most general way to
witness the existential query

∃X∃Z add(X, s8 (0), Z)

since it represents the fact that add(X, s8 (0), Z) is true whenever the value of
Z equals the value of X plus 8.
The computation of such most general witnesses is the primary aim of a
proof system, called SLD resolution, the presentation of which is beyond the
scope of this book.

5.5 Description Logic Programs (DLP)
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, Horn logic and description logics
are orthogonal. In attempting to achieve their integration in one framework,
the simplest approach is to consider the intersection of both logics, that is, the
part of one language that can be translated in a semantics-preserving way to
the other language, and vice versa. In our particular case, the “intersection”
of Horn logic and OWL is called Description Logic Programs (DLP); it is the
Horn-definable part of OWL, or stated another way, the OWL-definable part
of Horn logic.
Consideration of DLP has certain advantages:


• From the modeler’s perspective, there is freedom to use either OWL or
rules (and associated tools and methodologies) for modeling purposes,
depending on the modeler’s experience and preferences.

• From the implementation perspective, either description logic reasoners
or deductive rule systems can be used. Thus it is possible to model using
one framework, for instance, OWL, and to use a reasoning engine from the
other framework, for instance, rules. This feature provides extra ﬂexibility
and ensures interoperability with a variety of tools.

• Preliminary experience with using OWL has shown that existing ontolo-
gies frequently use very few constructs outside the DLP language.

In the remainder of this section we show how many constructs of RDF
Schema and OWL can be expressed in Horn logic (thus they lie within the
expressive power of DLP), and also discuss some constructs that in general
cannot be expressed.
We begin with RDF and RDF Schema. A triple of the form (a, P, b) in RDF
can be expressed as a fact

P (a, b)

Similarly, an instance declaration of the form type(a, C), stating that a is an
instance of class C, can be expressed as

C(a)

The fact that C is a subclass of D is easily expressed as

C(X) → D(X)

and similarly for subproperty. Finally, domain and range restrictions can also
be expressed in Horn logic. For example, the following rule states that C is
the domain of property P :

P (X, Y ) → C(X)

Now we turn to OWL. sameClassAs(C, D) can be expressed by the pair of
rules

C(X) → D(X)
D(X) → C(X)


and similarly for sameP ropertyAs. Transitivity of a property P is easily ex-
pressed as

P (X, Y ), P (Y, Z) → P (X, Z)

Now we turn to Boolean operators. We can state that the intersection of
classes C1 and C2 is a subclass of D as follows:

C1 (X), C2 (X) → D(X)

In the other direction, we can state that C is a subclass of the intersection of
D1 and D2 as follows:

C(X) → D1 (X)
C(X) → D2 (X)

For union, we can express that the union of C1 and C2 is a subclass of D
using the following pair of rules:

C1 (X) → D(X)
C2 (X) → D(X)

However, the opposite direction is outside the expressive power of Horn
logic. To express the fact that C is a subclass of the union of D1 and D2
would require a disjunction in the head of the corresponding rule, which is
not available in Horn logic. Note that there are cases where the translation
is possible. For example, when D1 is a subclass of D2 , then the rule C(X) →
D2 (X) is sufﬁcient to express that C is a subclass of the union of D1 and D2 .
The point is that there is not a translation that works in all cases.
Finally, we brieﬂy discuss some forms of restriction in OWL. For a property
P and a class D, let allV aluesF rom(P, D) denote the anonymous class of all
x such that y must be an instance of D whenever P (x, y). The OWL statement

C subClassOf allV aluesF rom(P, D)

can be expressed in Horn logic as follows:

C(X), P (X, Y ) → D(Y )

However, the opposite direction cannot in general be expressed.
Now let someV aluesF rom(P, D) denote the anonymous class of all x for
which there exists at least one y instance of D, such that P (x, y). The OWL
statement


someV aluesF rom(P, D) subClassOf C

can be expressed in Horn logic as follows:

P (X, Y ), D(Y ) → C(X)

The opposite direction cannot in general be expressed.
Also, cardinality constraints and complement of classes cannot be ex-
pressed in Horn logic in the general case.

5.6 Semantic Web Rules Language (SWRL)
SWRL is a proposed Semantic Web language combining OWL DL (and thus
OWL Lite) with function-free Horn logic, written in Datalog RuleML (see
section 5.9). Thus it allows Horn-like rules to be combined with OWL DL
ontologies.
A rule in SWRL has the form

B1 , . . . , Bn → A1 , . . . , Am

where the commas denote conjunction on both sides of the arrow and
A1 , . . . , Am , B1 , . . . , Bn can be of the form C(x), P (x, y), sameAs(x, y), or
dif f erentF rom(x, y), where C is an OWL description, P is an OWL prop-
erty, and x, y are Datalog variables, OWL individuals, or OWL data values.
If the head of a rule has more than one atom (if it is a conjunction of atoms
without shared variables), the rule can be transformed to an equivalent set
of rules with one atom in the head in a straightforward way.
The main complexity of the SWRL language stems from the fact that arbi-
trary OWL expressions, such as restrictions, can appear in the head or body
of a rule. This feature adds signiﬁcant expressive power to OWL, but at the
high price of undecidability; that is, there can be no inference engine that
draws exactly the same conclusions as the SWRL semantics.
Compared to DLP, SWRL lies at the other end of the integration of de-
scription logics and function-free rules. Where DLP uses a very conservative
approach, seeking to combine the advantages of both languages in their com-
mon sublanguage, SWRL takes a more maximalist approach and unites their
respective expressivities. From a practical perspective, the challenge is to
identify sublanguages of SWRL that ﬁnd the right balance between expres-
sive power and computational tractability. A candidate for such a sublan-
guage is the extension of OWL DL with DL-safe rules, in which every variable

5.7 Nonmonotonic Rules: Motivation and Syntax 171

must appear in a non-description logic atom in the rule body. See the articles
on integrating rules with description logics in Suggested Reading.

5.7 Nonmonotonic Rules: Motivation and Syntax

5.7.1 Informal Discussion
Now we turn our attention to nonmonotonic rule systems. So far, once the
premises of a rule were proved, the rule could be applied, and its head could
be derived as a conclusion. In nonmonotonic rule systems, a rule may not be
applied even if all premises are known because we have to consider contrary
reasoning chains. In general, the rules we consider from now on are called
defeasible because they can be defeated by other rules. To allow conflicts be-
tween rules, negated atomic formulas may occur in the head and the body of
rules. For example, we may write

p(X) → q(X)
r(X) → ¬q(X)

To distinguish between defeasible rules and standard, monotonic rules, we
use a different arrow:

p(X) ⇒ q(X)
r(X) ⇒ ¬q(X)

In this example, given also the facts

p(a)
r(a)

we conclude neither q(a) nor ¬q(a). It is a typical example of two rules block-
ing each other. This conflict may be resolved using priorities among rules.
Suppose we knew somehow that the first rule is stronger than the second;
then we could indeed derive q(a).
Priorities arise naturally in practice and may be based on various princi-
ples:

• The source of one rule may be more reliable than the source of the second
rule, or it may have higher authority. For example, federal law preempts
state law. And in business administration, higher management has more
authority than middle management.


• One rule may be preferred over another because it is more recent.

• One rule may be preferred over another because it is more specific. A
typical example is a general rule with some exceptions; in such cases, the
exceptions are stronger than the general rule.

Specificity may often be computed based on the given rules, but the other
two principles cannot be determined from the logical formalization. There-
fore we abstract from the specific prioritization principle, and assume the
existence of an external priority relation on the set of rules. To express the re-
lation syntactically, we extend the rule syntax to include a unique label, for
example,

r1 : p(X) ⇒ q(X)
r2 : r(X) ⇒ ¬q(X)

Then we can write

r1 > r2

to specify that r1 is stronger than r2 .
We do not impose many conditions on >. It is not even required that the
rules form a complete ordering. We only require the priority relation to be
acyclic. That is, it is impossible to have cycles of the form

r1 > r2 > . . . > rn > r1

Note that priorities are meant to resolve conflicts among competing rules.
In simple cases two rules are competing only if the head of one rule is the
negation of the head of the other. But in applications it is often the case that
once a predicate p is derived, some other predicates are excluded from hold-
ing. For example, an investment consultant may base his recommendations
on three levels of risk that investors are willing to take: low, moderate, and
high. Only one risk level per investor is allowed to hold at any given time.
Technically, these situations are modeled by maintaining a conflict set C(L)
for each literal L. C(L) always contains the negation of L but may contain
more literals.

5.7.2 Definition of the Syntax
A defeasible rule has the form


r : L1 , . . . , Ln ⇒ L

where r is the label, {L1 , . . . , Ln } the body (or premises), and L the head of
the rule. L, L1 , . . . , Ln are positive or negative literals (a literal is an atomic
formula p(t1 , . . . , tm ) or its negation ¬p(t1 , . . . , tm )). No function symbols
may occur in the rule.2 Sometimes we denote the head of a rule as head(r),
and its body as body(r). Slightly abusing notation, sometimes we use the
label r to refer to the whole rule.
A defeasible logic program is a triple (F, R, >) consisting of a set F of facts,
a finite set R of defeasible rules, and an acyclic binary relation > on R (pre-
cisely, a set of pairs r > r where r and r are labels of rules in R).

5.8 Example of Nonmonotonic Rules: Brokered Trade

This example shows how rules can be used in an electronic commerce appli-
cation (which ideally will run on the Semantic Web). Brokered trades take
place via an independent third party, the broker. The broker matches the
buyer’s requirements and the sellers’ capabilities, and proposes a transaction
when both parties can be satisfied by the trade.
As a concrete application we discuss apartment renting,3 a common activ-
ity that is often tedious and time-consuming. Appropriate Web services can
reduce the effort considerably. We begin by presenting the potential renter’s
requirements.

Carlos is looking for an apartment of at least 45 sq m with at least two
bedrooms. If it is on the third floor or higher, the house must have an
elevator. Also, pet animals must be allowed.
Carlos is willing to pay $300 for a centrally located 45 sq m apartment,
and $250 for a similar flat in the suburbs. In addition, he is willing to
pay an extra $5 per square meter for a larger apartment, and $2 per
square meter for a garden.
He is unable to pay more than $400 in total. If given the choice, he
would go for the cheapest option. His second priority is the presence
of a garden; his lowest priority is additional space.

2. This restriction is imposed for technical reasons, the discussion of which is beyond the scope
of this chapter.
3. In this case the landlord takes the role of the abstract seller.


Formalization of Carlos’s Requirements
We use the following predicates to describe properties of apartments:

size(x, y) y is the size of apartment x (in sq m)
bedrooms(x, y) x has y bedrooms
price(x, y) y is the price for x
f loor(x, y) x is on the yth floor
garden(x, y) x has a garden of size y
lif t(x) there is an elevator in the house of x
pets(x) pets are allowed in x
central(x) x is centrally located

We also make use of the following predicates:

acceptable(x) flat x satisfies Carlos’s requirements
offer(x, y) Carlos is willing to pay $ y for flat x

Now we present Carlos’s firm requirements. Any apartment is a priori ac-
ceptable.

r1 : ⇒ acceptable(X)

However, Y is unacceptable if one of Carlos’s requirements is not met.

r2 : bedrooms(X, Y ), Y < 2 ⇒ ¬acceptable(X)
r3 : size(X, Y ), Y < 45 ⇒ ¬acceptable(X)
r4 : ¬pets(X) ⇒ ¬acceptable(X)
r5 : f loor(X, Y ), Y > 2, ¬lif t(X) ⇒ ¬acceptable(X)
r6 : price(X, Y ), Y > 400 ⇒ ¬acceptable(X)

Rules r2 -r6 are exceptions to rule r1 , so we add

r2 > r1 , r3 > r1 , r4 > r1 , r5 > r1 , r6 > r1

Next we calculate the price Carlos is willing to pay for an apartment.


r7 : size(X, Y ), Y ≥ 45, garden(X, Z), central(X) ⇒
offer(X, 300 + 2Z + 5(Y − 45))
r8 : size(X, Y ), Y ≥ 45, garden(X, Z), ¬central(X) ⇒
offer(X, 250 + 2Z + 5(Y − 45))

An apartment is only acceptable if the amount Carlos is willing to pay is not
less than the price specified by the landlord (we assume no bargaining can
take place).

r9 : offer(X, Y ), price(X, Z), Y < Z ⇒ ¬acceptable(X)
r9 > r1

Representation of Available Apartments
Each available apartment is given a unique name, and its properties are rep-
resented as facts. For example, apartment a1 might be described as follows:

bedrooms(a1 , 1)
size(a1 , 50)
central(a1 )
f loor(a1 , 1)
¬lif t(a1 )
pets(a1 )
garden(a1 , 0)
price(a1 , 300)

The descriptions of the available apartments are summarized in table 5.1. In
practice, the flats on offer could be stored in a relational database or, in a
Semantic Web setting, in an RDF storage system.
If we match Carlos’s requirements and the available apartments, we see
that

• flat a1 is not acceptable because it has one bedroom only (rule r2 );
• flats a4 and a6 are unacceptable because pets are not allowed (rule r4 );
• for a2 , Carlos is willing to pay $300, but the price is higher (rules r7 and
r9 );
• flats a3 , a5 , and a7 are acceptable (rule r1 ).


Flat Bedrooms Size Central Floor Lift Pets Garden Price
a1 1 50 yes 1 no yes 0 300
a2 2 45 yes 0 no yes 0 335
a3 2 65 no 2 no yes 0 350
a4 2 55 no 1 yes no 15 330
a5 3 55 yes 0 no yes 15 350
a6 2 60 yes 3 no no 0 370
a7 3 65 yes 1 no yes 12 375

Table 5.1 Available Apartments

Selecting an Apartment
So far, we have identified the apartments acceptable to Carlos. This selection
is valuable in itself because it reduces the focus to relevant flats, which may
then be physically inspected. But it is also possible to reduce the number
further, even down to a single apartment, by taking further preferences into
account. Carlos’s preferences are based on price, garden size, and size, in
that order. We represent them as follows:

r10 : acceptable(X) ⇒ cheapest(X)

r11 : acceptable(X), price(X, Z), acceptable(Y ), price(Y, W ),
W < Z ⇒ ¬cheapest(X)

r12 : cheapest(X) ⇒ largestGarden(X)

r13 : cheapest(X), gardenSize(X, Z), cheapest(Y ),
gardenSize(Y, W ), W > Z ⇒ ¬largestGarden(X)

r14 : largestGarden(X) ⇒ rent(X)

r15 : largestGarden(X), size(X, Z), largestGarden(Y ),
size(Y, W ), W > Z ⇒ ¬rent(X)

r11 > r10 , r13 > r12 , r15 > r14

Rule r10 says that every acceptable apartment is cheapest by default. How-
ever, if there is an acceptable apartment cheaper than X, rule r11 (which is
stronger than r10 ) fires and concludes that X is not cheapest.

5.9 Rule Markup Language (RuleML) 177

Rule Ingredient RuleML
fact Asserted Atom
rule Asserted Implies
head head
body body
atom Atom
conjunction And
predicate Rel
constant Ind
variable Var

Figure 5.1 RuleML vocabulary

Similarly, rules r12 and r13 select the apartments with the largest garden
among the cheapest apartments. And of these, rules r14 and r15 select the
proposed apartments to be rented, based on apartment size.
In our example, apartments a3 and a5 are cheapest. Of these a5 has the
largest garden. Note that in this case the apartment size criterion does not
play a role: r14 ﬁres only for a5 , and rule r15 is not applicable. Thus a selection
has been made, and Carlos will soon move in.

5.9 Rule Markup Language (RuleML)

In accordance with the Semantic Web vision, it is necessary to make know-
ledge in the form of rules machine-accessible. We outline an encoding of
monotonic rules in XML.
RuleML is an important standardization effort for markup of rules on the
Web. It is actually not one language but a family of rule markup languages,
corresponding to different kinds of rule languages: derivation rules, integrity
constraints, reaction rules, and so on. The kernel of the RuleML family is
Datalog, which is function-free Horn logic.
The RuleML family provides descriptions of rule markup languages in
XML, in the form of XML schemas (and DTDs for earlier versions). The rep-
resentation of rule ingredients is straightforward. Figure 5.1 describes the
key vocabulary of Datalog RuleML.
The expression of rules using the RuleML vocabulary is straightforward.


For example, the rule “The discount for a customer buying a product is 7.5 percent
if the customer is premium and the product is luxury.” is represented as follows.

<Implies>
<head>
<Atom>
<Rel>discount</Rel>
<Var>customer</Var>
<Var>product</Var>
<Ind>7.5 percent</Ind>
</Atom>
</head>
<body>
<And>
<Atom>
<Rel>premium</Rel>
<Var>customer</Var>
</Atom>
<Atom>
<Rel>luxury</Rel>
<Var>product</Var>
</Atom>
</And>
</body>
</Implies>

The language SWRL, introduced in section 5.6, is an extension of RuleML,
and its use is straightforward. As an example, we show the representation of
the rule

brother(X, Y ), childOf (Z, Y ) → uncle(X, Z)

in the XML syntax of SWRL.

<ruleml:Implies>
<ruleml:head>
<swrlx:individualPropertyAtom swrlx:property="uncle">
<ruleml:Var>X</ruleml:Var>
<ruleml:Var>Z</ruleml:Var>
</swrlx:individualPropertyAtom>
</ruleml:head>
<ruleml:body>
<ruleml:And>

5.10 Summary 179

<swrlx:individualPropertyAtom swrlx:property="brother">
<ruleml:Var>X</ruleml:Var>
<ruleml:Var>Y</ruleml:Var>
<swrlx:individualPropertyAtom swrlx:property="childOf">
<ruleml:Var>Z</ruleml:Var>
<ruleml:Var>Y</ruleml:Var>
</ruleml:And>
</ruleml:body>
</ruleml:Implies>

5.10 Summary
• Horn logic is a subset of predicate logic that allows efﬁcient reasoning. It
forms a subset orthogonal to description logics. Horn logic is the basis of
monotonic rules.

• DLP and SWRL are two important ways of combining OWL with Horn
rules. DLP is essentially the intersection of OWL and Horn logic, whereas
SWRL is a much richer language.

• Nonmonotonic rules are useful in situations where the available informa-
tion is incomplete. They are rules that may be overridden by contrary
evidence (other rules).

• Priorities are used to resolve some conﬂicts between nonmonotonic rules.

• The representation of rules in XML-like languages, such as RuleML, is
straightforward.

Suggested Reading
Horn logic is a standard topic in logic. More information can be found in
relevant textbooks, such as the following:

• E. Burke and E. Foxley. Logic and Its Applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 1996.

• M. A. Covington, D. Nute, and A. Vellino. Prolog Programming in Depth,
2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1997.


• A. Nerode and R. A. Shore. Logic for Applications. New York: Springer,
1997.

• U. Nilsson and J. Maluszynski. Logic, Programming and Prolog, 2nd ed.
New York: Wiley, 1995.

• N. Nissanke. Introductory Logic and Sets for Computer Scientists. Boston:
Addison-Wesley, 1998.

Nonmonotonic rules are a quite new topic. Information can be found in the
second textbook above, and in the following articles:

• G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, and M. J. Maher. Representa-
tion Results for Defeasible Logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
2 (April 2001): 255–287.

• N. Bassiliades, G. Antoniou, and I. Vlahavas. A Defeasible Logic Reasoner
for the Semantic Web. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information
Systems 2,1 (2006): 1–41.

• T. Eiter, T. Lukasiewicz, R. Schindlauer, and H. Tompits. Combining An-
swer Set Programming with Description Logics for the Semantic Web. In
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Rep-
resentation and Reasoning (KR’04), AAAI Press 2004, 141–151.

• D. Nute. Defeasible Logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artiﬁcial Intelligence
and Logic Programming Vol. 3, ed. D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A.
Robinson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Information about DLP is found at

• <http://logic.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/>.

Information about SWRL is found at

• <http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/>.

Other important works on integrating rules with description logics are

• R. Rosati. On the Decidability and Complexity of Integrating Ontologies
and Rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3,1 (2005): 61–73.
<http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/ps/pub/2005-4>.


• I. Horrocks, P. Patel-Schneider, S. Bechhofer, and D. Tsarkov. OWL Rules:
A Proposal and Prototype Implementation. Journal of Web Semantics 3,1
(2005): 23–40.

• B. Motik, U. Sattler, and R. Studer. Query Answering for OWL-DL with
Rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3,1 (2005): 41–60.

General information about markup languages for rules and their use in the
Semantic Web can be found at the RuleML Web site:

• <http://www.ruleml.org/>.

TRIPLE is an inference system designed for the Semantic Web. Details can
be found at

• <http://triple.semanticweb.org/>.

5.1 We refer to the example in section 5.2. Define the predicates aunt,
grandfather, sibling, and descendant.

5.2 Consider a graph with nodes and directed edges, and let an edge from
node a to node b be represented by a fact edge(a, b). Define a binary
predicate path that is true for nodes c and d if, and only if, there is a
path from c to d in the graph.

5.3 Propose a combination of nonmonotonic rules with ontologies. In par-
ticular, propose an integration such that

(a) an ontology is used to derive some facts,
(b) defeasible rules may use facts from (a),
(c) the predicates of rule heads do not occur in the ontology (that is,
rules may only use, but not derive, new ontological knowledge).

The following projects use rule technology. It is assumed that readers have
some knowledge and experience with basic Semantic Web technologies. If
not, it may be best to work on more basic projects first (see chapter 7).


Semantic Brokering
5.4 This basic project can be done by two people in two or three weeks.
The aim is to implement an application similar to the apartment renting
example in section 5.8. The following tasks should be carried out:

(a) Select a topic in which a brokering activity is to be carried out. Here
brokering refers to the matching of offerings and requirements.
(b) Build an RDFS ontology for the domain.
(c) Populate the ontology with offerings, expressed in RDF.
(d) Express the selection criteria using nonmonotonic rules.
(e) Run your rules with the RDF/RDFS information using an engine
such as DR-DEVICE4 or DR-Prolog.5 To do so, you will need to
express the rules in the format prescribed by these systems.

5.5 This advanced project can be carried out bby two or three people over
the course of a term. The aim is to implement a brokering scenario in a
multi-agent environment. Apart from carrying out the steps described
in project 5.4, project participants need, among others, to:

(a) Develop a basic understanding of brokering in multi-agent environ-
ments by studying some relevant literature:
K. Sycara, S. Widoff, M. Klusch, and J. Lu. Larks: Dynamic
Matchmaking among Heterogeneous Software Agents in Cy-
berspace. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 5, 2
(2002): 173–203.
G. Antoniou, T. Skylogiannis, A. Bikakis, and N. Bassiliades.
A Deductive Semantic Brokering System. In Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Infor-
mation and Engineering Systems. LNCS 3682, Springer 2005,
746–752.
(b) Choose and familiarize yourselves with a multi-agent system. We
have had good experience with JADE 6 .
(c) Decide on the precise messages to be exchanged between agents.
(d) Find out how to call remotely the inference engine to be used.

4. <http://iskp.csd.auth.gr/systems/dr-device.html>.
5. <http://www.csd.uoc.gr/∼bikakis/DR-Prolog/>.
6. <http://jade.tilab.com/>.


Proof Layer
The aim of these projects is to realize a proof layer, the vision of which was
briefly outlined in chapter 1. Note that there is not one proof layer, but rather
a proof layer for each selected Semantic Web reasoning system (logic). Still,
some considerations are common to all such systems. Two possible logical
systems for which one could implement a proof layer are
• a simple monotonic rules language, such as Datalog (Horn logic without
function symbols), for which the reasoning tool Mandarax7 could be used;
• a nonmonotonic rules language, as discussed in this chapter, for which
DR-DEVICE8 or DR-Prolog9 could be used.
5.6 This basic project can be done by two or three people in about two
months. The aim is to develop an interactive system that provides ex-
planation to the user. Important aspects to be addressed include the
following:

(a) Decide how to extract relevant information from the overall proof
trace. You could consult the automated reasoning and logic pro-
gramming literature for ideas.
(b) Define levels of granularity for representing proofs. Should whole
proofs be shown, or only metasteps? These could then be refined if
the user questions a certain step.
(c) Ultimately, the “leaves” of a proof will be RDF facts, or rules, or
inference conditions used.

5.7 Four or five people can carry out this advanced project over the course
of a term. The aim is to implement a proof layer in a multi-agent envi-
ronment, that is, requests and proof parts will be exchanged between
agents. Additional aspects to be considered include the following:

(a) Choose and familiarize yourselves with a multi-agent system. We
have had good experience with JADE10 .
(b) Represent proofs in an XML language, ideally extending RuleML.
(c) Decide on the precise messages to be exchanged between agents.

7. <http://mandarax.sourceforge.net/>.
8. <http://iskp.csd.auth.gr/systems/dr-device.html>.
9. <http://www.csd.uoc.gr/∼bikakis/DR-Prolog/>.
10. <http://jade.tilab.com/>.

6 Applications

6.1 Introduction
In this chapter we describe a number of applications in which the technolo-
gies described in this book have been or could be put to use. We have aimed
to describe realistic scenarios only; if the scenarios are not already imple-
mented, they are at least being seriously considered by major industrial firms
in different sectors.
The descriptions in this chapter give a general overview of the kinds of
uses to which Semantic Web technology can be applied. These include hor-
izontal information products, data integration, skill-finding, a think tank
portal, e-learning, web services, multimedia collection indexing, on-line pro-
curement, and device interoperability.

Chapter Overview
This chapter gives a general overview of the kinds of uses to which Seman-
tic Web technology can be applied. These include information publishing
(section 6.2), data integration (sections 6.3 — 6.5), knowledge management
(sections 6.6 — 6.7), e-learning (section 6.8), web-services (section 6.9), mul-
timedia collection indexing, on-line procurement and device interoperability
(section 6.10).

6.2 Horizontal Information Products at Elsevier

6.2.1 The Setting
Elsevier is a leading scientific publisher. Its products, like those of many of
its competitors, are organized mainly along traditional lines: subscriptions

185

186 6 Applications

to journals. Online availability of these journals has until now not really
changed the organization of the product line. Although individual papers
are available online, this is only in the form in which they appeared in the
journal, and collections of articles are organized according to the journal in
which they appeared. Customers of Elsevier can take subscriptions to on-
line content, but again these subscriptions are organized according to the
traditional product lines: journals or bundles of journals.

6.2.2 The Problem

These traditional journals can be described as vertical products. The prod-
ucts are split up into a number of separate columns (e.g., biology, chemistry,
medicine), and each product covers one such column (or more likely part of
one such column). However, with the rapid developments in the various sci-
ences (information sciences, life sciences, physical sciences), the traditional
division into separate sciences covered by distinct journals is no longer sat-
isfactory. Customers of Elsevier are instead interested in covering certain
topic areas that spread across the traditional disciplines. A pharmaceutical
company wants to buy from Elsevier all the information it has about, say,
Alzheimer’s disease, regardless of whether this comes from a biology jour-
nal, a medical journal, or a chemistry journal. Thus, the demand is rather
for horizontal products: all the information Elsevier has about a given topic,
sliced across all the separate traditional disciplines and journal boundaries.
Currently, it is difﬁcult for large publishers like Elsevier to offer such hor-
izontal products. The information published by Elsevier is locked inside the
separate journals, each with its own indexing system, organized according
to different physical, syntactic, and semantic standards. Barriers of physical
and syntactic heterogeneity can be solved. Elsevier has translated much of
its content to an XML format that allows cross-journal querying. However,
the semantic problem remains largely unsolved. Of course, it is possible to
search across multiple journals for articles containing the same keywords,
but given the extensive homonym and synonym problems within and be-
tween the various disciplines, this is unlikely to provide satisfactory results.
What is needed is a way to search the various journals on a coherent set of
concepts against which all of these journals are indexed.

6.2 Horizontal Information Products at Elsevier 187

….

Figure 6.1 Querying across data sources at Elsevier

6.2.3 The Contribution of Semantic Web Technology
Ontologies and thesauri, which can be seen as very lightweight ontologies,
have proved to be a key technology for effective information access because
they help to overcome some of the problems of free-text search by relating
and grouping relevant terms in a specific domain as well as providing a
controlled vocabulary for indexing information. A number of thesauri have
been developed in different domains of expertise. Examples from the area
of medical information include MeSH1 and Elsevier’s life science thesaurus
EMTREE.2 These thesauri are already used to access information sources like
MBASE3 or Science Direct; however, currently there are no links between
the different information sources and the specific thesauri used to index and
query these sources.
Elsevier is experimenting with the possibility of providing access to multi-
ple information sources in the area of the life sciences through a single inter-
face, using EMTREE as the single underlying ontology against which all the
vertical information sources are indexed (see figure 6.1).
Semantic Web technology plays multiple roles in this architecture. First,
RDF is used as an interoperability format between heterogeneous data
sources. Second, an ontology (in this case, EMTREE) is itself represented
in RDF (even though this is by no means its native format). Each of the sepa-

1. <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh>.
2. 42,000 indexing terms, 175,000 synonyms.
3. <http://www.embase.com/>; 4000 journals, 8 million records.

188 6 Applications

rate data sources is mapped onto this unifying ontology, which is then used
as the single point of entry for all of these data sources.
This problem is not unique to Elsevier. The entire scientific publishing
industry is currently struggling with these problems. Actually, Elsevier is
one of the leaders in trying to adapt its contents to new styles of delivery and
organization.

6.2.4 The Results
As part of its experiments, Elsevier has sponsored the DOPE project (Drug
Ontology Project for Elsevier), where the EMTREE thesaurus was used to
index approximately 10 million medical abstracts from MedLine as well as
approximately 500,000 full text articles from Elsevier’s own collections. This
was done with concept extraction software from Collexis4 . The architec-
ture from figure 6.1 was implemented using the Sesame RDF storage and
querying engine5 , and a search and browse interface was constructed using
Aduna’s ClusterMap software6 . This yielded an interface as shown in figure
6.2.
In this interface, the EMTREE ontology was used in a number of ways:

1. It is used to disambiguate the original free-text user query: does the search
term “AIDS” stand for “Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome” or is it
the plural of “aid” (as in “first aid”)?

2. It is then used to categorize the results, as shown in the left column of
figure 6.2: each entry in that column is in fact a category from the EMTREE
ontology in its proper hierarchical position.

3. These same categories are used to produce a visual clustering of the search
results, as shown in the right-hand pane of figure 6.2.

4. Finally, when a search produces too many or too few results, the hierar-
chical structure of EMTREE can be used to narrow or widen the search
query in a meaningful way.

4. <http://www.collexis.com/>.
5. <http://www.openrdf.org/>.
6. <http://www.aduna-software.com/>.


Figure 6.2 DOPE search and browse interface

6.3 Openacademia: Distributed Publication Management

6.3.1 The Setting
Information about scientiﬁc publications is often maintained by individual
researchers. Reference management software such as EndNote and Bib-
TeX helps researchers to maintain personal collections of bibliographic ref-
erences. Typically, these are references to a researcher’s own publications
and also those that have been read and cited by the researcher in her own
work. Most researchers and research groups also have to maintain a Web
page about publications for interested peers from other institutes. Often per-
sonal reference management and the maintenance of Web pages are isolated
efforts. The author of a new publication adds the reference to his own collec-
tion and updates his Web page and possibly that of his research group. Then
the newly added reference simply waits until other researchers discover it.

190 6 Applications

6.3.2 The Problem
Ideally, maintaining personal references and Web pages about publications
should not require redundant efforts. One could achieve this by directly
using individual bibliographical records generate personal Web pages and
joined publication lists for Web pages at the group or institutional level.
For this to happen, several problems need to be solved. First, information
from different files and possibly in different formats has to be collected and
integrated — not only bibliographic information but also information about
membership of research groups and contact details. Second, duplicate infor-
mation should be detected and merged. It is very likely that the same author
name appears in different files with different spellings, and that the same
publication is referenced by different people in different forms. Finally, it
should be possible to query for specific selections of the bibliographic entries
and represent them in customized layouts.

Openacademia7 is a web-based application that can do these tasks. All tasks
in openacademia are performed on RDF representations of the data, and
only standard ontologies are used to describe the meaning of the data. More-
over, W3C standards are used for the transformation and presentation of the
information.

Functionality

Before discussing the details of the system, we first describe its functional-
ity. The most immediate service of openacademia is to enable generating an
HTML representation of a personal collection of publications and publishing
it on the Web. This requires filling out a single form on the openacademia
Web site, which generates the code (one line of JavaScript!) that needs to be
inserted into the body of the home page. The code inserts the publication
list in the page dynamically, and thus there is no need to update the page
separately if the underlying collection changes. The appearance of the publi-
cation list can be customized by style sheets. A variety of them is available in
the system. An XSL style sheet specifies the pieces of information that should
be included (e.g., whether an abstract is shown in the presentation), and CSS
style sheets determine the layout.

7. <http://www.openacademia.org/>.


One can also generate an RSS feed from the collection. RSS is a simple
XML-based data format that allows users to subscribe to frequently updated
content. RSS feeds can be viewed and organized through RSS readers or
automatically included as new content on another Web site. Adding such
an RSS feed to a home page allows visitors to subscribe to the publication
list. Whenever a new publication is added, the subscribers of the feed will
be notified of this change through their reader (information push). Modern
browsers such as Mozilla Firefox have builtin RSS readers that allow sub-
scribing to RSS feeds attached to Web pages. The RSS feeds of openacademia
are RDF-based and can also be consumed by any RDF-aware software such
as the Piggy Bank browser extension.8 Piggy Bank allows users to collect
RDF statements linked to Web pages while browsing through the Web and
to save them for later use.
Research groups can install their own openacademia server. Members of
the research group can submit their publications by creating a FOAF profile9
that points to the location of their publication collection. Openacademia thus
enables the creation of a unified group publication list its posting it to a Web
site similarly to personal lists. Groups can have their RSS feeds as well.
There is also an AJAX-based interface10 for browsing and searching the
publication collection (see figure 6.3) which builds queries and displays the
results. This interface offers a number of visualizations. For example, the im-
portant keywords in the titles of publications matching the current query can
be viewed as a tag cloud11 , where the size of the tags shows the importance of
the keywords. It is also possible to browse the co-authorship networks of re-
searchers. If the underlying data source includes FOAF data, the researchers’
photos are shown (with links to their home pages). Another interactive vi-
sualization shows publications along a time line that can be scrolled using a
mouse (see Figure 6.4).12

8. <http://simile.mit.edu/wiki/Piggy_Bank/>.
9. FOAF (Friend of a Friend; <http://www.foaf-project.org/>) is an RDF vocabulary for de-
scribing people, the links between them, and the things they create and do.
10. Ajax (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) is a Web development technique for creating in-
teractive Web applications. The intent is to make Web pages feel more responsive by exchanging
small amounts of data with the server behind the scenes, so that the entire web page does not
have to be reloaded each time the user requests a change. (Wikipedia).
11. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud>.
12. This time-based visualization uses the Timeline widget developed by the SIMILE project,
<http://simile.mit.edu/timeline/>.

192 6 Applications

Figure 6.3 AJAX-based query interface of openacademia

Figure 6.4 Interactive time-based visualization using the Timeline widget


Information Sources

Openacademia uses the RDF-based FOAF format as a schema for informa-
tion about persons and groups. To have their information included in ope-
nacademia researchers need to have a FOAF profile that contains at least
their name and a link to a file with their publications. Anyone who does
not have a FOAF profile can fill out a form at the openacademia Web site to
generate it.
To be able to make selections on groups, information about group mem-
bership is required. This can also be specified in a FOAF file. Alternatively, it
can be generated from a database. For example, at the Vrije Universiteit Am-
sterdam an RDF front end to the local LDAP database has been developed
that represents its data as FOAF profiles.13 The LDAP database contains in-
formation about group membership, and also individual names and e-mail
addresses, which can be used to link the personal FOAF profiles to the infor-
mation in the generated profiles.
For data about publications, openacademia uses the Semantic Web Re-
search Community (SWRC) ontology14 as a basic schema. However, because
most researchers do not have their publication data in RDF, openacademia
also accepts BibTeX, a format commonly in use in academia. Authors have
to include a BibTeX file with their own publications on a publicly acces-
sible part of their Web site. The BibTeX files are translated to RDF using
the BibTeX-2-RDF service,15 which creates instance data for the SWRC on-
tology.16 A simple extension of the SWRC ontology was necessary to pre-
serve the sequence of authors of publications. To this end the properties
swrc-ext:authorList and swrc-ext:editorList are defined, which
have rdf:Seq as range, comprising an ordered list of authors.
The crawler in openacademia collects the FOAF profiles and publication
files. The crawling can be restricted to a specific domain, which can be useful
for limiting the data collection to the domain of an institute. All data are
subsequently stored in Sesame, an RDF database17 .

13. <http://www.cs.vu.nl/swhome/>.
14. <http://ontoware.org/projects/swrc/>.
15. <http://www.cs.vu.nl/∼mcaklein/bib2rdf/>.
16. A translater for the EndNote format is being developed.

194 6 Applications

Integration

As the system is designed to reuse information in a distributed, Web-based
environment, it has to deal with the increasing semantic heterogeneity of in-
formation sources. Heterogeneity affects both the schema and instance lev-
els. The schemas used are stable, lightweight Web ontologies (SWRC and
FOAF), so their mapping causes no problem. Openacademia uses a bridg-
ing ontology that specifies the relations between important classes in both
ontologies, for insteance, that swrc:Author should be considered a sub-
class of foaf:Person.
Heterogeneity on the instance level arises from using different identifiers
in the sources for denoting the same real-world objects. This certainly af-
fects FOAF data collected from the Web (typically each personal profile also
contains partial descriptions of the friends of the individual), as well as pub-
lication information, (the same author or publication may be referenced in a
number of BibTeX sources).
A so-called smusher is used to match foaf:Person instances based on
name and inverse functional properties. For example, if two persons have
the same value for their e-mail addresses (or checksums), we can conclude
that the two persons are the same. Publications are matched on a combina-
tion of properties. The instance matches that are found are recorded in the
RDF store using the owl:sameAs property. Since Sesame does not natively
support OWL semantics at the moment, the semantics of this single prop-
erty are expanded using Sesame’s custom rule language. These rules express
the reflexive, symmetric, and transitive nature of the property as well as the
intended meaning, namely, the equality of property values.

Presentation

After all information has been merged, the triple store can be queried to pro-
duce publications lists according to a variety of criteria, including personal,
group or publication facets. The online interface helps users to build such
queries against the publication repository.
In order to appreciate the power of a semantics-based approach, it is illus-
trative to look at an example query. The query in figure 6.5, formulated in the
SeRQL query language18 , returns all publications authored by the members

18. a precursor to the SPARQL query language (see chapter 3);
see <http://www.openrdf.org/doc/sesame/users/ch06.html>.

6.4 Bibster: Data Exchange in a Peer-to-Peer System 195

SELECT DISTINCT pub foaf:member
FROM {group} foaf:homepage swrc:author
person group
{<http://www.cs.vu.nl/ai/>}; foaf:member {person},
{pub} swrc:year {year}; swrc:author {person} pub foaf:homepage
WHERE year="2004"
USING NAMESPACE swrc:year
foaf = <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>, 2004 http://www.cs.vu.nl/ai/
swrc = <http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#>

Figure 6.5 Sample SeRQL query and its graphic representation

of the Artificial Intelligence department in 2004. This department is uniquely
identified by its home page.
Note that the successful resolution of this query relies on the schema and
instance matching described in the previous section. The query answering
requires publication data as well as information on department membership
and personal data from either the LDAP database or the self-maintained pro-
file of the researcher. This points to a clear advantage of the Semantic Web
approach: a separation of concerns. Researchers can change their personal
profiles and update their publication lists without the need to consult or no-
tify anyone. Similarly, the maintainer of the departmental LDAP database
can add and remove individuals as before. All this information will be con-
nected and merged automatically.

6.4 Bibster: Data Exchange in a Peer-to-Peer System

6.4.1 The Setting

Section 6.3 discussed a Semantic Web solution to the problem of collecting,
storing, and sharing bibliographic information. The openacademia system
uses a semicentralized solution for this problem. It is centralized because it
harvests data into a single centralized repository which can then be queried;
it’s only semi-centralized because it harvests the bibliographic data from the
files of invidivual researchers.
In this section we describe a fully distributed approach to the same prob-
lem in the form of the Bibster system.

196 6 Applications

6.4.2 The Problem
Any centralized solution relies on the performance of the centralized node
in the system: how often does the crawler refresh the collected data-items,
how reliable is the central server, will the central server become a perfor-
mance bottleneck? Also, while many researchers are willing to share their
data, they only do so as long as they are able to maintain local control over
the information, instead of handing it over to a central server outside their
control.
With Bibster, researchers may want to

• query a single specific peer (e.g., their own computer, because it is some-
times hard to find the right entry there), a specific set of peers (e.g., all
colleagues at an institute), or the entire network of peers;

• search for bibliographic entries using simple keyword searches but also
more advanced, semantic searches (e.g., for publications of a special type,
with specific attribute values, or about a certain topic);

• integrate results of a query into a local repository for future use. Such
data may in turn be used to answer queries by other peers. They may
also be interested in updating items that are already locally stored with
additional information about these items obtained from other peers.

Ontologies are used by Bibster for a number of purposes: importing data,
formulating queries, routing queries, and processing answers. First, the
system enables users to import their own bibliographic metadata into a lo-
cal repository. Bibliographic entries made available to Bibster by users are
automatically aligned to two ontologies. The first ontology (SWRC19 ) de-
scribes different generic aspects of bibliographic metadata (and would be
valid across many different research domains); the second ontology (ACM
Topic Ontology20 .) describes specific categories of literature for the computer
science domain. Second, queries are formulated in terms of the two ontolo-
gies. Queries may concern fields like author or publication type (using terms
from the SWRC ontology) or specific computer science terms (using the ACM

19. <http://ontoware.org/projects/swrc>.
20. <http://www.acm.org/class/1998/>


Topic Ontology). Third, queries are routed through the network depend-
ing on the expertise models of the peers describing which concepts from the
ACM ontology a peer can answer queries on. A matching function deter-
mines how closely the semantic content of a query matches the expertise
model of a peer. Routing is then done on the basis of this semantic ranking.
Finally, answers are returned for a query. Because of the distributed nature
and potentially large size of the peer-to-peer network, this answer set might
be very large and contain many duplicate answers. Because of the semistruc-
tured nature of bibliographic metadata, such duplicates are often not exactly
identical copies. Ontologies help to measure the semantic similarity between
the different answers and to remove apparent duplicates as identified by the
similarity function.

6.4.4 The Results

The screenshot in figure 6.6 indicates how the use cases are realized in Bib-
ster. The Scope widget allows for defining the targeted peers; the Search and
Search Details widgets allow for keyword and semantic search; the Results
Table and BibTexView widgets allow for browsing and reusing query results.
The query results are visualized in a list grouped by duplicates. They may be
integrated into the local repository or exported into formats such as BibTeX
and HTML.

6.5 Data Integration at Audi

6.5.1 The Setting

The problem described in section 6.2 is essentially a data integration prob-
lem which Elsevier is trying to solve for the benefit of its customers. But data
integration is also a huge problem internal to companies. In fact, it is widely
seen as the highest cost factor in the information technology budget of large
companies. A company the size of Audi (51,000 employees, $22 billion rev-
enue, 700,000 cars produced annually) operates thousands of databases, of-
ten duplicating and reduplicating the same information and missing out on
opportunities because data sources are not interconnected. Current practice
is that corporations rely on costly manual code generation and point-to-point
translation scripts for data integration.

198 6 Applications

Figure 6.6 Bibster peer-to-peer bibliography finder

6.5.2 The Problem
While traditional middleware simplifies the integration process, it does not
address the fundamental challenge of integration: the sharing of information
based on the intended meaning, the semantics of the data.

Using ontologies as semantic data models can rationalize disparate data
sources into one body of information. By creating ontologies for data and
content sources and adding generic domain information, integration of dis-
parate sources in the enterprise can be performed without disturbing exist-
ing applications. The ontology is mapped to the data sources (fields, records,
files, documents), giving applications direct access to the data through the
ontology.


We illustrate the general idea using a camera example.21 Here is one way
in which a particular data source or application may talk about cameras:

<SLR rdf:ID="Olympus-OM-10">
<viewFinder>twin mirror</viewFinder>
<optics>
<Lens>
<focal-length>75-300mm zoom</focal-length>
<f-stop>4.0-4.5</f-stop>
</Lens>
</optics>
<shutter-speed>1/2000 sec. to 10 sec.</shutter-speed>
</SLR>

This can be interpreted (by human readers) to say that Olympus-OM-10 is an
SLR (which we know by previous experience to be a type of camera), that it
has a twin-mirror viewﬁnder, and to give values for focal length range, f-stop
intervals, and minimal and maximal shutter speed. Note that this interpre-
tation is strictly done by a human reader. There is no way that a computer
can know that Olympus-OM-10 is a type of SLR, whereas 75–300 mm is the
value of the focal length.
This is just one way of syntactically encoding this information. A second
data source may well have chosen an entirely different format:

<Camera rdf:ID="Olympus-OM-10">
<viewFinder>twin mirror</viewFinder>
<optics>
<Lens>
<size>300mm zoom</size>
<aperture>4.5</aperture>
</Lens>
</optics>
<shutter-speed>1/2000 sec. to 10 sec.</shutter-speed>
</Camera>

Human readers can see that these two different formats talk about the
same object. After all, we know that SLR is a kind of camera, and that f-
stop is a synonym for aperture. Of course, we can provide a simple ad hoc
integration of these data sources by simply writing a translator from one to
the other. But this would only solve this speciﬁc integration problem, and we

21. By R. Costello; at <http://www.xfront.com/avoiding-syntactic-rigor-mortis.html>.

200 6 Applications

would have to do the same again when we encountered the next data format
for cameras.
Instead, we might well write a simple camera ontology in OWL:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="SLR">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Camera"/>
</owl:Class>

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="f-stop">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Lens"/>

<owl:DatatypeProperty> rdf:ID="aperture">
<owl:equivalentProperty rdf:resource="#f-stop"/>
</owl:DatatypeProperty>>

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="focal-length">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Lens"/>

<owl:DatatypeProperty> rdf:ID="size">
<owl:equivalentProperty rdf:resource="#focal-length"/>
</owl:DatatypeProperty>>

In other words, SLR is a type of camera, f-stop is synonymous with aperture,
and focal length is synonymous with lens size.
Now suppose that an application A is using the second encoding (cam-
era, aperture, lens size) and that it is receiving data from an application B
using the ﬁrst encoding (SLR, f-stop, focal length). As application A parses
the XML document that it received from application B, it encounters SLR.
It doesn’t “understand” SLR so it “consults” the camera ontology: “What
do you know about SLR?” The ontology returns “SLR is a type of Camera.”
This knowledge provides the link for application A to “understand” the rela-
tion between something it doesn’t know (SLR) and something it does know
(Camera). When application A continues parsing, it encounters f-stop.
Again, application A was not coded to understand f-stop, so it consults
the camera ontology: “What do you know about f-stop?” The ontology
returns: “f-stop is synonymous with aperture.” Once again, this know-
ledge serves to bridge the terminology gap between something application
A doesn’t know and something application A does know. And similarly for
focal length.

6.6 Skill Finding at Swiss Life 201

The main point here is that syntactic divergence is no longer a hindrance.
In fact, syntactic divergence can be encouraged, so that each application uses
the syntactic form that best suits its needs. The ontology provides for a sin-
gle integration of these different syntactical forms rather n2 individual map-
pings between the different formats.
Audi is not the only company investigating Semantic Web technology for
solving its data integration problems. The same holds for large companies
such as Boeing, Daimler Chrysler, Hewlett Packard, and others (see Sug-
gested Reading). This application scenario is now realistic enough that com-
panies like Unicorn (Israel), Ontoprise (Germany), Network Inference (UK),
and others are staking their business interests on this use of Semantic Web
technology.

6.6 Skill Finding at Swiss Life

6.6.1 The Setting
Swiss Life is one of Europe’s leading life insurers, with 11,000 employees
worldwide and some $14 billion of written premiums. Swiss Life has sub-
sidiaries, branches, representative offices, and partners representing its in-
terests in about fifty different countries.
The tacit knowledge, personal competencies, and skills of its employees
are the most important resources of any company for solving knowledge-
intensive tasks; they are the real substance of the company’s success. Estab-
lishing an electronically accessible repository of people’s capabilities, experi-
ences, and key knowledge areas is one of the major building blocks in setting
up enterprise knowledge management. Such a skills repository can be used
to enable a search for people with specific skills, expose skill gaps and com-
petency levels, direct training as part of career planning, and document the
company’s intellectual capital.

6.6.2 The Problem
With such a large and international workforce distributed over many geo-
graphical and culturally diverse areas, the construction of a companywide
skills repository is a difficult task. How to list the large number of different
skills? How to organize them so that they can be retrieved across geograph-
ical and cultural boundaries? How to ensure that the repository is updated
frequently?

202 6 Applications

The experiment at Swiss Life performed in the On-To-Knowledge project (see
Suggested Reading) used a handbuilt ontology to cover skills in three organi-
zational units of Swiss Life: information technology, private insurance, and
human resources. Across these three sections, the ontology consisted of 700
concepts, with an additional 180 educational concepts and 130 job function
concepts that were not subdivided across the three domains.
Here we give a glimpse of part of the ontology, to give a ﬂavor of the kind
of expressivity that was used:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Skills">
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#HasSkillsLevel"/>
<owl:cardinality rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">
1
</owl:cardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="HasSkills">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Employee"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Skills"/>

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="WorksInProject">
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Project"/>
<owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#ProjectMembers"/>

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="ManagementLevel">
<rdfs:range>
<owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#member"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#HeadOfGroup"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#HeadOfDept"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#CEO"/>
</owl:oneOf>


</rdfs:range>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Publishing">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Skills"/>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="DocumentProcessing">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Skills"/>
</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="DeskTopPublishing">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Publishing"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#DocumentProcessing"/>
</owl:Class>
Individual employees within Swiss Life were asked to create “home pages”
based on form ﬁlling that was driven by the skills ontology. The correspond-
ing collection of instances could be queried using a form-based interface that
generated RQL queries (see chapter 3). Although the system never left the
prototype stage, it was in use by initially 100 (later 150) people in selected
departments at Swiss Life headquarters.

6.7 Think Tank Portal at EnerSearch

6.7.1 The Setting
EnerSearch is an industrial research consortium focused on information tech-
nology in energy. Its aim is to create and disseminate knowledge on how the
use of advanced IT will impact the energy utility sector, particularly in view
of the liberalization of this sector across Europe.
EnerSearch has a structure that is very different from a traditional research
company. Research projects are carried out by a varied and changing group
of researchers spread over different countries (Sweden, United States, the
Netherlands, Germany, France). Many of them, although funded for their
work, are not employees of EnerSearch. Thus, EnerSearch is organized as a
virtual organization. The insights derived from the conducted research are
intended for interested utility industries and IT suppliers. Here EnerSearch
has the structure of a limited company, which is owned by a number of
ﬁrms in the industry sector that have an express interest in the research be-
ing carried out. Shareholding companies include large utility companies in

204 6 Applications

different European countries, including Sweden (Sydkraft), Portugal (EDP),
the Netherlands (ENECO), Spain (Iberdrola), and Germany (Eon), as well as
some worldwide IT suppliers to this sector (IBM, ABB). Because of this wide
geographical spread, EnerSearch also has the character of a virtual organiza-
tion from a knowledge distribution point of view.

6.7.2 The Problem
Dissemination of knowledge is a key function of EnerSearch. The EnerSearch
Web site is an important mechanism for knowledge dissemination. (In fact,
one of the shareholding companies actually entered EnerSearch directly as a
result of getting to know the Web site). Nevertheless, the information struc-
ture of the Web site leaves much to be desired. Its main organization is in
terms of “about us” information: what projects have been done, which re-
searchers are involved, papers, reports, and presentations. Consequently, it
does not satisfy the needs of information seekers. They are generally not in-
terested in knowing what the projects are or who the authors are, but rather
in finding answers to questions that are important in this industry domain,
such as: does load management lead to costsavings? If so, how big are they,
and what are the required upfront investments? Can powerline communica-
tion be technically competitive to ADSL or cable modems?

The EnerSearch Web site is in fact used by different target groups: researchers
in the field, staff and management of utility industries, and so on. It is quite
possible to form a clear picture of what kind of topics and questions would
be relevant for these target groups. Finally, the knowledge domain in which
EnerSearch works is relatively well defined. As a result of these factors,
it is possible to define a domain ontology that is sufficiently stable and of
good enough quality. In fact, the On-To-Knowledge project ran successful
experiments using a lightweight “EnerSearch lunchtime ontology” that took
developers no more than a few hours to develop (over lunchtime).
This lightweight ontology consisted only of a taxonomical hierarchy (and
therefore only needed RDF Schema expressivity). The following is a snap-
shot of one of the branches of this ontology in informal notation:

...
IT
Hardware


Software
Applications
Communication
Powerline
Agent
Electronic Commerce
Agents
Multi-agent systems
Intelligent agents
Market/auction
Resource allocation
Algorithms

This ontology was used in a number of different ways to drive naviga-
tion tools on the EnerSearch Web site. Figure 6.7 shows a semantic map of
the EnerSearch Web site for the subtopics of the concept “agent”, and figure
6.8 shows the semantic distance between different authors in terms of their
disciplinary fields of research and publication.22
Figure 6.9 shows how some of the same information is displayed to the
user in an entirely different manner with the Spectacle Server semantic
browsing software.23 The user selected the “By Author” option, then chose
the author Fredrik Ygge and the concept “cable length”. The result lists all
the pages with publications on this topic by Fredrik Ygge.
A third way of displaying the information was created by the QuizRDF
tool.24 Rather then choosing between either an entirely ontology-based dis-
play (as in the three displayed figures), or a traditional keyword-based search
without any semantic grounding, QuizRDF aims to combine both: the user
can type in general keywords. This will result in a traditional list of pa-
pers containing these keywords. However, it also displays those concepts in
the hierarchy that describe these papers, allowing the user to embark on an
ontology-driven search starting from the hits that resulted from a keyword-
based search.
In this application scenario we have seen how a traditional information
source can be disclosed in a number of innovative ways. All these disclosure
mechanisms (textual and graphic, searching or browsing) are based on a sin-

22. Both figures display results obtained by using semantic clustering visualization software
from Aduna; <http://www.aduna-software.com/>.
23. From Aduna, <http://www.aduna.biz/>.
24. Prototyped by British Telecom Research Labs.

206 6 Applications

Figure 6.7 Semantic map of part of the EnerSearch Web site

Figure 6.8 Semantic distance between EnerSearch authors

6.8 e-Learning 207

Figure 6.9 Browsing ontologically organized papers in Spectacle

gle underlying lightweight ontology but cater for a broad spectrum of users
with different needs and backgrounds.

6.8 e-Learning

6.8.1 The Setting
The World Wide Web is currently changing many areas of human activity,
among them learning. Traditionally learning has been characterized by the
following properties:

• Educator-driven. The instructor selects the content and the pedagogical
means of delivery, and sets the agenda and the pace of learning.

• Linear access. Knowledge is taught in a predetermined order. The learner
is not supposed to deviate from this order by selecting pieces of particular
interest.

208 6 Applications

• Time- and locality-dependent. Learning takes place at specific times and
specific places.

As a consequence, learning has not been personalized but rather aimed at
mass participation. Though efficient and in many instances effective, tradi-
tional learning processes have not been suitable for every potential learner.
The emergence of the Internet has paved the way for implementing new ed-
ucational processes.
The changes are already visible in higher education. Increasingly, univer-
sities are refocusing their activities to provide more flexibility for learners.
Virtual universities and online courses are only a small part of these activi-
ties. Flexibility and new educational means are also implemented on tradi-
tional campuses, where students’ presence is still required but with fewer
constraints. Increasingly, students can make choices, determine the con-
tent and evaluation procedures, the pace of their learning, and the learning
method most suitable for them.
We can also expect e-learning to have an even greater impact on work-
related qualifications and lifelong learning activities. One of the critical
support mechanisms for increasing an organization’s competitiveness is the
improvement of the skills of its employees. Organizations require learning
processes that are just-in-time, tailored to their specific needs, and ideally
integrated into day-to-day work patterns. These requirements are not com-
patible with traditional learning, but e-learning shows great promise for ad-
dressing these concerns.

6.8.2 The Problem
Compared to traditional learning, e-learning is not driven by the instructor.
In particular, learners can access material in an order that is not predefined,
and can compose individual courses by selecting educational material. For
this approach to work, learning material must be equipped with additional
information to support effective indexing and retrieval.
The use of metadata is a natural answer and has been followed, in a limited
way, by librarians for a long time. In the e-learning community, standards
such as IEEE LOM have emerged. They associate with learning materials in-
formation, such as educational and pedagogical properties, access rights and
conditions of use, and relations to other educational resources. Although
these standards are useful, they suffer from a drawback common to all solu-
tions based solely on metadata (XML-like approaches): lack of semantics. As

6.8 e-Learning 209

a consequence combining of materials by different authors may be difﬁcult;
retrieval may not be optimally supported; and the retrieval and organization
of learning resources must be made manually (instead of, say, by a person-
alized automated agent). These kinds of problems may be avoided if the
Semantic Web approach is adopted.

The key ideas of the Semantic Web, namely, common shared meaning (ontol-
ogy) and machine-processable metadata, establish a promising approach for
satisfying the e-learning requirements. It can support both semantic query-
ing and the conceptual navigation of learning materials:
• Learner-driven. Learning materials, possibly by different authors, can
be linked to commonly agreed ontologies. Personalized courses can be
designed through semantic querying, and learning materials can be re-
trieved in the context of actual problems, as decided by the learner.
• Flexible access. Knowledge can be accessed in any order the learner
wishes, according to her interests and needs. Of course, appropriate se-
mantic annotation will still set constraints in cases where prerequisites are
necessary. But overall nonlinear access will be supported.
• Integration. The Semantic Web can provide a uniform platform for the
business processes of organizations, and learning activities can be inte-
grated in these processes. This solution may be particularly valuable for
commercial companies.

6.8.4 Ontologies for e-Learning
In an e-learning environment the situation can easily arise that different au-
thors use different terminologies, in which case the combination of learn-
ing materials becomes difﬁcult. The retrieval problem is additionally com-
pounded by the fact that typically instructors and learners have very differ-
ent backgrounds and levels of knowledge. Therefore, some mechanism for
establishing a shared understanding is needed. Ontologies are a powerful
mechanism for achieving this task. In an e-learning environment it makes
sense to distinguish between three types of knowledge, and thus of ontolo-
gies: content, pedagogy, and structure.
A content ontology describes the basic concepts of the domain in which
learning takes place (e.g., history or computer science). It includes also the

210 6 Applications

relations between these concepts, and some basic properties. For example,
the study of Classical Athens is part of the history of Ancient Greece, which
in turn is part of Ancient History. The ontology should include the relation
“is part of” and the fact that it is transitive (e.g., expressed in OWL). In this
way, an automated learning support agent can infer that knowledge on Clas-
sical Athens can be found under Ancient History. The content ontology can
also use relations to capture synonyms, abbreviations, and so on.
Pedagogical issues can be addressed in a pedagogy ontology. For example,
material can be classified as lecture, tutorial, example, walk-through, exer-
cise, solution, and so on. Finally, a structure ontology is used to define the
logical structure of the learning materials. Typical knowledge of this kind
includes hierarchical and navigational relations like previous, next, hasPart,
isPartOf, requires, and isBasedOn. Relationships between these relations can
also be defined; for example, hasPart and isPartOf are inverse relations. It
is natural to develop e-learning systems on the Web; thus a Web ontology
language should be used.
We should mention that most of the inferences drawn from learning on-
tologies cannot be expected to be very deep. Human readers can easily deal
with relations such as hasPart and isPartOf and their interplay. The point is,
though, that this kind of reasoning should be exhibited by automated agents,
and the semantic information is necessary for reasoning to occur in an auto-
mated fashion.

6.9 Web Services

6.9.1 The Setting
By Web services we mean Web sites that do not merely provide static in-
formation but involve interaction with users and often allow users to effect
some action. Usually a distinction is made between simple and complex Web
services.
Simple Web services involve a single Web-accessible program, sensor, or
device that does not rely upon other Web services nor requires further inter-
action with the user beyond a simple response. Typical examples are infor-
mation provision services, such as a flight finder and a service that returns
the postal code of a given address.
Complex Web services are composed of simpler services and often require
ongoing interaction with the user, whereby the user can make choices or
provide information conditionally. For example, user interaction with an


Supplier type
Reference location

Find Medical Supplier

List of Suppliers

Compute Distance

Closest Supplier

Figure 6.10 Work flow for finding the closest medical supplier

online music store involves searching for CDs and titles by various criteria,
reading reviews and listening to samples, adding CDs to a shopping cart,
providing credit card details, shipping details, and delivery address.

6.9.2 The Problem
SOAP, WSDL, UDDI, and BPEL4WS are the standard technology combina-
tion to build a Web service application. However, they fail to achieve the
goals of automation and interoperability because they require humans in the
loop. For example, information has to be browsed, and forms need to be
filled in. Also, WSDL specifies the functionality of a service only at a syntac-
tic level but does not describe the meaning of the Web service functionality,
so other programs cannot make use of this information.

The Semantic Web community addressed the limitations of current Web ser-
vice technology by augmenting the service descriptions with a semantic
layer in order to achieve automatic discovery, composition, monitoring, and
execution. The automation of these tasks is highly desirable.

Example Scenario

The example task is specializing the more generic task of finding the closest
medical provider (or provider in any domain). A strategy for performing

212 6 Applications

Figure 6.11 OWL-S service ontology

this task is: (1) retrieve the details of all medical providers (of a certain type)
and (2) select the closest by computing the distance between the location of
the provider and a reference location. This work flow can be schematically
represented as in figure 6.10. For the example task it is enough to populate
this work flow with the MedicareSupplier service and a Web service that
calculates the distance between zip codes.
Semantic Web service technology aims to automate performing such tasks
based on the semantic description of Web services. Using these descriptions
the right services can be selected and combined in a way that would solve
the task at hand.
A common characteristic of all emerging frameworks for semantic Web
service descriptions (among them OWL-S, and WSMO25 ) is that they com-
bine two kinds of ontologies to obtain a service description. First, a generic
Web service ontology, such as OWL-S, specifies generic Web service concepts
(e.g., inputs, outputs) and prescribes the backbone of the semantic Web ser-
vice description. Second, a domain ontology specifies knowledge in the do-
main of the Web service, such as types of service parameters (e.g., City) and
functionalities (e.g., FindMedicalSupplier), that fills in this generic framework.
These two kinds of ontologies are discussed in the following sections.

6.9.4 Generic Web Service Ontologies: OWL-S
The OWL-S ontology is conceptually divided into four subontologies for
specifying what the service does (Profile26 ), how the service works (Pro-
cess27 ) and how the service is implemented (Grounding28 ). A fourth ontol-

25. <http://www.wsmo.org/>.
26. <http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/Profile.owl>.
27. <http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/Process.owl>.
28. <http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/Grounding.owl>.


ogy (Service29 ) contains the Service concept, which links together the Service-
Profile, ServiceModel and ServiceGrounding concepts (see Figure 6.11). The last
three concepts are all further specialized in the Profile, Process and Ground-
ing ontologies, respectively. In the the following sections, we explain all
three parts of the OWL-S ontology by exemplifying their use in describing
the MedicareSupplier service.

The Profile Ontology

Profile specifies the functionality offered by the service (e.g., GetMedicalSup-
plier), the semantic type of the inputs and outputs (e.g., City, MedicareSup-
plier), the details of the service provider, and several service parameters, such
as quality rating or geographic radius. This description is used for discover-
ing the service. The central concept of this ontology, Profile, is a subclass of
ServiceProfile.
For each Profile instance we associate the process it describes (indicated by
the hasProc relation) and its functional characteristics (inputs, outputs, pre-
conditions, effects — referred to as IOPEs) together with their type. In the fol-
lowing example, the MedicareSupplier service presents three profiles (i.e., it of-
fers three distinct functionalities). Each profile has a semantic type described
by one of the functionality concepts FindMedicareSupplierByZip, FindMedi-
careSupplierByCity or FindMedicareSupplierBySupply. Each profile describes
a process (specified in the process models P1, P2, P3). Finally, all profiles
return an output that was described with the SupplierDetails concept. The in-
put type varies for each profile: ZipCode, City, or SupplyType. The example is
given in an informal, abstract notation because the XML-based code would
be too lengthy and would distract from the discussion.

Service MedicareSupplier:
*Profile:FindMedicareSupplierByZip (hasProc P1)
(I(ZipCode), O(SupplierDetails))
*Profile:FindMedicareSupplierByCity (hasProc P2)
(I(City), O(SupplierDetails))
*Profile:FindMedicareSupplierBySupply (hasProc P3)
(I(SupplyType), O(SupplierDetails))
*ProcessModel: ...
*WSDLGrounding: ...

29. <http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/Service.owl>.

214 6 Applications

The Process Ontology

Many complex services consist of smaller services executed in a certain order.
For example, buying a book at Amazon.com involves using a browsing ser-
vice (which selects the book) and a paying service. OWL-S allows describing
such internal process models. These are useful for several purposes. First,
one can check that the business process of the offering service is appropriate
(e.g., product selection should always happen before payment). Second, one
can monitor the execution stage of a service. Third, these process models can
be used to automatically compose Web services.
A ServiceModel concept describes the internal working of the service and
is further specialized as a ProcessModel concept in the Process ontology. A
ProcessModel has a single Process, which can be atomic, simple, or composite
(composed from atomic processes through various control constructs). Each
process has a set of IOPEs. In our notation, for each service we represent its
ProcessModel with its Process. For each process we depict its type, the involved
control constructs, the IOPEs and their types. The MedicareSupplier service
allows a choice from its three AtomicProcesses (corresponding to the three
profiles), therefore its ProcessModel consists of a CompositeProcess modeled
with the Choice control construct.
*Profile:...
*ProcessModel:
CompositeProcess: MedicareProcess:Choice

AtomicProcess:P1 (I(ZipCode),O(SupplierDetails))
AtomicProcess:P2 (I(City),O(SupplierDetails))
AtomicProcess:P3 (I(SupplyType),O(SupplierDetails))

*WSDLGrounding: ...

Profile to Process Bridge

A Profile contains several links to a Process. Figure 6.12 shows these links,
where terms in boldface belong to the Profile ontology and the rest to the
Process ontology. First, a Profile states the Process it describes through the
unique property has_process. Second, the IOPEs of the Profile correspond (in
some degree) to the IOPEs of the Process.
Understanding this correspondence is not so trivial given the fact that the
IOPEs play different roles for the Profile and for the Process. In the Profile on-


OWL-S OWL-S
Profile Process

precondition
has_process
Profile Process
effect

precondition

parameter
parameter

input

input
output

output
effect
ConditionalEffect

Condition
refersTo 1
ParameterDescription

ConditionalOutput
restrictedTo
Thing

Figure 6.12 Profile to Process bridge

tology they are treated equally as parameters of the Profile (they are subprop-
erties of the profile:parameter property). In the Process ontology only inputs
and outputs are regarded as subproperties of the process:parameter property.
The Preconditions and effects are just simple properties of the Process. While
technically the IOPEs are properties both for Profile and Process, the fact that
they are treated differently at a conceptual level is misleading. The link be-
tween the IOPEs in the Profile and Process part of the OWL-S descriptions
is created by the refersTo property, which has as domain ParameterDescription
and ranges over the process:parameter.

The Grounding ontology

Grounding provides the vocabulary to link the conceptual description of the
service specified by Profile and Process to actual implementation details,
such as message exchange formats and network protocols. The grounding
to a WSDL description is performed according to three rules:

1. Each AtomicProcess corresponds to one WSDL operation.

216 6 Applications

2. As a consequence of the first rule, each input of an AtomicProcess is
mapped to a corresponding messagepart in the input message of the
WSDL operation. Similarly for outputs: each output of an AtomicProcess
is mapped to a corresponding messagepart in the output message of the
WSDL operation.

3. The type of each WSDL message part can be specified in terms of a OWL-S
parameter (i.e., an XML Schema data type or a OWL concept).

The Grounding ontology specializes the ServiceGrounding as a WSDL-
Grounding, which contains a set of WsdlAtomicProcessGrounding elements,
each grounding one of the atomic processes specified in the ProcessModel. In
our abstract notation, we depict each atomic process grounding by showing
the link between the atomic process and the corresponding WSDL element.
The MedicareSupplier service has three atomic process groundings for each
process of the ProcessModel.

*Profile:...
*ProcessModel:...
*WSDLGrounding:
WsdlAtomicProcessGrounding: Gr1 (P1->op:GetSupplierByZipCode)
WsdlAtomicProcessGrounding: Gr2 (P2->op:GetSupplierByCity)
WsdlAtomicProcessGrounding: Gr3 (P3->op:GetSupplierBySupplyType)

Design Principles of OWL-S

The following design principles underlying OWL-S have been identified in
the literature:

• Semantic versus Syntactic descriptions. OWL-S distinguishes between the
semantic and syntactic aspects of the described entity. The Profile and Pro-
cess ontologies allow for a semantic description of the Web service, and
the WSDL description encodes its syntactic aspects (such as the names of
the operations and their parameters). The Grounding ontology provides
a mapping between the semantic and the syntactic parts of a description
facilitating flexible associations between them. For example, a certain se-
mantic description can be mapped to several syntactic descriptions if the
same semantic functionality is accessible in different ways. Conversely, a
certain syntactic description can be mapped to different conceptual inter-
pretations that offer different views of the same service.


• Generic versus domain knowledge. OWL-S offers a core set of primitives
to specify any type of Web service. These descriptions can be enriched
with domain knowledge specified in a separate domain ontology. This
modeling choice allows using the core set of primitives across several do-
mains.

• Modularity. Another feature of OWL-S is the partitioning of the descrip-
tion over several concepts. The best demonstration for this is the way the
different aspects of a description are partitioned into three concepts. As
a result, a Service instance will relate to three instances, each of them con-
taining a particular aspect of the service. There are several advantages of
this modular modeling. First, since the description is split up over sev-
eral instances, it is easy to reuse certain parts. For example, one can reuse
the Profile description of a certain service. Second, service specification
becomes flexible because it is possible to specify only the part that is rel-
evant for the service (e.g., if it has no implementation, one does not need
the ServiceModel and the ServiceGrounding). Finally, any OWL-S descrip-
tion is easy to extend by specializing the OWL-S concepts.

6.9.5 Web Service Domain Ontology
Externally defined knowledge plays a major role in each OWL-S description.
OWL-S offers a generic framework to describe a service, but to make it truly
useful, domain knowledge is required. For example, domain knowledge is
used to define the type of functionality the service offers as well as the types
of its parameters.
Figure 6.13 depicts the hierarchical structure of the domain ontology used
to describe the example Web service. This ontology would usually be ex-
pressed in OWL, but we have not provided OWL code here to improve read-
ability. Note that it specifies a DataStructure hierarchy and a Functionality
hierarchy. The Functionality hierarchy contains a classification of service ca-
pabilities. Two generic classes of service capabilities are shown here, one
for finding a medical supplier and the other for calculating distances be-
tween two locations. Each of these generic categories has more specialized
capabilities either by restricting the type of the output parameters (e.g., find
Medicare providers) or the input parameters (e.g., ZipCode, City, SupplyType).
The complexity of the reasoning tasks that can be performed with seman-
tic Web service descriptions is conditioned by several factors. First, all Web
services in a domain should use concepts from the same domain ontology

218 6 Applications

DataStructure
ZipCode
Product
Medicine
HealthProgram
HealthCareProvider
Hospital
MedicareProvider
Pharmacy
GeographicLocation
City
Functionality
FindMedicalSupplier
FindMedicareSupplier
FindMedicareSupplierByZip
FindMedicareSupplierByCity
FindMedicareSupplierBySupply
ComputeDistance
ComputeDistanceBetweenZipCodes
ComputeDistanceBetweenCities

Figure 6.13 Web service domain ontology

(or a small number of coupled ontologies) in their descriptions. Otherwise
the issue of ontology mapping has to be solved, which is a difficult problem
in itself. This requires that domain ontologies be broad enough to provide the
concepts needed by any Web service in a certain domain. Second, the rich-
ness of the available knowledge is crucial for performing complex reasoning.

Example Scenario

By using the semantic Web service descriptions presented above, the exam-
ple task can be generalized and automated. The right services for the task
can be selected automatically from a collection of services. Semantic meta-
data allow a flexible selection that can retrieve services that partially match a
request but are still potentially interesting. For example, a service that finds
details of medical suppliers will be considered a match for a request for ser-
vices that retrieve details of Medicare suppliers, if the Web service domain
ontology specifies that a MedicareSupplier is a type of MedicalSupplier. This
matchmaking is superior to the keyword-based search offered by UDDI. The
composition of several services into a more complex service can also be auto-
mated. Finally, after being discovered and composed based on their semantic
descriptions, the services can be invoked to solve the task at hand.

6.10 Other Scenarios 219

6.10 Other Scenarios

In this section we mention in somewhat less detail a number of other appli-
cations that are being pursued in industry or research.

6.10.1 Multimedia Collection Indexing at Scotland Yard
Police forces such as Scotland Yard and Interpol are concerned with the theft
of art and antique objects. It is often hard enough to track down the thieves,
but even when this has been done, and when some of the stolen artifacts
have been recovered, it turns out to be surprisingly difficult to return the ob-
jects to their original owners. Even though international databases of stolen
art objects exist, it is difficult to locate specific objects in these databases, be-
cause different parties are likely to offer different descriptions. A museum
reporting a theft may describe an object as “a Song dynasty Ying Ging lotus
vase,” whereas a police officer reporting a recovered item may simply enter
a “12.5 inch high pale green vase with floral designs.” It currently takes hu-
man experts to recognize that the vase listed as stolen is indeed the same one
reported as recovered.
Part of the solution is to develop controlled vocabularies such as the Art
and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) from the Getty Trust,30 or the Iconclass
thesaurus31 to extend them into full-blown ontologies, to develop software
that can automatically recognize classified objects from descriptions of their
physical appearance using ontological background knowledge, and to deal
with the ontology-mapping problem that exists when different parties have
described the same artifacts using different ontologies.

6.10.2 Online Procurement at Daimler-Chrysler
Like all car-manufacturing companies today, Daimler-Chrysler interacts with
hundreds of suppliers in order to obtain all the parts that go into making
a single car. In recent years, online procurement has been identified as a
major potential cost saver; for instance, the paper-based process of exchang-
ing contracts, orders, invoices, and money transfers can be replaced by an
electronic process of data interchange between software applications. Also,
static long-term agreements with a fixed set of suppliers can be replaced by

30. <http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat>.
31. <http://www.iconclass.nl/>.

220 6 Applications

dynamic short-term agreements in a competitive open marketplace. When-
ever a supplier is offering a better deal, Daimler-Chrysler wants to be able to
switch rather then being locked into a long-term arrangement with another
supplier.
This online procurement is one of the major drivers behind business-to-
business (B2B) e-commerce. Current efforts in B2B e-commerce rely heav-
ily on a priori standardization of data formats, that is, off-line industrywide
agreements on data formats and their intended semantics. Organizations
such as Rosetta Net32 are dedicated to such standardization efforts. To quote
from RosettaNet’s Web site:

RosettaNet [is] a self-funded, non-profit organization. [It] is a consor-
tium of major Information Technology, Electronic Components, Semi-
conductor Manufacturing, and Telecommunications companies work-
ing to create and implement industrywide, open e-business process
standards. These standards form a common e-business language,
aligning processes between supply chain partners on a global basis.

Since such data formats are specified in XML, no semantics can be read from
the file alone, and partners must agree in time-consuming and expensive
standards negotiations, followed by hard-coding the intended semantics of
the data format into their code.
A more attractive road would use formats such as RDF Schema and OWL,
with their explicitly defined formal semantics. This would make product de-
scriptions “carry their semantics on their sleeve,” opening the way for much
more liberal online B2B procurement processes than currently possible.

6.10.3 Device Interoperability at Nokia
This section is based on a usecase from the OWL Requirements document
(see Suggested Reading). Recent years have seen an explosive proliferation
of digital devices in our daily environment: PDAs, mobile telephones, dig-
ital cameras, laptops, wireless access in public locations, GPS enabled cars.
Given this proliferation, interoperability among these devices is becoming
highly desirable. The pervasiveness and the wireless nature of these devices
require network architectures to support automatic, ad hoc configuration.
A key technology of true ad hoc networks is service discovery, function-
ality by which services (functions offered by various devices such as cell

32. <http://www.rosettanet.org/>.


phones, printers, and sensors) can be described, advertised, and discovered
by others. All current service discovery and capability description mecha-
nisms (e.g., Sun’s JINI, Microsoft’s UPnP) are based on ad hoc representation
schemes and rely heavily on standardization (on a priori identification of all
those things one would want to communicate or discuss).
More attractive than this a priori standardization is “serendipitous inter-
operability,” interoperability under “unchoreographed” conditions, that is,
devices that are not necessarily designed to work together (such as ones built
for different purposes, by different manufacturers, at different times) should
be able to discover each others’ functionality and be able to take advantage
of it. Being able to “understand” other devices and reason about their ser-
vices/functionality is necessary because full-blown ubiquitous computing
scenarios involve dozens if not hundreds of devices, and a priori standard-
ization of the usage scenarios is an unmanageable task.
Similar to the scenario of online procurement, ontologies (with their stan-
dardized semantics) are required to make such “unchoreographed” under-
standing of functionalities possible.

Suggested Reading
An excellent and up-to-date collection of Semantic Web usecases has been
collected by W3Cs Semantic Web Education and Outreach Interest Group,
and can be found at
<http://http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/>.
A nontechnical book on the use of ontologies in electronic commerce and
knowledge management:

• D. Fensel. Ontologies: A Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and Elec-
tronic Commerce. New York: Springer, 2001.

The usecase document for OWL describes a number of usecases that moti-
vated the W3C’s Web Ontology Working Group in defining OWL:

• J. Heflin. OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements.
W3C Recommendation. February 10, 2004.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/>.

The following book describes three different application case-studies that
were performed in the On-To-Knowledge project. More information on this
project can also be found at <http://www.ontoknowledge.org/>.

222 6 Applications

• J. Davies, D. Fensel, and F. van Harmelen. Towards the Semantic Web:

A collection of papers on industrial applications of Semantic Web technology
can be found in the Industrial Track papers of the International Semantic Web
Conferences, starting with the 2003 conference:

• D. Fensel, K. Sycara, J. Mylopoulos, eds. In Proceedings of the 2nd Interna-
tional Semantic Web Conference, 2003.

A paper describing the potential beneﬁts of the Semantic Web for e-learning:

• L. Stojanovic, S. Staab, and R. Studer. eLearning Based on the Semantic
Web. In Proceedings of WebNet 2001 — World Conference on the WWW and
the Internet.
<http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/Publ/2001/
WebNet_lstsstrst_2001.pdf>.

Two relevant references for Semantic Web portal applications:

• S. Staab et al. Semantic Community Web Portals. In Proceedings of the 9th
International WWW Conference, 2000.
<http://www9.org/w9cdrom/134/134.html>.

• N. Stojanovic et al. SEAL — A Framework for Developing SEmantic Por-
tALs. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Capture
(K-CAP), 2001.
<http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/Publ/2001/sealkcap2.pdf>.

The main page on OWL-S and OWL-enabled Web services is

• <http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/>

Some relevant publications:

• D. Martin et al. Bringing Semantics to Web Services: The OWL-S Ap-
proach. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Web
Services and Web Process Composition (SWSWPC 2004), San Diego, 2004.

• S. McIlraith, T. Son, and H. Zeng. Mobilizing the Semantic Web with
DAML-Enabled Web Services. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Work-
shop on the Semantic Web (SemWeb 2001).
<http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/pub-archive.html>.


• M. Paolucci et al. Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities. In
Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). New
York: Springer, 2002. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2342.

The section of this chapter on Web services was based on material from Marta
Sabou’s Ph.D. dissertation:

• M. Sabou. Building Web Service Ontologies. SIKS Dissertation Series No.
2006-04.

Some useful Web sites with collections of tools are:

<http://business.semanticweb.org/>. A very good resource on the use of
Semantic Web technolgy in companies, and a list of providers of Semantic
Web technology.

<http://www.daml.org/tools/>. An extensive repository of tools.

<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls#Implementations> and
<http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/∼horrocks/OntoWeb/SIG/node3.html> list
the first tools that came out after the OWL specification stabilized.

7 Ontology Engineering

7.1 Introduction

So far, we have focused mainly on the techniques that are essential to the Se-
mantic Web: representation languages, query languages, transformation and
inference techniques, tools. Clearly, the introduction of such a large volume
of new tools and techniques also raises methodological questions: How can
tools and techniques best be appliled? Which languages and tools should
be used in which circumstances, and in which order? What about issues of
quality control and resource management?

Chapter Overview
Many of these questions for the Semantic Web have been studied in other
contexts, for example in software engineering, object-oriented design, and
knowledge engineering. It is beyond the scope of this book to give a com-
prehensive treatment of all of these issues. Nevertheless, in this chapter,
we brieﬂy discuss some of the methodological issues that arise when build-
ing ontologies, in particular, constructing ontologies manually (section 7.2),
reusing existing ontologies (section 7.3), and using semiautomatic methods
(section 7.4). Section 7.5 discusses ontology mapping, and section 7.6 ex-
plains how Semantic Web tools can be integrated into a single architecture.

7.2 Constructing Ontologies Manually

For our discussion of the manual construction of ontologies, we follow
mainly Noy and McGuinness, “Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Cre-

225

226 7 Ontology Engineering

ating Your First Ontology.” Further references are provided in Suggested
Reading.
We can distinguish the following main stages in the ontology development
process:
1. Determine scope. 5. Define properties.
2. Consider reuse. 6. Define facets.
3. Enumerate terms. 7. Define instances.
4. Define taxonomy. 8. Check for anomalies.
Like any development process, this is in practice not a linear process. These
steps will have to be iterated, and backtracking to earlier steps may be nec-
essary at any point in the process. We do not further discuss this complex
process management. Instead, we turn to the individual steps.

7.2.1 Determine Scope

Developing an ontology of a domain is not a goal in itself. Developing an on-
tology is akin to defining a set of data and their structure for other programs
to use. In other words, an ontology is a model of a particular domain, built
for a particular purpose. As a consequence, there is no correct ontology of a
specific domain. An ontology is by necessity an abstraction of a particular
domain, and there are always viable alternatives. What is included in this
abstraction should be determined by the use to which the ontology will be
put, and by future extensions that are already anticipated. Basic questions
to be answered at this stage are, What is the domain that the ontology will
cover? For what we are going to use the ontology? For what types of ques-
tions should the ontology provide answers? Who will use and maintain the
ontology?

7.2.2 Consider Reuse

With the spreading deployment of the Semantic Web, ontologies will become
more widely available. Already we rarely have to start from scratch when
defining an ontology. There is almost always an ontology available from a
third party that provides at least a useful starting point for our own ontology
(see section 7.3).

7.2 Constructing Ontologies Manually 227

7.2.3 Enumerate Terms
A first step toward the actual definition of the ontology is to write down in
an unstructured list all the relevant terms that are expected to appear in the
ontology. Typically, nouns form the basis for class names, and verbs (or verb
phrases) form the basis for property names (e.g., is part of, has component).
Traditional knowledge engineering tools such as laddering and grid anal-
ysis can be productively used at this stage to obtain both the set of terms and
an initial structure for these terms.

7.2.4 Define Taxonomy
After the identification of relevant terms, these terms must be organized in a
taxonomic hierarchy. Opinions differ on whether it is more efficient/reliable
to do this in a top-down or a bottom-up fashion.
It is, of course, important to ensure that the hierarchy is indeed a taxo-
nomic (subclass) hierarchy. In other words, if A is a subclass of B, then every
instance of A must also be an instance of B. Only this will ensure that we
respect the built-in semantics of primitives such as owl:subClassOf and
rdfs:subClassOf.

7.2.5 Define Properties
This step is often interleaved with the previous one: it is natural to orga-
nize the properties that link the classes while organizing these classes in a
hierarchy.
Remember that the semantics of the subClassOf relation demands that
whenever A is a subclass of B, every property statement that holds for in-
stances of B must also apply to instances of A. Because of this inheritance, it
makes sense to attach properties to the highest class in the hierarchy to which
they apply.
While attaching properties to classes, it makes sense to immediately pro-
vide statements about the domain and range of these properties. There is a
methodological tension here between generality and specificity. On the one
hand, it is attractive to give properties as general a domain and range as pos-
sible, enabling the properties to be used (through inheritance) by subclasses.
On the other hand, it is useful to define domain and range as narrowly as
possible, enabling us to detect potential inconsistencies and misconceptions
in the ontology by spotting domain and range violations.


7.2.6 Define Facets
It is interesting to note that after all these steps, the ontology will only re-
quire the expressivity provided by RDF Schema and does not use any of the
additional primitives in OWL. This will change in the current step, that of
enriching the previously defined properties with facets:
• Cardinality. Specify for as many properties as possible whether they are
allowed or required to have a certain number of different values. Often,
occurring cases are “at least one value” (i.e., required properties) and “at
most one value” (i.e., single-valued properties).
• Required values. Often, classes are defined by virtue of a certain prop-
erty’s having particular values, and such required values can be speci-
fied in OWL, using owl:hasValue. Sometimes the requirements are less
stringent: a property is required to have some values from a given class
(and not necessarily a specific value, owl:someValuesFrom).
• Relational characteristics. The final family of facets concerns the relational
characteristics of properties: symmetry, transitivity, inverse properties,
functional values.
After this step in the ontology construction process, it will be possible to
check the ontology for internal inconsistencies. (This is not possible before
this step, simply because RDF Schema is not rich enough to express incon-
sistencies.) Examples of often occurring inconsistencies are incompatible do-
main and range definitions for transitive, symmetric, or inverse properties.
Similarly, cardinality properties are frequent sources of inconsistencies. Fi-
nally, requirements on property values can conflict with domain and range
restrictions, giving yet another source of possible inconsistencies.

7.2.7 Define Instances
Of course, we rarely define ontologies for their own sake. Instead we use
ontologies to organize sets of instances, and it is a separate step to fill the
ontologies with such intances. Typically, the number of instances is many
orders of magnitude larger then the number of classes from the ontology.
Ontologies vary in size from a few hundred classes to tens of thousands of
classes; the number of instances varies from hundreds to hundreds of thou-
sands, or even larger.
Because of these large numbers, populating an ontology with instances is
typically not done manually. Often, instances are retrieved from legacy data

7.3 Reusing Existing Ontologies 229

sources such as databases. Another often used technique is the automated
extraction of instances from a text corpus.

7.2.8 Check for Anomalies
An important advantage of using OWL over RDF Schema is the possibility of
detecting inconsistencies in the ontology itself, or in the set of instances that
were defined to populate the ontology. Examples of often occurring anoma-
lies are incompatible domain and range definitions for transitive, symmetric,
or inverse properties. Similarly, cardinality properties are frequent sources
of inconsistencies. Finally, the requirements on property values can conflict
with domain and range restrictions, giving yet another source of possible
inconsistencies.

7.3 Reusing Existing Ontologies
One should begin with an existing ontology if possible. Existing ontologies
come in a wide variety.

7.3.1 Codified Bodies of Expert Knowledge
Some ontologies are carefully crafted by a large team of experts over many
years. An example in the medical domain is the cancer ontology from the
National Cancer Institute in the United States.1 Examples in the cultural
domain are the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT),2 containing 125,000
terms, and the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN),3 with 220,000 entries
on artists. Another example is the Iconclass vocabulary of 28,000 terms for
describing cultural images.4 An example from the geographical domain is
the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN),5 containing over 1 million
entries.

7.3.2 Integrated Vocabularies
Sometimes attempts have been made to merge a number of independently
developed vocabularies into a single large resource. The prime example of

1. <http://www.mindswap.org/2003/CancerOntology/>.
2. <http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/aat>.
3. <http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/ulan>.
4. <http://www.iconclass.nl/>.
5. <http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/tgn>.


this is the Unified Medical Language System,6 which integrates 100 biomed-
ical vocabularies and classifications. The UMLS metathesaurus alone con-
tains 750,000 concepts, with over 10 million links between them. Not surpris-
ingly, the semantics of such a resource that integrates many independently
developed vocabularies is rather low, but nevertheless it has turned out to be
very useful in many applications, at least as a starting point.

7.3.3 Upper-Level Ontologies
Whereas the preceding ontologies are all highly domain-specific, some at-
tempts have been made to define very generally applicable ontologies (some-
times known as upper-level ontologies). The two prime examples are Cyc,7
with 60,000 assertions on 6,000 concepts, and the Standard Upperlevel On-
tology (SUO).8

7.3.4 Topic Hierarchies
Other “ontologies” hardly deserve this name in a strict sense: they are simply
sets of terms, loosely organized in a specialization hierarchy. This hierarchy
is typically not a strict taxonomy but rather mixes different specialization
relations, such as is-a, part-of, contained-in. Nevertheless, such resources are
often very useful as a starting point. A large example is the Open Directory
hierarchy,9 containing more then 400,000 hierarchically organized categories
and available in RDF format.

7.3.5 Linguistic Resources
Some resources were originally built not as abstractions of a particular do-
main but rather as linguistic resources. Again, these have been shown to be
useful as starting places for ontology development. The prime example in
this category is WordNet, with over 90,000 word senses.10

6. <http://umlsinfo.nlm.nih.gov/>.
7. <http://www.opencyc.org/>.
8. <http://suo.ieee.org/>.
9. <http://dmoz.org/>.
10. <http://http://wordnet.princeton.edu/>, available in RDF at
<http://www.semanticweb.org/library/>.


7.3.6 Ontology Libraries
Attempts are currently underway to construct online libraries of ontologies.
Examples may be found at the Ontology Engineering Group’s Web site11 at
the DAML Web site,12 those provided with the Protégé ontology editor,13 and
at SemWebCentral.14 Perhaps currenty the best repository of online ontolo-
gies is Swoogle,15 which has cataloged over 10K Semantic Web documents
and indexed metadata about their classes, properties, and individuals as well
as the relationships among them. Swoogle also defines a ranking property
for Semantic Web documents and uses this to help sort search results.
Work on XML Schema development, although strictly speaking not on-
tologies, may also be a useful starting point for development work.16
It is only rarely the case that existing ontologies can be reused without
changes. Typically, existing concepts and properties must be refined (us-
ing owl:subClassOf and owl:subPropertyOf). Also, alternative names
must be introduced which are better suited to the particular domain (e.g., us-
ing owl:equivalentClass and owl:equivalentProperty). Also, this
is an opportunity for fruitfully exploiting the fact that RDF and OWL allow
private refinements of classes defined in other ontologies.
The general question of importing ontologies and establishing mappings
between different mappings is still wide open, and is considered to be one of
the hardest (and most urgent) Semantic Web research issues.

7.4 Semiautomatic Ontology Acquisition
There are two core challenges for putting the vision of the Semantic Web into
action.
First, one has to support the re-engineering task of semantic enrichment
for building the Web of metadata. The success of the Semantic Web greatly
depends on the proliferation of ontologies and relational metadata. This re-
quires that such metadata can be produced at high speed and low cost. To
this end, the task of merging and aligning ontologies for establishing seman-
tic interoperability may be supported by machine learning techniques

11. <http://www.ontology.or.kr/ontology/onto_lib.asp>.
12. <http://www.daml.org/>.
13. Reachable from <http://protege.stanford.edu/download/ontologies.html>.
14. <http://semwebcentral.org/>.
15. <http://swoogle.umbc.edu/>.
16. See, for example, the DTD/Schema registry at <http://XML.org/>
and Rosetta Net <http://www.rosettanet.org/>.


Second, one has to provide a means for maintaining and adopting the
machine-processable data that are the basis for the Semantic Web. Thus, we
need mechanisms that support the dynamic nature of the Web.
Although ontology engineering tools have matured over the last decade,
manual ontology acquisition remains a time-consuming, expensive, highly
skilled, and sometimes cumbersome task that can easily result in a know-
ledge acquisition bottleneck.
These problems resemble those that knowledge engineers have dealt with
over the last two decades as they worked on knowledge acquisition method-
ologies or workbenches for defining knowledge bases. The integration of
knowledge acquisition with machine learning techniques proved beneficial
for knowledge acquisition.
The research area of machine learning has a long history, both on know-
ledge acquisition or extraction and on knowledge revision or maintenance,
and it provides a large number of techniques that may be applied to solve
these challenges. The following tasks can be supported by machine learning
techniques:

• Extraction of ontologies from existing data on the Web

• Extraction of relational data and metadata from existing data on the Web

• Merging and mapping ontologies by analyzing extensions of concepts

• Maintaining ontologies by analyzing instance data

• Improving Semantic Web applications by observing users

Machine learning provides a number of techniques that can be used to sup-
port these tasks:

• Clustering

• Incremental ontology updates

• Support for the knowledge engineer

• Improving large natural language ontologies

• Pure (domain) ontology learning

Omelayenko (see Suggested Readings) identifies three types of ontologies
that can be supported using machine learning techniques and identifies the
current state of the art in these areas


7.4.1 Natural Language Ontologies
Natural language ontologies (NLOs) contain lexical relations between lan-
guage concepts; they are large in size and do not require frequent updates.
Usually they represent the background knowledge of the system and are
used to expand user queries. The state of the art in NLO learning looks
quite optimistic: not only does a stable general-purpose NLO exist but so
do techniques for automatically or semiautomatically constructing and en-
riching domain-specific NLOs.

7.4.2 Domain Ontologies
Domain ontologies capture knowledge of one particular domain, for in-
stance, pharmacological or printer knowledge. These ontologies provide a
detailed description of the domain concepts from a restricted domain. Usu-
ally, they are constructed manually, but different learning techniques can
assist the (especially the inexperienced) knowledge engineer. Learning of
the domain ontologies is far less developed than NLO improvement. The
acquisition of the domain ontologies is still guided by a human knowledge
engineer, and automated learning techniques play a minor role in knowledge
acquisition. They have to find statistically valid dependencies in the domain
texts and suggest them to the knowledge engineer.

7.4.3 Ontology Instances
Ontology instances can be generated automatically and frequently updated
(e.g., a company profile from the Yellow Pages will be updated frequently)
while the ontology remains unchanged. The task of learning of the ontology
instances fits nicely into a machine learning framework, and there are several
successful applications of machine learning algorithms for this. But these ap-
plications are either strictly dependent on the domain ontology or populate
the markup without relating to any domain theory. A general-purpose tech-
nique for extracting ontology instances from texts given the domain ontology
as input has still not been developed.
Besides the different types of ontologies that can be supported, there are
also different uses for ontology learning. The first three tasks in the following
list (again, taken from Omelayenko) relate to ontology acquisition tasks in
knowledge engineering, and the last three to ontology maintenance tasks:

• Ontology creation from scratch by the knowledge engineer. In this task


machine learning assists the knowledge engineer by suggesting the most
important relations in the field or checking and verifying the constructed
knowledge bases.

• Ontology schema extraction from Web documents. In this task machine
learning systems take the data and metaknowledge (like a metaontology)
as input and generate the ready-to-use ontology as output with the possi-
ble help of the knowledge engineer.

• Extraction of ontology instances populates given ontology schemas and
extracts the instances of the ontology presented in the Web documents.
This task is similar to information extraction and page annotation, and
can apply the techniques developed in these areas.

• Ontology integration and navigation deal with reconstructing and navi-
gating in large and possibly machine-learned knowledge bases. For ex-
ample, the task can be to change the propositional-level knowledge base
of the machine learner into a first-order knowledge base.

• An ontology maintenance task is updating some parts of an ontology that
are designed to be updated (like formatting tags that have to track the
changes made in the page layout).

• Ontology enrichment (or ontology tuning) includes automated modifica-
tion of minor relations into an existing ontology. This does not change
major concepts and structures but makes an ontology more precise.

A wide variety of techniques, algorithms, and tools is available from ma-
chine learning. However, an important requirement for ontology representa-
tion is that ontologies must be symbolic, human-readable, and understand-
able. This forces us to deal only with symbolic learning algorithms that make
generalizations and to skip other methods like neural networks and genetic
algorithms. The following are some potentially applicable algorithms:

• Propositional rule learning algorithms learn association rules or other
forms of attribute-value rules.

• Bayesian learning is mostly represented by the Naive Bayes classifier. It
is based on the Bayes theorem and generates probabilistic attribute-value
rules based on the assumption of conditional independence between the
attributes of the training instances.

7.5 Ontology Mapping 235

• First-order logic rules learning induces the rules that contain variables,
called first-order Horn clauses.

• Clustering algorithms group the instances together based on the similar-
ity or distance measures between a pair of instances defined in terms of
their attribute values.

In conclusion, we can say that although there is much potential for ma-
chine learning techniques to be deployed for Semantic Web engineering, this
is far from a well-understood area. No off-the-shelf techniques or tools are
currently available, although this is likely to change in the near future.

7.5 Ontology Mapping

With reuse rather than development-from-scratch becoming the norm for on-
tology deployment, ontology integration is an increasingly urgent task. It
will rarely be the case that a single ontology fulfills the needs of a particular
application; more often than not, multiple ontologies will have to be com-
bined. This raises the problem of ontology integration (also called ontology
alignment or ontology mapping). This problem is now widely seen as both a
crucial issue for the realization of the Semantic Web and as one of the hardest
problems to solve. Consequently, this problem has received wide attention
in the research community in recent years.
Current approaches to ontology mapping deploy a whole host of differ-
ent methods, coming from very different areas. We distinguish linguistic,
statistical, structural, and logical methods.

7.5.1 Linguistic Methods

The most basic methods try to exploit the linguistic labels attached to the con-
cepts in source and target ontology in order to discover potential matches.
This can be as simple as basic stemming techniques or calculating Hamming
distances, or it can use specialized domain knowledge. An example of the
latter would be that the difference between Diabetes Melitus type I and Dia-
betes Melitus type II is not a negligible difference to be removed by a small
Hamming distance.


7.5.2 Statistical Methods

Instead of using the linguistic labels of concepts, other methods use instance
data to determine correspondences between concepts. If there is a significant
statistical correlation between the instances of a source concept and a target
concept, there is reason to believe that these concepts are strongly related
(by a subsumption relation or perhaps even an equivalence relation). These
approaches of course rely on the availability of a sufficiently large corpus of
instances that are classified in both the source and the target ontologies.

7.5.3 Structural Methods

Since ontologies have internal structure, it makes sense to exploit the graph
structure of the source and target ontologies, and try to determine similar-
ities between these structures, often in coordination with some of the other
methods. If a source concept and a target concept have similar linguistic la-
bels, then the dissimilarity of their graph neighborhoods could be used to
detect homonym problems where purely linguistic methods would falsely
declare a potential mapping.

7.5.4 Logical Methods

The methods that are perhaps most specific to mapping ontologies are the
logical methods. After all, ontologies are “formal specifications of a shared
conceptualization,” and it makes sense to exploit this formalization of both
source and target structures. A serious limitation of this approach is that
many practical ontologies are semantically rather lightweight and thus don’t
carry much logical formalism with them.
Our conclusion from this brief treatment of ontology-mapping techniques
must unfortunately be similar to our conclusion about automatic ontology
acquisition techniques: although there is much potential, and indeed need,
for these techniques to be deployed for Semantic Web engineering, this is
far from a well-understood area. No off-the-shelf techniques or tools are
currently available, and it is not clear that this is likely to change in the near
future.


Figure 7.1 Semantic Web knowledge management architecture

7.6 On-To-Knowledge Semantic Web Architecture

Building the Semantic Web not only involves using the new languages de-
scribed in this book but also a rather different style of engineering and a
rather different approach to application integration. To illustrate this, we
describe how a number of Semantic Web-related tools can be integrated in
a single lightweight architecture using Semantic Web standards to achieve
interoperability between independently engineered tools (see ﬁgure 7.1).


7.6.1 Knowledge Acquisition
At the bottom of figure 7.1 we find tools that use surface analysis techniques
to obtain content from documents. These can be either unstructured natural
language documents or structured and semistructured documents (such as
HTML tables and spreadsheets).
In the case of unstructured documents, the tools typically use a combi-
nation of statistical techniques and shallow natural language technology to
extract key concepts from documents.
In the case of more structured documents, the tools use techniques such as
wrappers, induction, and pattern recognition to extract the content from the
weak structures found in these documents.

7.6.2 Knowledge Storage
The output of the analysis tools is sets of concepts, organized in a shal-
low concept hierarchy with at best very few cross-taxonomical relationships.
RDF and RDF Schema are sufficiently expressive to represent the extracted
information.
Besides simply storing the knowledge produced by the extraction tools,
the repository must of course provide the ability to retrieve this knowledge,
preferably using a structured query language such as SPARQL. Any reason-
able RDF Schema repository will also support the RDF model theory, includ-
ing deduction of class membership based on domain and range definitions,
and deriving the transitive closure of the subClassOf relationship.
Note that the repository will store both the ontology (class hierarchy, prop-
erty definitions) and the instances of the ontology (specific individuals that
belong to classes, pairs of individuals between which a specific property
holds).

7.6.3 Knowledge Maintenance
Besides basic storage and retrieval functionality, a practical Semantic Web
repository will have to provide functionality for managing and maintaining
the ontology: change management, access and ownership rights, transaction
management.
Besides lightweight ontologies that are automatically generated from un-
structured and semistructured data, there must be support for human engi-
neering of much more knowledge-intensive ontologies. Sophisticated edit-
ing environments must be able to retrieve ontologies from the repository,


allow a knowledge engineer to manipulate them, and place them back in the
repository.

7.6.4 Knowledge Use
The ontologies and data in the repository are to be used by applications that
serve an end user. We have already described a number of such applications.

7.6.5 Technical Interoperability
In the On-To-Knowledge project,17 the architecture of ﬁgure 7.1 was imple-
mented with very lightweight connections between the components. Syn-
tactic interoperability was achieved because all components communicated
in RDF. Semantic interoperability was achieved because all semantics was
expressed using RDF Schema. Physical interoperability was achieved be-
cause all communications between components were established using sim-
ple HTTP connections, and all but one of the components (the ontology
editor) were implemented as remote services. When operating the On-To-
Knowledge system from Amsterdam, the ontology extraction tool, running
in Norway, was given a London-based URL of a document to analyze; the
resulting RDF and RDF Schema were uploaded to a repository server run-
ning in Amersfoort (the Netherlands). These data were uploaded into a lo-
cally installed ontology editor, and after editing, downloaded back into the
Amersfoort server. The data were then used to drive a Swedish ontology-
based Web site generator (see the EnerSearch case study in chapter 6) as well
as a U.K.-based search engine, both displaying their results in the browser
on the screen in Amsterdam.
In summary, all these tools were running remotely, were independently
engineered, and only relied on HTTP and RDF to obtain a high degree of
interoperability.

17. <http://www.ontoknowledge.org/>.


Suggested Reading
Some key papers that were used as the basis for this chapter:

• N. Noy and D. McGuinness. Ontology Development 101: A Guide to
Creating Your First Ontology.
<http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontology101/
ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html>.

• M. Uschold and M. Gruninger. Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Ap-
plications. Knowledge Engineering Review, Volume 11, 2 (1996): 93–155.

• B. Omelayenko. Learning of Ontologies for the Web: The Analysis of Ex-
isting Approaches, In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Web Dy-
namics, 8th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2001). 2001.
<http://www.cs.vu.nl/∼borys/papers/WebDyn01.pdf>.

Two often-cited books:

• A. Maedche. Ontology Learning for the Semantic Web. New York: Springer
2002.

• J. Davies, D. Fensel, and F. van Harmelen. Towards the Semantic Web:

Project
This project of medium difficulty can be done by two or three people in about
two or three weeks. All required software is freely available. We provide
some pointers to software that we have used successfully, but given the very
active state of development of the field, the availability of software is likely
to change rapidly. Also, if certain software is not mentioned, this does not
indicate our disapproval of it.
The assignment consists of three parts.

1. In the first part, you will create an ontology that describes the domain
and contains the information needed by your own application. You will
use the terms defined in the ontology to describe concrete data. In this
step you will be applying the methodology for ontology construction out-
lined in the first part of this chapter and using OWL as a representation
language for your ontology (see chapter 4).

Project 241

2. In the second part, you will use your ontology to construct different views
on your data, and you will query the ontology and the data to extract
information needed for each view. In this part, you will be applying RDF
storage and querying facilities (see chapter 3).

3. In the third part, you will create different graphic presentations of the
extracted data using XSLT technology (see chapter 2).

Part I. Creating an Ontology
As a first step, decide on an application domain, preferably one in which you
have sufficient knowledge or for which you have easy access to an expert
with that knowledge.
In this description of the project, we use the domain that we use in our
own course, namely, radio and television broadcasting, with its programs,
broadcasting schedules, channels, genres, and celebrities. Of course, you can
replace this with any domain of your own choosing.
Second, you will build an ontology expressed in OWL that describes the
domain (for example, your faculty). The ontology does not have to cover the
whole domain but should contain at least a few dozen classes. Pay special
attention to the quality (breadth, depth) of the ontology, and aim to use as
much of OWL’s expressiveness as possible. There are a number of possible
tools to use at this stage. Arguably the best current editor is Protégé,18 but
we have also had good experiences with OILed,19 and OntoEdit.20 If you are
ambitious, you may even want to start your ontology development using on-
tology extraction tools from text (we have no experience with this in our own
course) or experiment with tools that allow you to import semistructured
data sources, such as Excel sheets or tab-delimited files (see, for example,
Excel2RDF and ConvertToRDF).21 Of course, you may choose to start from
some existing ontologies in this area.22 For the purposes of this exercise, we
give our own students a reasonably large amount of semistructured data,
generously donated by the Dutch national broadcasting archives.23 These
data are provided in XML format and can be converted to RDFS or OWL by

18. <http://protege.stanford.edu/>.
19. <http://oiled.man.ac.uk/>.
20. <http://www.ontoprise.de/>.
21. <http://www.mindswap.org/>.
22. For example, those found in <http://www.daml.org/ontologies/>.
23. <http://www.beeld-en-geluid.nl/>.


writing XSLT style sheets (see section 2.6) that produce XML syntax for either
of these languages.
Preferably, also use an inference engine to validate your ontology and to
check it for inconsistencies. We have experience using the FaCT reasoning
engine that is closely coupled with OILed, but OntoEdit has its own inference
engine. If you use Protégé, you may want to exploit some of the available
plug-ins for this editor, such as multiple visualizations for your ontology, or
reasoning in Prolog or Jess.
Third, export your ontology in RDF Schema. Of course, this will result in
information loss from your rich OWL ontology, but this is inevitable given
the limited capabilities of the tools used in subsequent steps, and this is also
likely to be a realistic scenario in actual Semantic Web applications.
Finally, populate your ontology with concrete instances and their proper-
ties. Depending on the choice of editing tool, this can either be done with the
same tool (OntoEdit) or in another way (OILed). Given the simple syntactic
structure of instances in RDF, you may even decide to write these by hand or
to code some simple scripts to extract the instance information from available
sources. The XML data set mentioned before can also be used for this pur-
pose (writing XSLT scripts to produce RDF instance data), or you may want
to write a scraper for some of the many Web sites that contain information on
radio and television schedules, programs, genres, and celebrities. You may
want to use the the validation service offered by W3C.24 This service not only
validates your ﬁles for syntactic correctness but also provides a visualization
of the existing triples. Also, at this stage, you may be able to experiment with
some of the tools that allow you to import data from semistructured sources.
At the end of this step, you should be able to produce the following:
• The full OWL ontology
• The reduced version of this ontology as exported in RDF Schema
• Instances of the ontology, described in RDF
• A report describing the scope of the ontology and the main design deci-
sions you took while modeling it.

Part II. Proﬁle Building with RQL Queries
Here you will use query facilities to extract relevant parts of your ontology
and data. For this you need some way of storing your ontology in a reposi-
24. <http://www.w3.org /RDF/Validator/>.

Project 243

tory that also supports query facilities. You may use the Sesame RDF storage
and query facility,25 but other options exist, such as the KAON server,26 or
Jena.27
The first step is to upload your ontology (in RDF Schema form) and asso-
ciated instances to the repository. This may involve some installation effort.
Next, use the query language associated with the repository to define dif-
ferent user profiles, and use queries to extract the data relevant for each pro-
file.
Although these programs support different query languages (RQL for
Sesame, RDQL for Jena, KAON Query for the KAON server), they all pro-
vide sufficient expressiveness to define rich profiles. In the example of mod-
eling your own faculty, you may choose to define viewing guides for people
with particular preferences (sports, current affairs) or viewers of particular
age groups (e.g., minors), to collect data from multiple television stations
(even across nations), to produce presentations for access over broadband or
slow modemlines, and so on.
The output of the queries that define a profile will typically be in XML
format: RDF/XML or some other form of XML.

Part III. Presenting Profile-Based Information
Use the XML output of the queries from part II to generate a human-readable
presentation of the different profiles.
The technology to use is XML style sheets, in particular XSLT (see chapter
2). A variety of editors exist for XSLT, as well as a variety of XSLT proces-
sors.28
The challenge of this part is to define browsable, highly interlinked pre-
sentations of the data that were generated and selected in parts I and II.

Alternative Choice of Domain
Besides using the semistructured dataset describing the broadcasting do-
main, it is possible to model the domain of a university faculty, with its
teachers, courses, and departments. In that case, you can use online sources,
such as information from the faculty’s phonebook, curriculum descriptions,

26. <http://kaon.semanticweb.org/>.
27. <http://www.hpl.hp.com/semweb/>.
28. See, for example, <http://www.xslt.com/>.


teaching schedules, and so on to scrape both ontology and instance data. Ex-
ample profiles for this domain could be profiles for students from different
years, profiles for students from abroad, profiles for students and teachers,
profiles for access over broadband or slow modemlines, and so on.

Conclusion
After you have finished all parts of this project, you will effectively have im-
plemented large parts of the architecture shown in figure 7.1. You will have
used most of the languages described in this book (XML, XSLT, RDF, RDF
Schema, OWL), and you will have built a genuine Semantic Web applica-
tion: modeling a part of the world in an ontology, using querying to define
user-specific views on this ontology, and using XML technology to define
browsable presentations of such user-specific views.

8 Conclusion and Outlook

8.1 Introduction

In the previous chapters we presented the basic ideas, languages and tech-
nologies of the Semantic Web initiative and discussed a number of indicative
applications. In the following we try to give an analysis and overview of the
current state of Semantic Web research.

Chapter Overview

Section 8.2 points to different interpretations of the Semantic Web as the rea-
son underlying many controversies, and section 8.3 examines (and debunks)
four false objections often raised against the Semantic Web effort. In section
8.4 we discuss the current status of Semantic Web work, reviewing the cur-
rent answers to four central research questions and surveying the uptake of
Semantic Web technology in different application areas. Finally, in section
8.5, we identify key challenges facing the Semantic Web community.

8.2 Which Semantic Web?

In the current Semantic Web work, we distinguish two main goals. These
goals are often unspoken, but the differences between them often account
for debates on design choices, on the applicability of various techniques, and
on the feasibility of applications.

245

246 8 Conclusion and Outlook

Interpretation 1: The Semantic Web as the Web of Data
In the first interpretation, the main aim of the Semantic Web is to enable
the integration of structured and semistructured data sources over the Web.
The main recipe is to expose datasets on the Web in RDF format and to use
RDF Schema to express the intended semantics of these datasets, in order to
enable the integration and ad hoc reuse of these datasets.
A typical use case for this version of the Semantic Web is the combination
of geodata with a set of consumer ratings for restaurants in order to provide
an enriched information source.

Interpretation 2: The Semantic Web as an Enrichment of the Current
Web
In the second interpretation, the aim of the Semantic Web is to improve the
current World Wide Web. Typical use cases here are improved search en-
gines, dynamic personalization of Web sites, and semantic enrichment of
existing Web pages.
The sources of the required semantic metadata in this version of the Se-
mantic Web are mostly claimed to be automated sources: concept extraction,
named-entity recognition, automatic classification, and so on. More recently
the insight is gaining ground that the required semantic markup can also
be produced by social mechanisms in communities that provide large-scale
human-produced markup.
Of course, there are overlaps between these two versions of the Semantic
Web. They both rely on the use of semantic markup, typically in the form of
metadata described by ontology-like schemata. But perhaps more noticeable
are the significant differences: different goals, different sources of semantics,
different usecases, different technologies.

8.3 Four Popular Fallacies
The Semantic Web has been the subject of a stream of strongly and often
polemically voiced criticisms. 1 Unfortunately, not all of these are equally
well informed. A closer analysis reveals that many of these polemics at-
tribute a number of false assumptions or claims to the Semantic Web pro-
gram. In this section we aim to identify and debunk these fallacies.

1. For instance, <http://www.shirky.com/writings/semantic_syllogism.html> and
<http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/∼marshall/mc-semantic-web.html>.

8.3 Four Popular Fallacies 247

Fallacy 1: The Semantic Web tries to enforce meaning from the top.

This fallacy claims that the Semantic Web enforces meaning on users through
its standards OWL and RDFS. However, the only meaning that OWL and
RDFS enforce is the meaning of the connectives in a language in which users
can express their own meanings. Users are free to to choose their own vocab-
ularies, to assign their own meanings to terms in these vocabularies, and to
describe whatever domains they choose. OWL and RDFS are entirely neutral
in this respect.
The situation is comparable to HTML: HTML does not enforce the lay-out
of web-pages “from the top”. All HTML enforces is the language that people
can use to describe their own lay-out. And HTML has shown that such an
agreement on the use of a standardised language (be it HTML for the lay-out
of web-pages, or RDFS and OWL for their meaning) is a necessary ingredient
for world-wide interoperability.

Fallacy 2: The Semantic Web requires everybody to subscribe to a
single predefined meaning for the terms they use.
Of course, the meaning of terms cannot be predefined for global use; in addi-
tion, meaning is fluid and contextual. The motto of the Semantic Web is not
the enforcement of a single ontology but rather “let a thousand ontologies
blossom.” That is exactly the reason that the construction of mappings be-
tween ontologies is such a core topic in the Semantic Web community. And
such mappings are expected to be partial, imperfect and context-dependent.

Fallacy 3: The Semantic Web requires users to understand the complicated
details of formalized knowledge representation.

Indeed some of the core technology of the Semantic Web relies on intri-
cate details of formalized knowledge representation. The semantics of RDF
Schema and OWL and the layering of the subspecies of OWL are difficult
formal matters. The design of good ontologies is a specialized area of Know-
ledge Engineering. But for most users of (current and future) Semantic
Web applications, such details will remain entirely behind the scenes, just
as the intricacies of CSS and (X)HTML do. Navigation or personalization en-
gines can be powered by underlying ontologies, expressed in RDF Schema
or OWL, without users ever being confronted with the ontologies, let alone
their representation languages.


Fallacy 4: The Semantic Web requires the manual markup of all existing
Web pages, an impossible task.

It is hard enough for most Web site owners to maintain the human-readable
content of their sites. They will certainly not maintain parallel machine-
accessible versions of the same information in RDF or OWL. If that were
necessary, it would indeed spell bad news for the Semantic Web. Instead, Se-
mantic Web applications rely on large-scale automation for the extraction of
such semantic markup from the sources themselves. This will often be very
lightweight semantics, but for many applications that is enough.
Note that this fallacy mostly affects interpretation 2 of the Semantic Web
(previous section), since massive markup in the “Web of data” is much easier.
The data are already available in (semi)structured formats and often already
organized by database schemas that can provide the required semantic inter-
pretation.

8.4 Current Status
In this section we brieﬂy survey the current state of work on the Semantic
Web in two ways. First, we assess the progress that has been made in an-
swering four key questions on which the success of the Semantic Web relies.
Second, we give a quick overview of the main areas in which Semantic Web
technology is currently being adopted.

8.4.1 Four Main Questions
Question 1: Where do the metadata come from?

As pointed out in Fallacy No. 4 much of the semantic metadata will come
from Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning technology. And
indeed these technologies are delivering on this promise. It is now possi-
ble with off-the-shelf technology to produce semantic markup for very large
corpuses of Web pages (millions of pages) by annotating them with terms
from very large ontologies (hundreds of thousands of terms) with sufﬁcient
precision and recall to drive semantic navigation interfaces.
More recent (and for many in the Semantic Web community somewhat un-
expected) is the capability of social communities to do exactly what Fallacy 4
claims is impossible: providing large amounts of human-generated markup.
Millions of images with hundreds of millions of manually provided meta-
data tags are found on some of the most popular Web 2.0 sites.

8.4 Current Status 249

Question 2: Where do the ontologies come from?

The term ontology as used by the Semantic Web community now covers
a wide array of semantic structures, from lightweight hierarchies such as
MeSH2 to heavily axiomatized ontologies such as GALEN.3
The lesson of a decade’s worth of Knowledge Engineering and half a
decade’s of Semantic Web research is that indeed the world is full of such
“ontologies”: companies have product catalogs, organizations have inter-
nal glossaries, scientiﬁc communities have their public metadata schemata.
These have typically been constructed for other purposes, most often predat-
ing the Semantic Web, but they are very usable as material for Semantic Web
applications.
There are also signiﬁcant advances in the area of ontology learning, al-
though results there remain mixed. Obtaining the concepts of an ontology is
feasible given the appropriate circumstances, but placing them in the appro-
priate hierarchy with the right mutual relationships remains a topic of active
research.

Question 3: What should be done with the many ontologies?

As stated in our rebuttal to Fallacy No. 2, the Semantic Web crucially relies
on the possibility of integrating multiple ontologies. This is known as the
problem of ontology alignment, ontology mapping, or ontology integration,
and it is indeed one of the most active areas of research in the Semantic Web
community.
A wide array of techniques is deployed for solving this problem, with
ontology-mapping techniques based on natural language technology, ma-
chine learning, theorem proving, graph theory, and statistics.
Although there are encouraging results, this problem is by no means
solved, and automatically obtained results are not yet good enough in terms
of recall and precision to drive many of the intended Semantic Web use cases.
Consequently, ontology mapping is seen by many as the Achilles’ heel of the
Semantic Web.

2. <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/>.
3. <http://www.opengalen.org/>.


Question 4: Where’s the “Web” in Semantic Web?
The Semantic Web has sometimes been criticized as being too much about
“semantic” (large-scale distributed knowledge bases) and not enough about
“Web.” This was perhaps true in the early days of Semantic Web develop-
ment, when there was a focus on applications in rather circumscribed do-
mains like intranets. This initial emphasis is still visible to a large extent.
Many of the most successful applications of Semantic Web technology are in-
deed on company intranets. Of course, the main advantage of such intranet
applications is that the ontology-mapping problem can, to a large extent, be
avoided.
Recent years have seen a resurgence in the Web aspects of Semantic Web
applications. A prime example is the deployment of FOAF technology,4 and
of semantically organized P2P systems.
Of course, the Web is more than just a collection of textual documents:
nontextual media such as images and videos are an integral part of the Web.
For the application of Semantic Web technology to such nontextual media we
currently rely on human-generated semantic markup. However, signiﬁcant
work on deriving annotations through intelligent content analysis in images
and videos is under way.

8.4.2 Main Application Areas
An indicative list of applications was presented in chapter 6. It is beyond
the scope of this book to give an in-depth, comprehensive overview of all
Semantic Web applications. In the following we limit ourselves to a bird’s
eye survey.
Looking at industrial events, either dedicated events5 or co-organized with
the major international scientiﬁc Semantic Web conferences, we observe that
a healthy uptake of Semantic Web technologies is beginning to take shape in
the following areas:

• Knowledge management, mostly in intranets of large corporations

• Data integration (Boeing, Verizon, and others)

• e-science, in particular the life sciences6

4. <http://www.foaf-project.org/>.
5. For instance, <http://www.semantic-conference.com/>.
6. See, for example, <http://www2006.org/speakers/stephens/stephens.ppt> for some state-
of-the-art industrial work.

8.5 Selected Key Research Challenges 251

• Convergence with Semantic Grid

If we look at the profiles of companies active in this area, we see a tran-
sition from small start-up companies such as Aduna, Ontoprise, Network
Inference, and Top Quadrant to large vendors such as IBM (Snobase ontol-
ogy Management System), 7 HP (Jena RDF platform) 8 Adobe (RDF-based
XMP metadata framework), and Oracle (support for RDF storage and query-
ing in their prime database product).
However, there is a noticeable lack of uptake in some other areas. In par-
ticular, the promise of the Semantic Web for

• personalization,

• large-scale semantic search (on the scale of the World Wide Web),

• mobility and context-awareness

is largely unfulfilled.
A difference that seems to emerge between the successful and unsuccessful
application areas is that the successful areas are all aimed at closed communi-
ties (employees of large corporations, scientists in a particular area), whereas
the applications aimed at the general public are still in the laboratory phase
at best. The underlying reason for this could well be the difficulty of the
ontology mapping.

8.5 Selected Key Research Challenges
Several challenges that were outlined in a 2002 article by van Harmelen have
become active areas of research:

• Scale inference and storage technology, now scaling to the order of billions
of RDF triples

• Ontology evolution and change

• Ontology mapping.

A number of items on the research agenda, though hardly developed, have
had a crucial impact on the feasibility of the Semantic Web vision:

7. <http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/snobase>.
8. <http://jena.sourceforge.net/>.


• Interaction between machine-processable representations and the dynam-
ics of social networks of human users

• Mechanisms to deal with trust, reputation, integrity, and provenance in a
semiautomated way

• Inference and query facilities that are sufﬁciently robust to work in the
face of limited resources (computation time, network latency, memory, or
storage space) and that can make intelligent trade-off decisions between
resource use and output quality.

Suggested Reading
This chapter is based on a paper by van Harmelen:

• F. van Harmelen. Semantic Web Research anno 2006: main streams, popu-
lar fallacies, current status, and future challenges. In Proceedings of the 10th
International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents (CIA-2006). LNAI
4149. New York: Springer, 2006.

An earlier paper outlining research directions for the Semantic Web is:

• F. van Harmelen. How the semantic web will change KR: challenges and
opportunities for a new research agenda. Knowledge Engineering Review
17, 1 (2002): 93–96.

Excellent surveys of the current state of the art in ontology mappings are

• Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer. Ontology mapping: the state of the art.
Knowledge Engineering Review 18, 1 (2003): 1–31.

• E. Rehm and P. Bernstein. A survey of approaches to automatic schema
matching. VLDB Journal 10, 4 (2001): 334–350.

• P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat. A survey of schema-based matching ap-
proaches. Journal of Data Semantics IV (2005): 146–171.

Information on semantic-based P2P systems is found in

• S. Staab and H. Stuckenschmidt. Semantic Web and Peer-to Peer: Decen-
tralized Management and Exchange of Knowledge and Information. New York:
Springer, 2005.

A Abstract OWL Syntax

The XML syntax for OWL, as we have used it in chapter 4 is rather verbose,
and hard to read. OWL also has an abstract syntax1 , which is much easier to
read.
This appendix lists the abstract syntax for all the OWL code discussed in
chapter 4.

4.4.2: Header
Ontology(
Annotation(rdfs:comment "An example OWL ontology")
Annotation(rdfs:label "University Ontology")
Annotation(owl:imports http://www.mydomain.org/persons)
)

4.4.3: Class Elements
Class(associateProfessor partial academicStaffMember)

Class(professor partial)
DisjointClasses(associateProfessor assistantProfessor)
DisjointClasses(professor associateProfessor)

Class(faculty complete academicStaffMember)

1. Deﬁned in <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/>

253

254 A Abstract OWL Syntax

4.4.4: Property Elements
DatatypeProperty(age range(xsd:nonNegativeInteger))

ObjectProperty(isTaughtBy
domain(course)
range(academicStaffMember))
SubPropertyOf(isTaughtBy involves)

ObjectProperty(teaches
inverseOf(isTaughtBy)
domain(academicStaffMember)
range(course))

ObjectProperty(lecturesIn)
EquivalentProperties(lecturesIn teaches)

4.4.5: Property Restrictions
Class(firstYearCourse partial
restriction(isTaughtBy allValuesFrom (Professor)))

Class(mathCourse partial
restriction(isTaughtBy hasValue (949352)))

Class(academicStaffMember partial
restriction(teaches someValuesFrom (undergraduateCourse)))
card
Class(course partial
restriction(isTaughtBy minCardinality(1)))

Class(department partial
restriction(hasMember minCardinality(10))
restriction(hasMember maxCardinality(30)))

4.4.6: Special Properties
ObjectProperty(hasSameGradeAs Transitive Symmetric
domain(student)
range(student))

255

4.4.7: Boolean Combinations
Class(course partial
complementOf(staffMember))

Class(peopleAtUni complete
unionOf(staffMember student))

Class(facultyInCS complete
intersectionOf(faculty
restriction(belongsTo
hasValue
(CSDepartment))))

Class(adminStaff complete
intersectionOf(staffMember
complementOf(unionOf(faculty
techSupportStaff))))

4.4.8: Enumerations
EnumeratedClass(weekdays Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday)

4.4.9: Instances
Individual(949352
type(academicStaffMember))

Individual(949352
type(academicStaffMember)
value(age "39"^^&xsd;integer))

ObjectProperty(isTaughtBy Functional)

Individual(CIT1111
type(course)


value(isTaughtBy 949352)
value(isTaughtBy 949318))

Individual(949318
type(lecturer))
DifferentIndividuals(949318 949352)

DifferentIndividuals(949352 949111 949318)

4.6.1: African Wildlife Ontology
Ontology(

ObjectProperty(eaten-by inverseOf(eats))
ObjectProperty(eats domain(animal))
ObjectProperty(is-part-of Transitive)

Class(animal partial
annotation(rdfs:comment "Animals form a class."))

Class(branch partial
annotation(rdfs:comment "Branches are parts of trees.")
restriction(is-part-of allValuesFrom (tree)))

Class(carnivore complete
annotation(rdfs:comment
"Carnivores are exactly those animals that eat
animals.")
intersectionOf(animal
restriction(eats someValuesFrom (animal))))

Class(giraffe partial
"Giraffes are herbivores,
and they eat only leaves.")
herbivore
restriction(eats allValuesFrom (leaf)))

Class(herbivore complete
"Herbivores are exactly those animals that
eat only plants or parts of plants.")

257

intersectionOf(
animal
restriction(eats
allValuesFrom
(unionOf(plant
restriction(is-part-of
allValuesFrom
(plant)))))))

Class(leaf partial
annotation(rdfs:comment "Leaves are parts of branches.")
restriction(is-part-of allValuesFrom (branch)))

Class(lion partial
"Lions are animals that eat only herbivores.")
carnivore
restriction(eats allValuesFrom (herbivore)))

Class(plant partial
"Plants form a class disjoint from animals."))

Class(tasty-plant partial
"Tasty plants are plants that are eaten
both by herbivores and carnivores.")
plant
restriction(eaten-by someValuesFrom (herbivore))
restriction(eaten-by someValuesFrom (carnivore)))

Class(tree partial
annotation(rdfs:comment "Trees are a type of plant.")
plant)

AnnotationProperty(rdfs:comment)
DisjointClasses(plant animal)
)


4.6.2: Printer Ontology

Ontology(

Annotation(owl:versionInfo
"My example version 1.2, 17 October 2002")

DatatypeProperty(manufactured-by
domain(product)
range(xsd:string))

DatatypeProperty(price
domain(product)
range(xsd:nonNegativeInteger))

DatatypeProperty(printingResolution
domain(printer)
range(xsd:string))

DatatypeProperty(printingSpeed
domain(printer)
range(xsd:string))

DatatypeProperty(printingTechnology
domain(printer)
range(xsd:string))

Class(1100se partial
"1100se printers belong to the 1100 series
and cost $450.")
1100series
restriction(price hasValue ("450"^^&xsd;integer)))

Class(1100series partial
"1100series printers are HP laser jet
printers with 8ppm printing speed and 600dpi
printing resolution.")
hpLaserJetPrinter
restriction(printingSpeed hasValue ("8ppm"^^&xsd;string))
restriction(printingResolution

259

hasValue ("600dpi"^^&xsd;string)))

Class(1100xi partial
"1100xi printers belong to the 1100 series
and cost $350.")
1100series
restriction(price hasValue ("350"^^&xsd;integer)))

Class(hpLaserJetPrinter partial
"HP laser jet printers are HP products
and laser jet printers.")
laserJetPrinter
hpPrinter)

Class(hpPrinter partial
"HP printers are HP products and printers.")
hpProduct
printer)

Class(hpProduct complete
"HP products are exactly those products
that are manufactured by Hewlett Packard.")
intersectionOf(
product
restriction(manufactured-by
hasValue ("Hewlett Packard"^^&xsd;string))))

Class(laserJetPrinter complete
"Laser jet printers are exactly those printers
that use laser jet printing technology.")
intersectionOf(
printer
restriction(printingTechnology
hasValue ("laser jet"^^&xsd;string))))

Class(padid partial


"Printing and digital imaging devices
form a subclass of products.")
annotation(rdfs:label "Device")
product)

Class(personalPrinter partial
annotation(rdfs:comment "Printers for personal use form
a subclass of printers.")
printer)

Class(printer partial
annotation(rdfs:comment "Printers are printing and
digital imaging devices.")
padid)

Class(product partial
annotation(rdfs:comment "Products form a class."))
)

Index

#PCDATA, 35 DAML, 3
DAML+OIL, 113
AAT, 219, 229 data integration, 197
ACM Topic Ontology, 196 data type, 41, 71, 76
Aduna, 205 data type extension, 42
agent, 15 data type restriction, 43
aim of the authors, xix defaults, 151
Art and Architecture Thesaurus, 219, defeasible logic program, 173
229 defeasible rule, 172
artificial intelligence, 16 definite logic program, 158
attribute types, 36, 41 DLP, 132, 167
axiomatic semantics, 97 domain, 85
downward compatibility, 18
B2B e-commerce, 6, 220 DTD, 34
B2B portals, 6
e-commerce, 220
B2C e-commerce, 5
e-learning, 208
Bibster, 195
element, 26
element types, 40
cancer ontology, 229
EMTREE, 187
cardinality restrictions, 125
enumerations, 128
CDATA, 36
explicit metadata, 8
class expressions, 126
class hierarchy, 85 fact, 163
classes, 85 filter expression, 50
closed-world assumption, 133, 151 first-order logic, 157
complete proof system, 158 follows, 165
constant, 162 formal semantics, 114
container elements, 79 FRODO RDFSViz, 112
CSS2, 54 function symbol, 162
CWA, 133
Cyc, 230 goal, 163

262 Index

Horn logic, 158 Open Directory, 230
HTML, 25 Openacademia, 189
OWL, 113
Iconclass, 219, 229 OWL DL, 117, 131
ID, 36 OWL Full, 117, 131
IDREF, 36 OWL Lite, 118, 132
IDREFS, 36 OWL species, 117
inference system, 102 OWL-S, 212
inheritance, 86 owl:AllDifferent, 147
instances, 85 owl:allValuesFrom, 123, 148
owl:backwardCompatibleWith,
knowledge management, 3, 201 130
knowledge representation, 157 owl:cardinality, 126, 148
owl:Class, 121
layer, 17
owl:complementOf, 127, 147
layering of OWL, 131
owl:DatatypeProperty, 122
literals, 68
owl:differentFrom, 146
logic, 13, 157
owl:disjointWith, 121, 146
logic layer, 18
owl:distinctMembers, 147
owl:EquivalentClass, 146
machine learning, 231
owl:equivalentClass, 121
machine-processable Web content, 3
owl:EquivalentProperty, 146
markup languages, 26
owl:equivalentProperty, 123
MBASE, 187
MeSH, 187 owl:FunctionalProperty, 126
metaclasses, 145 owl:hasValue, 123
model, 165 owl:imports, 120
modules, 150 owl:incompatibleWith, 131
monotonic logic program, 163 owl:intersectionOf, 127, 147
monotonic rule, 162 owl:InverseFunctionalProperty,
multimedia, 219 126
owl:inverseOf, 122, 149
namespace, 46, 75 owl:maxCardinality, 126, 148
nonmonotonic rule, 160 owl:minCardinality, 126, 148
nonmonotonic rule system, 171 owl:Nothing, 121
owl:ObjectProperty, 122
OIL, 113 owl:oneOf, 128, 147
On-To-Knowledge, 237, 239 owl:onProperty, 123, 148
ontology, 10 owl:Ontology, 120
ontology alignment, 235 owl:priorVersion, 130
ontology development process, 226 owl:Restriction, 123, 148
ontology integration, 235 owl:sameAs, 146
ontology mapping, 235 owl:sameIndividualAs, 146

Index 263

owl:someValuesFrom, 123, 148 rdf:Seq, 79
owl:SymmetricProperty, 126 rdf:Statement, 89
owl:Thing, 121 rdf:subject, 84
owl:TransitiveProperty, 126 rdf:type, 78, 90
owl:unionOf, 127, 147 rdfs:Class, 89
owl:versionInfo, 130 rdfs:comment, 91
rdfs:domain, 90
P2P, 195 rdfs:isDefinedBy, 91
path expression, 48 rdfs:label, 91
peer to peer, 195 rdfs:Literal, 89
portal, 203 rdfs:range, 90
predicate, 162 rdfs:Resource, 89
predicate logic, 157 rdfs:seeAlso, 91
priority, 171 rdfs:subClassOf, 90
procedural attachment, 151 rdfs:subPropertyOf, 90
proof layer, 19 recommendations, 25
proof system, 157 reification, 71, 84
property, 85 root, 33
property chaining, 152 root element, 33
property hierarchy, 87 Rosetta Net, 220, 231
rule body, 162, 173
range, 85 rule head, 162, 173
RDF, 65 rule markup, 177
RDF property, 68 rule markup language, 160
RDF query language, 103 RuleML, 177
RDF resource, 67 rules, 152, 158
RDF Schema, 84
RDF Schema limitations, 115 search engines, 1
RDF statement, 68 select-from-where, 106
rdf:_1, 79 semantic interoperability, 12
rdf:about, 75 semantics, 13
rdf:Alt, 79 service grounding, 215
rdf:Bag, 79 service process, 214
rdf:Description, 69 service profile, 213
rdf:first, 82 shopbots, 5
rdf:List, 82 SLD resolution, 167
rdf:nil, 83 sound proof system, 158
rdf:object, 84 SPARQL, 103
rdf:predicate, 84 Standard Upperlevel Ontology, 230
rdf:Property, 89 standards, 17, 25
rdf:resource, 76 style sheet, 54
rdf:rest, 83 subclass, 85

264 Index

subproperty, 87 XML Schema, 39
SUO, 230 XPath, 48
superclass, 85 Xpath, 104
SWRL, 170 XSL, 54
XSLT, 54
tags, 26 XSLT template, 55
TGN, 229
thesaurus, 187
Thesaurus of Geographic Names, 229
triple, 68
trust layer, 19
typed literals, 71

ULAN, 229
UMLS, 230
UNA, 133
Uniﬁed Medical Language System,
230
Union List of Artist Names, 229
unique-name assumption, 133
unique-names assumption, 129, 151
upward partial understanding, 18

variable, 162
versioning, 130
visualization, 205

Web Ontology Working Group, 113
Web services, 210
well-formed XML document, 31
witness, 166
WordNet, 230
World Wide Web, 1
World Wide Web Consortium, 3
wrappers, 5

XLink, 62
XML, 25
XML attributes, 30
XML declaration, 29
XML document, 29
XML elements, 29
XML entity, 38

Semantic web-primer

More Related Content

Similar to Semantic web-primer (20)

More from okeee (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Semantic web-primer