Owl web ontology language guide
By Melanie Smith, Chris Welty, Deborah L. McGuinness. 2003
893 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0ebb7164f750c95a85c5eedea9b5d62e00768222
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Ian Horrocks
- Jérôme Euzenat
- Bernardo Cuenca Grau
- Pavel Shvaiko
- Sean Bechhofer
- Peter F. Patel-Schneider
- Bijan Parsia
- Evren Sirin
Citations in the corpus
- OWL rules: A proposal and prototype implementation (2005, background): “Thus the rule is satisfied by I iff for every binding B(I) such that (a, b) ∈ ER(parent) and (b, c) ∈ ER(brother), then it is also the case that (a, c) ∈ ER(uncle), i.e.: Many possible XML encodings could be imagined, but the most obvious solution is to extend the existing OWL Web Ontology Language ”
- Semantic Matching: Algorithms and Implementation (2007, methodology): “In order to reason with datatypes we have created a datatype ontology, OD, specified in OWL [45].”
- Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner (2007, methodology): “Figure 6 lists the loading, consistency checking, classification and realization timings for some well-known OWL ontologies: the Food/Wine example from the OWL guide [35], the portal ontology from the AKT project, the Congo example from the OWL-S coalition, the SWEET set of ontologies from NASA, the”
- A proposal for an owl rules language (2004, background): “INTRODUCTION The OWL Web Ontology Language [26] adds considerable expressive power to the Semantic Web.”
- From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language (2003, background): “This paper is an account of the design choices and trade-offs that went into the making of OWL, and is not meant as an exhaustive description of the OWL language (for which the reader should turn to the OWL documents, including the OWL Language Reference [10] and Guide [35].”
- A Survey of Schema-Based Matching Approaches (2005, methodology): “For example, OWL [30] allows defining inverse properties, transitive properties; disjoint classes, new classes as unions or intersections of other classes, etc.”