From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language

By Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Frank van Harmelen. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003

1,810 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Networks and Communications, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1bff2b8d30846e73b3d7de7c64ac65ad906ce0d4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classification and use (2006, background): “OWL builds several levels of complexity on top of the XML of conventional web data [4] [12].”
Applying Fuzzy DLs in the Extraction of Image Semantics (2009, methodology): “The Semantic Web (SW) incentive influenced to a large extent the choice of the investigated representation formalisms, favouring the use of SW languages [16, 17] and of the closely related Description Logics (DLs) [18, 19].”
The Protégé OWL Plugin: An Open Development Environment for Semantic Web Applications (2004, neutral): “OWL is an extension of RDF(S) [7].”
Automated semantic web service discovery with OWLS-MX (2006, background): “Katia Sycara Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute Pittsburgh PA, USA katia+@cs.cmu.edu de.ned in some decidable description logic based ontology language such as OWL-DL [8] or F-Logic, respectively.”
The DL-Lite Family and Relations (2009, neutral): “the Semantic Web (Hein & Hendler, 2001; Horrocks et al., 2003 ).”
OWL 2: The next step for OWL (2008, methodology): “The initial proposals focused on RDF and RDF Schema; however, these languages were soon found to be too limited in expressive power [ 18 ].”
OWLS-MX: A hybrid Semantic Web service matchmaker for OWL-S services (2009, positive): “…of contemporary approaches to Semantic Web service selection is that the functionality of Web services is logically defined in, for example, the standard first-order description logic-based ontology language OWL [6] or a rule language like SWRL, or a logic programming language like F-Logic.”
A proposal for an owl rules language (2004, result): “We have provided formal syntax and semantics for ORL, shown how OWL s 9http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/ 10http://fowl.sourceforge.net 11A standard syntax used by many .rst order theorem provers see http://www.tptp.org 12http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/ test-results-out XML and RDF syntax ca”
Conjunctive Query Answering for the Description Logic SHIQ (2007, background): “Most prominently, DLs are known for their use as a logical underpinning of ontology languages, e.g., OIL, DAML+OIL, and OWL ( Horrocks, Patel-Schneider, & van Harmelen, 2003 ), which is a W3C recommendation (Bechhofer, van Harmelen, Hendler, Horrocks, McGuinness, Patel-Schneider, & Stein, 2004).”
Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice (2008, methodology): “In particular, OWL DL corresponds to SHOIN ( Horrocks, Patel-Schneider, & van Harmelen, 2003 ).”
IfcOWL: A case of transforming EXPRESS schemas into ontologies (2008, methodology): “Of the three language flavors of OWL (Lite, DL, and Full), the one relevant for the work presented here is OWL DL, which is based on the logic SHOIN (D) (Horrocks et al., 2003).”
The Web Service Modeling Language WSML: An Overview (2006, methodology): “It turns out that OWL DL adds very little in expressiveness to OWL Lite [ 15 ].”