A proposal for an owl rules language

By Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider. The Web Conference, 2004

372 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65b103bbef774e557406bee25b6213ca5533899a

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

1. Mark A. Musen
2. U. Sattler
3. Natasha Noy
4. Boris Motik
5. Ian Horrocks
6. Bernardo Cuenca Grau
7. Holger Knublauch
8. Markus Krötzsch

In Computer Networks and Communications

1. Natasha Noy
2. Mark A. Musen
3. Boris Motik
4. Markus Krötzsch
5. S. Rudolph
6. Pascal Hitzler
7. Ray W. Fergerson
8. Rudi Studer

In Information Systems

1. Mark A. Musen
2. Natasha Noy
3. Boris Motik
4. U. Sattler
5. Bernardo Cuenca Grau
6. Ian Horrocks
7. Markus Krötzsch
8. S. Rudolph

Citations in the corpus

• Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner (2007, background): “The Semantic Web Rules Language (SWRL) [28] has recently been proposed as the basic rules language for the Semantic Web.”
• ELP: Tractable Rules for OWL 2 (2008, positive): “The paper proceeds by first recalling some minimal preliminaries regarding DLs, SWRL rules, and DL-safety.”
• Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules (2004, methodology): “For the correspondence between this notation and various OWL-DL syntaxes, see [11].”
• The Protégé OWL Plugin: An Open Development Environment for Semantic Web Applications (2004, background): “It is possible to further extend this API to define customtailored classes for OWL extensions like OWL-S and the Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) [6].”
• Ontology-based situation awareness (2009, background): “This limitation derives from OWL’s lack of variables and the inability to define joins [34].”