Description Logics as Ontology Languages for the Semantic Web

By Franz Baader, Ian Horrocks, U. Sattler. Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, 2005

528 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a676e3af0d067df746089c3bc3547ac5ff4e0732

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. Michael Gerasimos Strintzis
2. Stamatia Dasiopoulou
3. Yiannis Kompatsiaris
4. Ralf Möller
5. Giorgos Flouris
6. Dimitris Plexousakis
7. Volker Haarslev
8. Grigoris Antoniou

In Information Systems

1. Ralf Möller
2. Michael Gerasimos Strintzis
3. Giorgos Flouris
4. Dimitris Plexousakis
5. Stamatia Dasiopoulou
6. Yiannis Kompatsiaris
7. Volker Haarslev
8. Grigoris Antoniou

Citations in the corpus

• 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].”
• Ontology change: classification and survey (2008, background): “A semantics for updating Description Logic (DL) systems (Baader et al. 2002) can be found in (Roger et al. 2002); this is relevant to ontology evolution, since the family of DLs is one of the most popular formalisms for ontology representation (Baader et al. 2003).”
• Racer: A Core Inference Engine for the Semantic Web (2003, background): “With some restrictions that are discussed below one can state that the logical basis of OWL (or DAML+OIL) can be characterized with the description logic SHIQ(Dn) [3] (DAML+OIL documents are to be interpreted in the spirit of OWL DL).”