Database Reference
In-Depth Information
•
Ontology development life-cycle support. Different tools offer different
levels of support for the various stages of ontology development, includ-
ing requirement gathering; versioning; issue tracking; collaboration
(Collaborative Protégé, Knoodl); merging (PROMPT plug-in for Protégé);
visualization (Altova SemanticWorks,
25
OWLViz plug-in for Protégé); and
debugging (Protégé 4), among others.
9.5 SUMMARY
This chapter has worked through the main concepts in the Web Ontology Language
OWL, namely, metadata annotations, Classes, Properties, and Individuals. We have
also discussed the primary tools available for authoring ontologies in OWL and
some factors to take into account when choosing your ontology editor. The next
chapter builds on what we have learned so far and explains how to build a geographic
ontology from the ground up, utilizing many of the OWL constructs introduced here.
NOTES
1. From this point, we indicate examples using Rabbit and Manchester Syntax shown side
by side.
2. There is no concise Rabbit equivalent.
3. The “owl:Thing that” part of the sentence is often excluded as it is assumed as the default.
4. An aspect of the open world assumption means that the example given does not exclude
the possibility that a semidetached house could not be attached to itself as it is a semide-
tached house. This is obviously silly. OWL does enable you to exclude this loophole by
modifying the property “isAttachedTo.” We show how this is done further in the topic.
5. Assume these classes are mutually exclusive (disjoint).
6. In Manchester Syntax, individuals should really be URIs, but for brevity we are truncat-
ing them, so in the example Merea would really be of the form
http://countries.data.
world.org/Merea
(or some such).
7. However, in some domains you may wish to model “part of” differently.
21. See Appendix A for details of the OWL species and profiles.
24.
http://trowl.eu/
.
