Please wait a minute...
New Technology of Library and Information Service  2005, Vol. 21 Issue (1): 1-4    DOI: G250.76 G354.4
article Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search |
Comparison of Important Ontology Specification Languages
Li Jing
(China National Institute of Standardization, Beijing 100088,China)
Download:
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

There were basic features of ontology specification languages introduced in this article briefly. 13 important kinds of them were analysed and compared according to the framework formulated by Asunción Gómez-Pérez and Oscar Corcho, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. The conclusion was: Loom, CycL and OWL were the better choices for users to mark up ontologies.
Key words： Ontology      Ontology specification language      Comparison      Description      Reasoning     
Received: 23 August 2004      Published: 25 January 2005
: 

G250.76 

 
     
  G354.4

 		 
Corresponding Authors: Li Jing     E-mail: lijing@mail.las.ac.cn
About author:: Li Jing
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors

Cite this article:

Li Jing. Comparison of Important Ontology Specification Languages. New Technology of Library and Information Service, 2005, 21(1): 1-4.

URL:

https://manu44.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_infotech_wk3/EN/G250.76 G354.4     OR     https://manu44.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_infotech_wk3/EN/Y2005/V21/I1/1

1Oscar Corcho, Asunción Gómez-Pérez. A roadmap to ontology specification languages. Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management. London: Springer-Verlag. 2000. Pages: 80~96, http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/miembros/OscarCorcho/documents/ekaw00_CorchoGomezPerez.pdf
2Kmi. OCML: Operational Conceptual Modeling Language. Summary. 2000-12. http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/ocml/, http://babage.dia.fi.upm.es/ontoweb/wp1/OntoRoadMap/show_lang.jsp?lang_name=OCML （Accessed Feb.19,2003）
3Chaudhri, V., Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., Karp, P., and Rice,J., (1998). OKBC: A Programmatic Foundation for Knowledge Base Interoperability. In Proceedings 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98), pages 600-607
4Cycorp, Inc. The CycL of Syntax. 2002-03-28. http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/ref/cycl-syntax.html （Accessed Oct.22,2003）
5Web-ontology working group. OWL Web ontology Language Overview. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-features-20031215/  （Accessed Feb.02,2004）
6Dan Connolly, Frank van Harmelen, Ian Horrocks, et al. DAML+OIL Reference Description. 2001-03. http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference   （Accessed Nov.30,2002）
7Mike Uschold. AIAI-TR-192. Converting an Informal Ontology into Ontolingua: Some Experiences; A slightly abridged version of this paper appears in the Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontological Engineering held in conjunction with ECAI 96, Budapest; March 1996
8AI/SRI. XOL: XML-based ontology-exchange language. 1999. http://www.ai.sri.com/pkarp/xol/ （Accessed Dec.10,2002）
9The SHOE Team/CS/UMD. SHOE Simple HTML Ontology Extensions. 2002-04-28.http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/SHOE/ （Accessed Jan.29,2003）
10Dan Brickley, R.V. Guha. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C  Working Draft 23 January 2003. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/（Accessed Nov.11,2003）
11OIL Steering Committee. Description of OIL-Ontology Inference layer. 1999-10. http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/（Accessed Dec.20,2001）
12ISI. Loom Project Hompage. 1999-07-12. http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/LOOM-HOME.html（Accessed Nov.11,2002）
13Michael Kifer and Georg Lausen. FLogic: A higher-order language for reasoning about objects, inheritance and scheme. In Clifford et al. ［CLM89］, pages 1341146
14Pepper, Steve. 2002. The TAO of Topic Maps. XML Europe 2000. http://www.gca.org/papers/xmleurope2000/papers/s11-01.html（Accessed Aug.25,2003）
[1] Ruan Xiaoyun,Liao Jianbin,Li Xiang,Yang Yang,Li Daifeng. Interpretable Recommendation of Reinforcement Learning Based on Talent Knowledge Graph Reasoning[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2021, 5(6): 36-50.
[2] Shi Xiang,Liu Ping. Extraction and Representation of Domain Knowledge with Semantic Description Model and Knowledge Elements——Case Study of Information Retrieval[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2021, 5(4): 123-133.
[3] Sheng Shu, Huang Qi, Yang Yang, Xie Qiwen, Qin Xinguo. Exchanging Chinese Medical Information Based on HL7 FHIR[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2021, 5(11): 13-28.
[4] Wu Jinming,Hou Yuefang,Cui Lei. Automatic Expression of Co-occurrence Clustering Based on Indexing Rules of Medical Subject Headings[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2020, 4(9): 133-144.
[5] Zeng Zhen,Li Gang,Mao Jin,Chen Jinghao. Data Governance and Domain Ontology of Regional Public Security[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2020, 4(9): 41-55.
[6] Zhu Chaoyu, Liu Lei. A Review of Medical Decision Supports Based on Knowledge Graph[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2020, 4(12): 26-32.
[7] Xinyu Zai,Xuedong Tian. Retrieving Scientific Documents with Formula Description Structure and Word Embedding[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2020, 4(1): 131-138.
[8] Xuhui Li,Tao Yu,Ting Li,Yiwen Li,Jinguang Gu. An Evolutionary Schema for Metadata Description[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2020, 4(1): 76-88.
[9] Shaohua Qiang,Yunlu Luo,Yupeng Li,Peng Wu. Ontology Reasoning for Financial Affairs with RBR and CBR[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2019, 3(8): 94-104.
[10] Xiaofeng Li,Jing Ma,Chi Li,Hengmin Zhu. Identifying Commodity Names Based on XGBoost Model[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2019, 3(7): 34-41.
[11] Shiqi Deng,Liang Hong. Constructing Domain Ontology for Intelligent Applications: Case Study of Anti Tele-Fraud[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2019, 3(7): 73-84.
[12] Zhu Fu,Yuefen Wang,Xuhui Ding. Semantic Representation of Design Process Knowledge Reuse[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2019, 3(6): 21-29.
[13] Guangshang Gao. A Survey of User Profiles Methods[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2019, 3(3): 25-35.
[14] Ying Wang,Li Qian,Jing Xie,Zhijun Chang,Beibei Kong. Building Knowledge Graph with Sci-Tech Big Data[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2019, 3(1): 15-26.
[15] He Youshi,He Shufang. Sentiment Mining of Online Product Reviews Based on Domain Ontology[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2018, 2(8): 60-68.
  Copyright © 2016 Data Analysis and Knowledge Discovery   Tel/Fax:(010)82626611-6626，82624938   E-mail:jishu@mail.las.ac.cn