Fuzzy ontology representation using OWL 2

Abstract

The need to deal with vague information in Semantic Web languages is rising in importance and, thus, calls for a standard way to represent such information. We may address this issue by either extending current Semantic Web languages to cope with vagueness, or by providing a procedure to represent such information within current standard languages and tools. In this work, we follow the latter approach, by identifying the syntactic differences that a fuzzy ontology language has to cope with, and by proposing a concrete methodology to represent fuzzy ontologies using OWL 2 annotation properties. We also report on the prototypical implementations. $ This paper is a revised and considerably extended version of "Representing Fuzzy Ontologies in OWL 2", published in the

An agility-oriented and fuzziness-embedded semantic model for collaborative cloud service search, retrieval and recommendation

“…The annotation-based fuzzy extension [21] presents another approach, seen as to place the fuzziness in OWL2 annotations. With comprehensive fuzzy set and relation theory support using "fowl" and "fuzzyOWL2" syntax, a Protégé plug-in is developed for easy fuzzy modification and illustration.…”

“…Indeed, conventional OWL/OWL2 modeling techniques cannot handle the above scenarios effectively, since they are designed to clarify explicit knowledge with concrete axioms, either true or false [6]. Fundamentally, this is due to the formal description logical (DL) consistency requirement which does not support such fuzziness [21,22].…”

A Vague Sense Classifier for Detecting Vague Definitions in Ontologies

“…Moreover, in the context of ontologies, one may find several works focusing on acquisition, conceptualization and representation of vague knowledge, mainly following a fuzzy logic based approach (Bobillo and Straccia, 2011) (Stoilos et al, 2008) (Abulaish, 2009). Nevertheless all these approaches rely on manual identification and analysis of vague terms and concepts by domain experts and, to the best of our knowledge, no work attempts to automate this task.…”

A Framework for Fuzzy Ontology Storing onto Relational Database within an a Priori Data Integration System

“…This will induce, at least, as many tables in target RDB as there are concepts in source ontology, and will make a significant extra cost for transforming real ontologies having sizes increasingly large. Furthermore, the fuzzy extensions of ontology languages which have been presented are not complaint with OWL2 and current ontology editors [11].…”

“…But the conceptual formalism supported by crisp ontologies may not be sufficient to represent such uncertain information and many fuzzy extensions were proposed in literature [9]. We have chosen OWL2 syntax extended with fuzzy annotations properties as prescribed by [11], because it allows annotating, with fuzzy label annotations, most of OWL2 constructors, except for role constructors where it represents only fuzzy modified roles. A motivating example is provided later throughout the paper for well describing the proposed approach.…”