OWL-Full Reasoning from an Object Oriented Perspective

Abstract

Abstract. Bridging the gap between OWL and Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) languages is an indispensable condition to enable the Object-Oriented Modeling in Software Engineering by OWL. However it is very difficult in case of static OOP languages like Java and C#. We have developed SWCLOS, which is an OWL processor seamlessly built on top of Common Lisp Object System (CLOS), a dynamic OOP language. SWCLOS allows programmers to develop application domain models by OWL and enables OOP upon the models. In this paper, we explain the semantic gap between OWL and OOP languages, introduce the RDFS and OWL realization at SWCLOS, and discuss the OWL features from OOP perspectives. Finally we demonstrate the OWL-Full level performance in SWCLOS.

Owlready: Ontology-oriented programming in Python with automatic classification and high level constructs for biomedical ontologies

“…However, it cannot perform type-checking, since types can change at runtime. 3 https://jena.apache.org/ A dynamic tool has been proposed in Common Lisp [24,29], using a specific subsumption algorithm rather than an external reasoner. A prototype in Python has also been achieved using metaclasses [30]; however, the reasoning and the expression of restrictions remain quite limited.…”

Zhi# – OWL Aware Compilation

“…Koide and Takeda [11] implemented an OWL reasoner for the FL 0 Description Logic on top of the Common Lisp Object System [5] by means of the Meta-Object Protocol [10]. Their implementation of the used structural subsumption algorithm [2] is described, however, to yield only incomplete results.…”

COMMON LANUGAGES FOR SEMANTIC WWW - Beyond RDF and OWL

“…In addition, we introduced the following proposition as axiom in order to include OWL classes in the OWL universe, and to make the OWL universe OWL Full. See details in (Koide and Takeda, 2006) and SWCLOS documents 6 . Proposition 1.…”

“…Whereas the complete freedom of metamodeling certainly results in undecidability, most examples demonstrated by the OWL DL party as OWL Full undecidability are unreasonably extreme and make no sense from the view of engineering. We had showed several metamodeling examples of SWC-LOS in (Koide and Takeda, 2006) within the understandable rationale of engineering from our practical experience, and in (Koide and Takeda, 2009), we addressed a set of metamodeling criteria that enables SWCLOS to perform ontology metamodeling.…”

“…It seems that Web Ontology Language (OWL) has successfully established itself as a de facto standard of ontology description language not only in the Semantic Web community but also in diverse disciplines and engineering fields, e.g., ontology, linguistics, modeling in software engineering, enterprise business patterns, etc. We had also developed an OWL Full language processor called SWCLOS (Koide and Takeda, 2006) 1 on top of Common Lisp Object System (CLOS), and attempted to apply it in several applications. SWCLOS is an amalgamation of Object-Oriented language in Lisp and Web Ontology Language OWL, and then we saw how an ontology description language that is firmly underpinned by formal logic and denotational semantics on Resource Description Framework (RDF) is useful to software engineering so as to assure formal descriptions of system specification.…”