Experimentally-motivated non-trivial intermodel links between conceptual models

I am well aware that some people prefer Agile and mash-ups and such to quickly, scuffily, put an app together, but putting a robust, efficient, lasting, application together does require a bit of planning—analysis and design in the software development process. For instance, it helps to formalise one’s business rules or requirements, or at least structure them with, say, SBVR or ORM, so as to check that the rules obtained from the various stakeholders do not contradict themselves cf. running into problems when testing down the line after having implemented it during a testing phase. Or analyse a bit upfront which classes are needed in the front-end application layer cf. perpetual re-coding to fix one’s mistakes (under the banner ‘refactoring’, as if naming the process gives it an air of respectability), and create, say, a UML diagram or two. Or generating a well-designed database based on an EER model.

Each of these three components can be done in isolation, but how to do this for complex system development where the object-oriented application layer hast to interact with the database back-end, all the while ensuring that the business rules are still adhered to? Or you had those components already, but they need to be integrated? One could link the code to tables in the implementation layer, on an ad hoc basis, and figure it out again and again for any combination of languages and systems. Another one is to do that at the conceptual modelling layer irrespective of the implementation language. The latter approach is reusable (cf. reinventing the mapping wheel time and again), and at a level of abstraction that is easier to cope with for more people, and even more so if the system is really large. So, we went after that option for the past few years and have just added another step to realising all this: how to link which elements in the different models for the system.

It is not difficult to imagine a tool where one can have several windows open, each with a model in some conceptual modelling language—many CASE tools already support modelling in different notations anyway. It is conceptually also fairly straightforward when in, say, the UML model there is a class ‘Employee’ and in the ER diagram there’s an ‘Employee’ entity type: it probably will work out to align these classes. Implementing just this is a bit of an arduous engineering task, but doable. In fact, there is such a tool for models represented in the same language, where the links can be subsumption, equivalence, or disjointness between classes or between relationships: ICOM [2]. But we need something like that to work across modelling languages as well, and for attributes, too. In the hand-waiving abstract sense, this may be intuitively trivial, but the gory details of the conceptual and syntax aspects are far from it. For instance, what should a modeller do if one model has ‘Address’ as an attribute and the other model has it represented as a class? Link the two despite being different types of constructs in the respective languages? Or that ever-recurring example of modelling marriage: a class ‘Marriage’ with (at least) two participants, or ‘Marriage’ as a recursive relationship (UML association) of a ‘Person’ class? What to do if a modeller in one model had chosen the former option and another modeller the latter? Can they be linked up somehow nonetheless, or would one have to waste a lot of time redesigning the other model?

Instead of analysing this for each case, we sought to find a generic solution to it; with we being: Zubeida Khan, Pablo Fillottrani, Karina Cenci, and I. The solution we propose will appear soon in the proceedings of the 20th Conference on Advances in DataBases and Information Systems (ADBIS’16) that will be held at the end of this month in Prague.

So, what did we do? First, we tried to narrow down the possible links between elements in the models: in theory, one might want to try to link anything to anything, but we already knew some model elements are incompatible, and we were hoping that others wouldn’t be needed yet other suspected to be needed, so that a particular useful subset could be the focus. To determine that, we analysed a set of ICOM projects created by students at the Universidad Nacionál del Sur (in Bahía Blanca), and we created model integration scenarios based on publicly available conceptual models of several subject domains, such as hospitals, airlines, and so on, including EER diagrams, UML class diagrams, and ORM models. An example of an integration scenario is shown in the figure below: two conceptual models about airline companies, with on the left the ER diagram and on the right the UML diagram.

One of the integration scenarios [1]

One of the integration scenarios [1]

The solid purple links are straightforward 1:1 mappings; e.g., er:Airlines = uml:Airline. Long-dashed dashed lines represent ‘half links’ that are semantically very similar, such as er:Flight.Arr_time ≈ uml:Flight.arrival_time, where the idea of attribute is the same, but ER attributes don’t have a datatype specified whereas UML attributes do. The red short-dashed dashed lines require some transformation: e.g., er:Airplane.Type is an attribute yet uml:Aircraft is a class, and er:Airport.code is an identifier (with its mandatory 1:1 constraint, still no datatype) but uml:Airport.ID is just a simple attribute. Overall, we had 40 models with 33 schema matchings, with 25 links in the ICOM projects and 258 links in the integration scenarios. The detailed aggregates are described in the paper and the dataset is available for reuse (7MB). Unsurprisingly, there were more attribute links than class links (if a class can be linked, then typically also some of its attributes). There were 64 ‘half’ links and 48 transformation links, notably on the slightly compatible attributes, attributes vs. identifiers, attribute<->value type, and attribute<->class.

Armed with these insights from the experiment, a general intermodel link validation approach [3] that uses the unified metamodel [4], and which type of elements occur mostly in conceptual models with their logic-based profiles [5,6], we set out to define those half links and transformation links. While this could have been done with a logic of choice, we opted for a clear step toward implementability by exploiting the ATLAS Transformation Language (ATL) [7] to specify the transformations. As there’s always a source model and a target model in ATL, we constructed the mappings such that both models in question are the ‘source’ and both are mapped into a new, single, ‘target’ model that still adheres to the constraints imposed by the unifying metamodel. A graphical depiction of the idea is shown in the figure below; see paper for details of the mapping rules (they don’t look nice in a blog post).

Informal, graphical rendering of the rule AttributeObject Type output [1]

Informal, graphical rendering of the rule Attribute<->Object Type output [1]

Someone into this matter might think, based on this high-level description, there’s nothing new here. However, there is, and the paper has an extensive related works section. For instance, there’s related work on Distributed Description Logics with bridge rules [8], but they don’t do attributes and the logics used for that doesn’t fit well with the features needed for conceptual modelling, so it cannot be adopted without substantial modifications. Triple Graph Grammars look quite interesting [9] for this sort of task, as does DOL [10], but either would require another year or two to figure it out (feel free to go ahead already). On the practical side, e.g., the Eclipse metamodel of the popular Eclipse Modeling Framework didn’t have enough in the metamodel for what needs to be included, both regarding types of entities and the constraints that would need to be enforced. And so on, such that by a process of elimination, we ended up with ATL.

It would be good to come up with those logic-based linking options and proofs of correctness of the transformation rules presented in the paper, but in the meantime, an architecture design of the new tool was laid out in [11], which is in the stage of implementation as I write this. For now, at least a step has been taken from the three years of mostly theory and some experimentation toward implementation of all that. To be continued J.



[1] Khan, Z.C., Keet, C.M., Fillottrani, P.R., Cenci, K.M. Experimentally motivated transformations for intermodel links between conceptual models. 20th Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems (ADBIS’16). Springer LNCS. August 28-31, Prague, Czech Republic. (in print)

[2] Fillottrani, P.R., Franconi, E., Tessaris, S. The ICOM 3.0 intelligent conceptual modelling tool and methodology. Semantic Web Journal, 2012, 3(3): 293-306.

[3] Fillottrani, P.R., Keet, C.M. Conceptual Model Interoperability: a Metamodel-driven Approach. 8th International Web Rule Symposium (RuleML’14), A. Bikakis et al. (Eds.). Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS vol. 8620, 52-66. August 18-20, 2014, Prague, Czech Republic.

[4] Keet, C.M., Fillottrani, P.R. An ontology-driven unifying metamodel of UML Class Diagrams, EER, and ORM2. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 2015, 98:30-53.

[5] Keet, C.M., Fillottrani, P.R. An analysis and characterisation of publicly available conceptual models. 34th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER’15). Johannesson, P., Lee, M.L. Liddle, S.W., Opdahl, A.L., Pastor López, O. (Eds.). Springer LNCS vol 9381, 585-593. 19-22 Oct, Stockholm, Sweden.

[6] Fillottrani, P.R., Keet, C.M. Evidence-based Languages for Conceptual Data Modelling Profiles. 19th Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems (ADBIS’15). Morzy et al. (Eds.). Springer LNCS vol. 9282, 215-229. Poitiers, France, Sept 8-11, 2015.

[7] Jouault, F. Allilaire, F. Bzivin, J. Kurtev, I. ATL: a model transformation tool. Science of Computer Programming, 2008, 72(12):31-39.

[8] Ghidini, C., Serafini, L., Tessaris, S., Complexity of reasoning with expressive ontology mappings. Formal ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’08). IOS Press, FAIA vol. 183, 151-163.

[9] Golas, U., Ehrig, H., Hermann, F. Formal specification of model transformations by triple graph grammars with application conditions. Electronic Communications of the ESSAT, 2011, 39: 26.

[10] Mossakowsi, T., Codescu, M., Lange, C. The distributed ontology, modeling and specification language. Proceedings of the Workshop on Modular Ontologies 2013 (WoMo’13). CEUR-WS vol 1081. Corunna, Spain, September 15, 2013.

[11] Fillottrani, P.R., Keet, C.M. A Design for Coordinated and Logics-mediated Conceptual Modelling. 29th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL’16). Peñaloza, R. and Lenzerini, M. (Eds.). CEUR-WS Vol. 1577. April 22-25, Cape Town, South Africa. (abstract)

Bootstrapping a Runyankore CNL from an isiZulu one mostly works well

Earlier this week the 5th Workshop on Controlled Natural Language (CNL’16) was held in Aberdeen, Scotland, where I presented progress made on a Runyankore CNL [1], rather than my student, Joan Byamugisha, who did most of the work on it (she could not attend due to nasty immigration rules by the UK, not a funding issue).

“Runyankore?”, you might ask. It is one of the languages spoken in Uganda. As Runyankore is very under-resourced, any bootstrapping to take a ‘shortcut’ to develop language resources would be welcome. We have a CNL for isiZulu [2], but that is spoken in South Africa, which is a few thousand kilometres further south of Uganda, and it is in a different Guthrie zone of the—in linguistics still called—Bantu languages, so it was a bit of a gamble to see whether those results could be repurposed for Runynakore. They could, needing only minor changes.

What stayed the same were the variables, or: components to make up a grammatically correct sentence when generating a sentence within the context of OWL axioms (ALC, to be more precise). They are: the noun class of the name of the concept (each noun is assigned a noun class—there are 20 in Runyankore), the category of the concept (e.g., noun, adjective), whether the concept is atomic (named OWL class) or an OWL class expression, the quantifier used in the axiom, and the position of the concept in the axiom. The only two real differences were that for universal quantification the word for the quantifier is the same when in the singular (cf. isiZulu, where it changes for both singular or plural), and for disjointness there is only one word, ti ‘is not’ (cf. isiZulu’s negative subject concord + pronomial). Two very minor differences are that for existential quantification ‘at least one’, the ‘at least’ is in a different place in the sentence but the ‘one’ behaves exactly the same, and ‘all’ for universal quantification comes after the head noun rather than before (but is also still dependent on the noun class).

It goes without saying that the vocabulary is different, but that is a minor aspect compared to figuring out the surface realisation for an axiom. Where the bootstrapping thus came in handy was that that arduous step of investigating from scratch the natural language grammar involved in verbalising OWL axioms could be skipped and instead the ones for isiZulu could be reused. Yay. This makes it look very promising to port to other languages in the Bantu language family. (yes, I know, “one swallow does not a summer make” [some Dutch proverb], but one surely is justified to turn up one’s hope a notch regarding generalizability and transferability of results.)

Joan also conducted a user survey to ascertain which surface realisation was preferred among Runyankore speakers, implemented the algorithms, and devised a new one for the ‘hasX’ naming scheme of OWL object properties (like hasSymptom and hasChild). All these details, as well as the details of the Runyankore CNL and the bootstrapping, are described in the paper [1].


I cannot resist a final comment on all this. There are people who like to pull it down and trivialise natural language interfaces for African languages, on the grounds of “who cares about text in those kind of countries; we have to accommodate the illiteracy with pictures and icons and speech and such”. People are not as illiterate as is claimed here and there (including by still mentally colonised people from African countries)—if they were, then the likes of Google and Facebook and Microsoft would not invest in localising their interfaces in African languages. The term “illiterate” is used by those people to include also those who do not read/write in English (typically an/the official language of government), even though they can read and write in their local language. People who can read and write—whichever natural language it may be—are not illiterate, neither here in Africa nor anywhere else. English is not the yardstick of (il)literacy, and anyone who thinks it is should think again and reflect a bit on cultural imperialism for starters.



[1] Byamugisha, J., Keet, C.M., DeRenzi, B. Bootstrapping a Runyankore CNL from an isiZulu CNL. 5th Workshop on Controlled Natural Language (CNL’16), Springer LNAI vol. 9767, 25-36. 25-27 July 2016, Aberdeen, UK. Springer’s version

[2] Keet, C.M., Khumalo, L. Toward a knowledge-to-text controlled natural language of isiZulu. Language Resources and Evaluation, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s10579-016-9340-0 (in print) accepted version

Automatically finding the feasible object property

Late last month I wrote about the updated taxonomy of part-whole relations and claimed it wasn’t such a big deal during the modeling process to have that many relations to choose from. Here I’ll back up that claim. Primarily, it is thanks to the ‘Foundational Ontology and Reasoner enhanced axiomatiZAtion’ (FORZA) approach which includes the Guided ENtity reuse and class Expression geneRATOR (GENERATOR) method that was implemented in the OntoPartS-2 tool [1]. The general idea of the GENERATOR method is depicted in the figure below, which outlines two scenarios: one in which the experts perform the authoring of their domain ontology with the help of a foundational ontology, and the other one without a foundational ontology.


I think the pictures are clearer than the following text, but some prefer text, so here goes the explanation attempt. Let’s start with scenario A on the left-hand side of the figure: a modeller has a domain ontology and a foundational ontology and she wants to relate class two domain classes (indicated with C and D) and thus needs to select some object property. The first step is, indeed, selecting C and D (e.g., Human and Heart in an anatomy ontology); this is step (1) in the Figure.

Then (step 2) there are those long red arrows, which indicate that somehow there has to be a way to deal with the alignment of Human and of Heart to the relevant categories in the foundational ontology. This ‘somehow’ can be either of the following three options: (i) the domain ontology was already aligned to the foundational ontology, so that step (2) is executed automatically in the background and the modeler need not to worry, (ii) she manually carries out the alignment (assuming she knows the foundational ontology well enough), or, more likely, (iii) she chooses to be guided by a decision diagram that is specific to the selected foundational ontology. In case of option (ii) or (iii), she can choose to save it permanently or just use it for the duration of the application of the method. Step (3) is an automated process that moves up in the taxonomy to find the possible object properties. Here is where an automated reasoner comes into the equation, which can step-wise retrieve the parent class, en passant relying on taxonomic classification that offers the most up-to-date class hierarchy (i.e., including implicit subsumptions) and therewith avoiding spurious candidates. From a modeller’s viewpoint, one thus only has to select which classes to relate, and, optionally, align the ontology, so that the software will do the rest, as each time it finds a domain and range axiom of a relationship in which the parents of C and D participate, it is marked as a candidate property to be used in the class expression. Finally, the candidate object properties are returned to the user (step 4).

While the figure shows only one foundational ontology, one equally well can use a separate relation ontology, like PW or PWMT, which is just an implementation variant of scenario A: the relation ontology is also traversed upwards and on each iteration, the base ontology class is matched against relational ontology to find relations where the (parent of the) class is defined in a domain and range axiom, also until the top is reached before returning candidate relations.

The second scenario with a domain ontology only is a simplified version of option A, where the alignment step is omitted. In Figure-B above, GENERATOR would return object properties W and R as options to choose from, which, when used, would not generate an inconsistency (in this part of the ontology, at least). Without this guidance, a modeler could, erroneously, select, say, object property S, which, if the branches are disjoint, would result in an inconsistency, and if not declared disjoint, move class C from the left-hand branch to the one in the middle, which may be an undesirable deduction.

For the Heart and Human example, these entities are, in DOLCE terminology, physical objects, so that it will return structural parthood or plain parthood, if the PW ontology is used as well. If, on the other hand, say, Vase and Clay would have been the classes selected from the domain ontology, then a constitution relation would be proposed (be this with DOLCE, PW, or, say, GFO), for Vase is a physical object and Clay an amount of matter. Or with Limpopo and South Africa, a tangential proper parthood would be proposed, because they are both geographic entities.

The approach without the reasoner and without the foundational ontology decision diagram was tested with users, and showed that such a tool (OntoPartS) made the ontology authoring more efficient and accurate [2], and that aligning to DOLCE was the main hurdle for not seeing even more impressive differences. This is addressed with OntoPartS-2, so it ought to work better. What still remains to be done, admittedly, is that larger usability study with the updated version OntoPartS-2. In the meantime: if you use it, please let us know your opinion.



[1] Keet, C.M., Khan, M.T., Ghidini, C. Ontology Authoring with FORZA. 22nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’13). ACM proceedings, pp569-578. Oct. 27 – Nov. 1, 2013, San Francisco, USA.

[2] Keet, C.M., Fernandez-Reyes, F.C., Morales-Gonzalez, A. Representing mereotopological relations in OWL ontologies with OntoPartS. 9th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’12), Simperl et al. (eds.), 27-31 May 2012, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Springer, LNCS 7295, 240-254.

A few refreshing feminist articles—to point out and fix bugs in the game

Most articles on gender issues and feminism regurgitate the same old story and arguments, or are reports on more data and experiments with similar results popping up. Some articles or blog posts do bring something relatively new to the table, or apply a feminist analysis to something else, or explain things in a novel way that resonates better in this day and age. Upfront, to those who think gender issues and feminism is mostly rubbish, please read the parable by John Scalzi about the computer game, which is set at the lowest difficulty setting in the Game of the Real World for the Straight White Male; then read ‘those feminazi articles’ as one of pointing out bugs in the code, and of suggesting bug fixes or of a slight rewriting of the game logic to level the playing field. So, here are a few links to some such articles that otherwise may be snowed-under by the online articles on women in STEM, IT, management etc.

The feminist appraisal of Dirty Dancing over at Jezebel’s blog, or, as another one puts it “It’s the feminist sleeper agent of chick flicks” (and some class issues); after reading this, you won’t see the movie the same anymore. (Yes, I did watch the movie again, and the points made in the articles are valid, which, honestly, had escaped me when I watched it in the 80s.)

The many shortcomings of (old) white men futurology, who have a rather limited set of imaginations (fantasies?) in prognosticating. Maybe people in that (non-STEM) discipline already know about the issues and limitations, but I’m in another field of research, so it was new to me. Obviously, if futurology is a science, then it should not make a difference whether men or women do it, but that’s another discussion.

The Super-exploitation of women by Marlene Dixon on capitalism and patriarchy in cahoots to keep women as their unpaid servants and labour-producers wives. I did search for more recent analyses, but they don’t compare in content and clarity to this one.

I did not manage to find again the recent fine rant on feminist issues in Africa that are, at least in part, different from ‘the [white middle-class] feminism in the West’, but these will do on scope as well: feminism here on the continent driven by African women who really do have lots of agency (e.g., all the way up to presidents/prime ministers and Nobel Peace Prize winners) and where certain types of ‘help’ from the outside is counterproductive for it enforces dependence. An example of a currently hot topic here (and, afaik, never was in Europe) is the need for free sanitary pads for girls whose family cannot afford them, so that they can keep going to school to learn rather than miss out on it for a few days each month.

Finally, a slightly crudely formulated article that discusses a whining “pick-up artist” who is “cockblocked by redistribution” in Denmark, a socialist-like and feminist-friendly country. Squeezed between the chatter are notes on flaws on evolutionary psychology and the criticism on feminism as an individual pursuit (e.g., ‘lean in’) versus as a collective goal. Even the pick-up artist eventually notes “we can’t fulfill basic human rights for all without viewing everyone as equal”.

New OWL files for the (extended) taxonomy of part-whole relations

Once upon a time (surely >6 years ago) I made an OWL file of the taxonomy of part-whole relations [1], which contains several parthood relations and a few meronyic-only ones that in natural language are considered ‘part’ but are not so according to mereology (like participation, membership). Some of these relations were defined with a specific domain and range that was a DOLCE category (it could just as well have been, say, GFO). Looking at it recently, I noticed it was actually a bit scruffy (but I’ll leave it here nonetheless), and more has happened in this area over the years. So, it was time for an update on contents and on design.

For the record on how it’s done and to serve, perhaps, as a comparison exercise on modeling, here’s what I did. First of all, I started over, so as to properly type the relations to DOLCE categories, with the DOLCE IRIs rather than duplicated as DOLCE-category-with-my-IRI. As DOLCE is way too big and slows down reasoning, I made a module of DOLCE, called DOLCEmini, mainly by removing the irrelevant object properties, though re-adding the SOB, APO and NAPO that’s in D18 but not in DOLCE-lite from DLP3791. This reduced the file from DOLCE-lite’s 534 axioms, 37 classes, 70 OPs, in SHI to DOLCEmini’s 388 axioms, 40 classes, 43 OPs, also in SHI, and I changed the ontology IRI to where DOLCEmini will be put online.

Then I created a new ontology, PW.owl, imported DOLCEmini, added the taxonomy of part-whole relations from [1] right under owl:topObjectProperty, with domain and range axioms using the DOLCE categories as in the definitions, under part-whole. This was then extended with the respective inverses under whole-part, all the relevant proper part versions of them (with inverses), transitivity added for all (as the reasoner isn’t doing it [2]) annotations added, and then aligned to some DOLCE properties with equivalences. This makes it to 524 axioms and 79 object properties.

I deprecated subquantityOf (annotated with ‘deprecated’ and subsumed by a new property ‘deprecated’). Several new stuff relations and their inverses were added (such as portions), and annotated them. This made it to the PW ontology of 574 axioms (356 logical axioms) and 92 object properties (effectively, for part-whole relations: 92 – 40 from dolce – 3 for deprecated = 49).

As we made an extension with mereotopology [3] (and also that file wasn’t great, though did the job nevertheless [4]), but one that not everybody may want to put up with, yet a new file was created, PWMT. PWMT imports PW (and thus also DOLCEmini) and was extended with the main mereotopological relations from [3], and relevant annotations were added. I skipped property disjointness axioms, because they don’t go well with transitivity, which I assumed to be more important. This makes PWMT into one of 605 (380 logical) axioms and 103 object properties, with, effectively, for parts: 103 – 40 from dolce – 3 for deprecated – 1 connection = 59 object properties.

That’s a lot of part-whole relations, but fear not. The ‘Foundational Ontology and Reasoner enhanced axiomatiZAtion’ (FORZA) and its tool that incorporates with the Guided ENtity reuse and class Expression geneRATOR (GENERATOR) method [4] describes a usable approach how that can work out well and has a tool for the earlier version of the owl file. FORZA uses an optional decision diagram for the DOLCE categories as well as the automated reasoner so that it can select and propose to you those relations that, if used in an axiom, is guaranteed not to lead to an inconsistency that would be due to the object property hierarchy or its domain and range axioms. (I’ll write more about it in the next post.)

Ah well, even if the OWL files are not used, it was still a useful exercise in design, and at least I’ll have a sample case for next year’s ontology engineering course on ‘before’ and ‘after’ about questionable implementation and (relatively) good implementation without the need to resorting to criticizing other owl files… (hey, even the good and widely used ontologies have a bunch of pitfalls, whose amount is not statistically significantly different from ontologies made by novices [5]).



[1] Keet, C.M., Artale, A. Representing and Reasoning over a Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations. Applied Ontology, 2008, 3(1-2):91-110.

[2] Keet, C.M. Detecting and Revising Flaws in OWL Object Property Expressions. 18th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW’12), Oct 8-12, Galway, Ireland. Springer, LNAI 7603, 252-266.

[3] Keet, C.M., Fernandez-Reyes, F.C., Morales-Gonzalez, A. Representing mereotopological relations in OWL ontologies with OntoPartS. 9th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’12), Simperl et al. (eds.), 27-31 May 2012, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Springer, LNCS 7295, 240-254.

[4] Keet, C.M., Khan, M.T., Ghidini, C. Ontology Authoring with FORZA. 22nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’13). ACM proceedings, pp569-578. Oct. 27 – Nov. 1, 2013, San Francisco, USA.

[5] Keet, C.M., Suarez-Figueroa, M.C., Poveda-Villalon, M. Pitfalls in Ontologies and TIPS to Prevent Them. In: Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: IC3K 2013 Selected papers. Fred, A., Dietz, J.L.G., Liu, K., Filipe, J. (Eds.). Springer, CCIS 454, pp. 115-131. 2015.

An exhaustive OWL species classifier

Students enrolled in my ontology engineering course have to do a “mini-project” on a particular topic, chosen from a list of topics, such as on ontology quality, verbalisations, or language features, and may be theoretical or software development-oriented. In terms of papers, the most impressive result was OntoPartS that resulted in an ESWC2012 paper with the two postgraduate students [1], but also quite some other useful results have come out of it over the past 7 years that I’m teaching it in one form or another. This year’s top project in terms of understanding the theory, creativity to do something with it that hasn’t been done before, and working software using Semantic Web technologies was the “OWL Classifier” by Aashiq Parker, Brian Mc George, and Muhummad Patel.

The OWL classifier classifies an OWL ontology in any of its ‘species’, which can be any of the 8 specified in the standard, i.e., the 3 OWL 1 ones and the 5 OWL 2 ones. It also gives information on the DL ‘alphabet soup’—which axioms use which language feature with which letter, and an explanation of the letters—and reports on which axioms are the ones that violate a particular species. An example is shown in the following screenshot, with an exercise ontology on phone points:


The students’ motivation to develop it was because they had to learn about DLs and the OWL species, but Protégé 4.x and 5.x don’t tell you the species and the interfaces have only a basic, generic, explanation for the DL expressivity. I concur. And is has gotten worse with Protégé 5.0: if an ontology is outside OWL 2 DL, it still says the ‘old’ DL expressivity plus an easy-to-overlook tiny red triangle in the top-right corner once the reasoner was invoked (using Hermit 1.3.8) or a cryptic “internal reasoner error” message (Pellet), whereas with Protégé 4.x you at least got a pop-up box complaining about the ‘non-simple role…’ issues. Compare that with the neat feedback like this:


It is also very ‘sensitive’—more so than one would be with Protégé alone. Any remote ontology imports have to be available at the location specified with the IRI. Violations due to wrong datatype usage is a known issue with the OWL Reasoner Evaluation set of ontologies, and which we’ve bumped into with the TDD testing as well. The tool doesn’t accept the invalid ones (wrong datatypes—one can select any XML data type in Protégé, but the OWL standard doesn’t support them all). In addition, a language such as OWL 2 QL has further restrictions on types of datatypes. (It is also not trivial to figure out manually whether some ontology is suitable for OBDA or not.) So I tried one from the Ontop website’s examples, presumably in OWL 2 QL:


Strictly speaking, it isn’t in OWL 2 QL! The OWL 2 QL profile does have xsd:integer as datatype [2], not xsd:int, as, and I quote the standard, “the intersection of the value spaces of any set of these datatypes [including xsd:integer but not xsd:int, mk] is either empty or infinite, which is necessary to obtain the desired computational properties”. [UPDATE 24-6, thanks to Martin Rezk:] The main toolset for OWL 2 QL, Ontop, actually does support xsd:int and a few other datatypes beyond the standard (e.g.: also float and boolean). There is similar syntax fun to be had with the pizza ontology: the original one is indeed in OWL DL, but if you open the file in Protégé 5 and save it, it is not in OWL DL anymore but in OWL 2 DL, for the save operation snuck in an owl#NamedIndividual. Click on the thumbnails below to see the before-and-after in the OWL classifier. This is not an increase in expressiveness—both are in SHOIN—just syntax and tooling.







The OWL Classifier can thus classify both OWL 1 and OWL 2 ontologies, which it does through a careful orchestration of two OWL APIs: v1.4.3 was the last one to support OWL 1 species checking, whereas for the OWL 2 ontologies, the latest version is used (v4.2.3). The jar file and the source code are freely available on github for anyone to use and to take further. Turning it into a Protégé plugin very likely will make at least next year’s ontology engineering students happy. Comments, questions, and suggestion are welcome!



[1] Keet, C.M., Fernandez-Reyes, F.C., Morales-Gonzalez, A. Representing mereotopological relations in OWL ontologies with OntoPartS. 9th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’12), Simperl et al. (eds.), 27-31 May 2012, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Springer, LNCS 7295, 240-254.

[2] Boris Motik, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Zhe Wu, Achille Fokoue, Carsten Lutz, eds. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles. W3C Recommendation, 11 December 2012 (2nd ed.).

Reflections on ESWC 2016: where are the ontologies papers?

Although I did make notes of the presentations I attended at the 13th Extended Semantic Web Conference a fortnight ago, with the best intentions to write a conference report, it’s going to be an opinion piece of some sort, on ontology engineering, or, more precisely: the lack thereof at ESWC2016.

That there isn’t much on ontology research at ISWC over the past several years, I already knew, both from looking at the accepted papers and the grapevine, but ESWC was still known to be welcoming to ontology engineering. ESWC 2016, however, had only one “vocabularies, schemas, and ontologies” [yes, in that order] session (and one on reasoning), with only the paper by Agnieszka and me solidly in the ‘ontologies’/ontology engineering bracket, with new theory, a tool implementing it, experiments, and a methodology sketch [1]. The other two papers were more on using ontologies, in annotating documents and in question answering. My initial thought was: “ah, hm, bummer, so ESWC also shifted focus”. There also were few ontologists at the conference, so I wondered whether the others moved on to a non-LD related field, alike I did shift focus a bit thanks/due to funded projects in adjacent fields (I did try to get funds for ontology engineering projects, though).

To my surprise, however, it appeared that a whopping 27 papers had been submitted to the “vocabularies, schemas, and ontologies” track. It was just that only three had made it through the review process. Asking around a bit, the comments were sort of like when I was co-chair of the track for ESWC 2014: ‘meh’, not research (e.g., just developing a domain ontology), minor delta, need/relevance unclear. And looking again at my reviews for 2015 and 2016, in addition to those reasons: failing to consider relevant related work, or a lacking a comparison with related work (needed to demonstrate improvement), and/or some issues with the theory (formal stuff). So, are we to blame and ‘suicidal’ or become complacent and lazy? It’s not like the main problems have been solved and developing an ontology has become a piece of cake now, compared to, say, 10 years ago. And while it is somewhat tempting to do some paper/presentation bashing, I won’t go into specifics, other than that at two presentations I attended, where they did show a section of an ontology, there was even the novice error of confusing classes with instances.

Anyway, there used to be more ontology papers in earlier ESWCs. To check that subjective impression, I did a quick-and-dirty check of the previous 12 editions as well, of which 11 had named sessions. Here’s the overview of the number of ontology papers over the years (minus the first one as it did not have named sections):


The aggregates are a bit ‘dirty’ as the 2010 increase grouped ontologies together with reasoning (if done for 2016, we’d have made it to 6), as was 2007 a bit flexible on that, and 2015 had 3 ontologies papers + 3 ontology matching & summarization, so stretching it a bit in that direction, as was the case in 2013. The number of papers in 2006 is indeed that much, with sessions on ontology engineering (3 papers), ontology evaluation (3), ontology alignment (5), ontology evolution (3), and ontology learning (3). So, there is indeed a somewhat downward trend.

Admitted, ‘ontologies’ is over the initial hype and it probably now requires more preparation and work to come up with something sufficiently new than it was 10 years ago. Looking at the proceedings of 5 years ago rather, the 7 ontologies papers were definitely not trivial, and I still remember the one on removing redundancies [2], the introduction of two new matching evaluation measures and comparison with other methods [3], and automatically detecting related ontology versions [4]. Five ontology papers then had new theory and some experiments, and two had extensive experiments [5,6]. 2012 had 6 ontologies papers, some interesting, but something like the ‘SKOS survey’ is a dated thing (nice, but ESWC-level?) and ISOcat isn’t great (but I’m biased here, as I don’t like it that noun classes aren’t in there, and it is hard to access).

Now what? Work more/harder on ontology engineering if you don’t want to have it vanish from ESWC. That’s easier said than done, though. But I suppose it’s fair to say to not discard the ESWC venue as being ‘not an ontology venue anymore’, and instead use these six months to the deadline to work hard enough. Yet, who knows, maybe we are harder to ourselves when reviewing papers compared to other tracks. Either way, it is something to reflect upon, as an 11% acceptance rate for a track, like this year, isn’t great. ESWC16 in general had good papers and interesting discussions. While the parties don’t seem to be as big as they used to be, there sure is a good time to be had as well.


p.s.: Cretan village, where I stayed for the first time, was good and had a nice short walk on the beach to the conference hotel, but beware that the mosquitos absent from Knossos Hotel all flock to that place.



[1] Keet, C.M., Lawrynowicz, A. Test-Driven Development of Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 13th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’16). Springer LNCS 9678, 642-657. 29 May – 2 June, 2016, Crete, Greece.

[2] Stephan Grimm and Jens Wissmann. Elimination of redundancy in ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’11). Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 29 May – 2 June 2011. Springer LNCS 6643, 260-274.

[3] Xing Niu, Haofen Wang, GangWu, Guilin Qi, and Yong Yu. Evaluating the Stability and Credibility of Ontology Matching Methods. In: Proceedings of the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’11). Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 29 May – 2 June 2011. Springer LNCS 6643, 275-289.

[4] Carlo Alocca. Automatic Identification of Ontology Versions Using Machine Learning Techniques. In: Proceedings of the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’11). Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 29 May – 2 June 2011. Springer LNCS 6643, 275-289.

[5] Keet, C.M. The use of foundational ontologies in ontology development: an empirical assessment. In: Proceedings of the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’11). Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 29 May – 2 June 2011. Springer LNCS 6643, 321-335.

[6] Wei Hu, Jianfeng Chen, Hang Zhang, and Yuzhong Qu. How Matchable Are Four Thousand Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’11). Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 29 May – 2 June 2011. Springer LNCS 6643, 290-304.