Lines Matching refs:ontology
347 the OWL ontology into the sublanguages OWL Full (all of OWL, under the RDF semantics, undecidable \cite{w3c:owl2-rdf-based-semantics}), OWL DL (all of OWL, under the direct semantics \cite{w3c:owl2-direct-semantics}), and the so-called OWL Profiles (i.e.\ proper sublanguages) OWL EL, OWL QL, and OWL RL \cite{w3c:owl2-profiles}.
922 and the target ontology; the other names (none in this concrete case) are implicitly the same. A mapping of a single name is defined with
1037 Existing ontologies for ambient assisted living (e.g.\ the OpenAAL\footnote{\url{http://openaal.org}} OWL ontology) cover the \emph{core} of these concepts; they provide at least classes (or generic superclasses) corresponding to the concepts highlighted in \textbf{bold}. However, that does not cover the scenario completely. In particular, there are relevant concepts (here: space and time, \underline{underlined}), which are not covered at the required level of complexity. OpenAAL says that appointments have a date and that rooms can be connected to each other, but not what exactly that means. Foundational ontologies and spatial calculi, often formalized in first-order logic, cover space and time at the level of complexity required by a central controller of an apartment and by an autonomously navigating wheelchair.
1051 \item Heterogeneous specification allows for reusing the OpenAAL OWL ontology, but at the same time formalizing a first-order spatial calculus.
1053 \item As Common Logic module extends the previously imported OWL ontology, it has access to all entities of the OWL ontology by name; in particular, we can specify that two rooms are connected (in terms of the OpenAAL terminology) if certain conditions in terms of our Common Logic module, or certain conditions in terms of OpenAAL hold.
1066 %% Import the OpenAAL OWL ontology.
1117 In the previous example, we established a link between an OWL ontology and a Common Logic ontology by reusing elements of the signature of the OWL ontology (concretely: OpenAAL's \texttt{is-in-room} predicate) in the Common Logic ontology.
1119 \HetCASL's view mechanism offers an alternative to that. A view from one ontology to another ontology in the same logic has been shown in Sect.~\ref{sec:relat-interpr}, but it is also possible to have views across logics, as long as there is a translation between these logics that is known to \Hets (cf.\ Sect.~\ref{comorphisms}).
1121 The following example, which is available as \texttt{Ontology/Examples/TimeInOWLandCL.het} in the \Hets library \cite{hets-library:URL}, establishes a view between the OWL Time ontology and its reimplementation in Common Logic, \ednote{CL: There is no way to make that explicit in \HetCASL, is there?\\ TM: you mean the datatype stuff that the OWL to CL translation generates? We should modify the translation to generate this only if really needed.\\ CL: No, I just thought (and was wrong) that \HetCASL had no way of explicitly choosing a logic translation. But not I don't understand what \emph{you} mean. Maybe it's related to the error that I get when loading the file; see my ticket.}using the ``OWL22CommonLogic'' translation:
1507 serves as semantics-oriented representation format and ontology