ICCD2OWL: an ICCD to OWL data compiler
1
A. Aiello, 1 S. Brandi, 1 M. Mango Furnari and 2 F. Proto
1
Istituto di Cibernetica “E. Caianiello”- CNR
E-mail: {a.aiello, mf }@cib.na.cnr.it s.brandi@remuna.org
2
Dipartimento di Discipline Storiche “E. Lepore” Università Federico II di Napoli
E-mail: fiona.proto@virgilio.it
assets and those that describe the immaterial assets, and not
least those related to the authority files and to the multimedia
Abstract— This paper outlines the problems the authors documentation, have been investigated. Moreover, considering
came across when, after the realization of ReMuNaICCD, an their importance in achieving a comprehensive description of
ontology supposed to allow a more articulate use of the present the excavations, recognitions and archaeological essays, the
cultural heritage information system, they approached the task
cards that were structured by the ICCD in order to document
of populating it with instances.
To permit immediate use of the ontology, it was necessary to the stratigraphic units have also been studied and transferred
develop ICCD2OWL, a data compiler able to translate the data into the ontology.
recorded in the available ICCD cards into class instances and It was necessary to make a careful study of the ICCD cards.
property instances for the ontology. The first task was to design First of all, in order to distinguish two macro-groups of
formal codifications for both the ICCD attribute-value data fields: those giving information about the object the card is
model and the ReMuNaICCD ontological data model. Then a
program for converting each of them into the other was devoted to, and those giving information on the card itself.
required. Inside these two macro-groups, we have characterized the
Actually, the issue faced in this paper comes under the wider fields designed to supply identifications and characterizations,
topic of the mappings between simple attribute-value data the fields designed to report events, and the fields that
structures and ontological representations of the knowledge or, determine relations with other elements (documents, other
in more general terms, between not-object oriented models and
assets, other cards etc).
object oriented models.
The most remarkable conclusion is that part of the effort In order to establish which classes had to be created, we
required is due to the semantic inadequacies of the ontology have distinguished on one hand, fields that appear without
languages currently available. Such inadequacies make any variations in all ICCD cards, from those designed for taking
attempt at accomplishing semantic interoperability based on into account of specific typologies of assets. On the other
those languages alone unproductive. Therefore, it is evident hand, we have determined, for every field, whether it was
that the methodologies and results presented here could
profitably be used in a more general framework like the directly or indirectly related to the subject catalogued by the
Semantic Web. card.
ReMuNaICCD is not in any sense a simple ICCD fields
I. INTRODUCTION transposition into an object oriented model. In order to
In designing ReMuNaICCD, a formal ontology for the represent all the aspects of the cultural assets and the events
Cultural Heritage domain [1], we had as fundamental reference that happened to them, it has proved to be a new data model,
the recommendations issued by the Central Institute for the built from scratch.
Catalogue and Documentation (ICCD). The research was To summarise, starting from the ICCD cards, which
supported by the Virtual Museum of Naples project ReMuNa1 include 27 fields of the Bibliography card, to the nearly 300
(which stands for Network of Neapolitan Museums) and fields of the Architectural card, with an average of 200 fields
SIABeC2 (Information System Applied to the Cultural per card, we elaborated ReMuNaICCD.v2.0, an ontology of
Heritage). 381 classes (199 are Appellation subclasses), 473
This project was motivated by the necessity of having an objectProperties, 458 dataTypeProperties and about 750
ontology model compatible with the information system instances (nearly all of them were taken from the ICCD
currently deployed inside the institutions that are in charge of vocabulary).
the safekeeping, maintenance and valorisation of the cultural ReMuNaICCD has been written using the subset of OWL
called OWL Lite [2]. OWL is the acronym of Web Ontology
assets.
Language [3], a standardized language for the specification of
To this end, the ICCD cards that describe the material formal ontologies, recommended by the W3C. The main
factor in choosing OWL Lite was the ascertainment that not
1
The ReMuNa project is financed by the MIUR with the Law n.488 only it offers a sufficient expressivity, but also guarantees a
initiative of Cluster priori computational tractability of the final product [4].
2
The works [5] [6] and [7] of Guarino et al. on the formal
The project SIABeC is financed with the projectCentro regionale di ontologies foundations, those of Gangemi et al. on the
Competenza per lo sviluppo ed il trasferimento della innovazione
tecnologica (INNOVA) P.O.R. Campania misura 3.16. ontology patterns [8], the guide lines proposed by Alan Rector
et al. [9] and the newest experiences reported online by the subclasses:
OEP [10], have strongly influenced the development of our The E n d u r a n t , i.e. the class of the subjects/objects
ontology. represented by abstracting them from all possible contingent
Since the start of our activities in this field, we have used considerations, namely, attributes and relations that are
Protégé as the only tool for editing our ontologies. Protégé is understandable if and only if they make reference to certain
a free, open source ontology editor and knowledge base specific space-time contexts.
framework [11] [12]. Furthermore, we directly linked Protégé The Perdurant, the class of the observations in which the
and the system Sesame [13] [14] for the exchange of subjects/objects emerge in a given space-time context, and
ontologies through the Internet, by means of a plug-in [15] exhibit a set of attributes and relations that are specific to that
produced inside the project ReMuNa [16]. context.
In section II, we introduce the main features of the The Space-Time Region, the class that models the space
ontological model: the uppermost components of the class
and time where the observations are detected.
hierarchy and the fundamental ontology pattern. Section III
Besides the subsumption relation, that determines the
gives the basis for the development of the compiler. In the
classes’ hierarchy, in an ontology, classes are interlinked
first subsection, the input and the output data models are
through a network of specific relations that formalizes not
compared; in the second subsection, it is explained how to use
only the individual meaning of each class but also, and more
the Historicism Pattern in order to get “Conceptual
interestingly, the meaning of their staying together.
Translations”. Section IV, in five subsections, describes the
It has been discovered by Gangemi et al. [8], that some not
formalisms adopted in order to a) serialize the ontology
trivial “conceptual structures” of the domain prove to be
patterns, b) identify the instances, c) codify the classes, d) use
represented by “semantically autonomous” clusters inside the
global variables, and e) define a configuration file. Section V
ontological network, each involving many classes and many
outlines the processes that the compiler performs when
properties, and sometimes even meta-properties (properties of
translating ICCD to ReMuNaICCD and viceversa. In Section
properties). Those “conceptual structures” are totally lost when
VI, some conclusions are summarized and a question is asked:
the ontology is coded using the currently available languages
aren’t the current ontologies' formalizations absolutely
for ontology, namely RDF/RDFS and OWL. Indeed, those
inadequate for solving the problem of semantic
languages do not offer any syntactical constructs that permit
interoperability?
the representation of ontological substructures, and even less
the essential accompanying instructions for their use.
II. THE ONTOLOGICAL MODEL
Currently, ontologies are represented as oriented graphs in
The ontology ReMuNaICCD has been built taking account which the nodes represent the classes and the arcs represent the
of the most common top-level ontologies, in particular properties. Therefore, any “conceptual structure” relevant to
DOLCE [17] and ICOM/CIDOC-CRM [18]. Here, we the domain will be represented by some pattern of connected
introduce only a small part of the ReMuNaICCD classes and node-arc-node triples abstracted from the whole graph.
properties, just those that are involved in the topic dealt with Actually, ontology patterns, made of classes and correlating
in this paper. properties, constitute an optimal instrument for highlighting
The root of the classes’ hierarchy is the class Entity. It is common features and for generalizing complex relationships or
the class that represents the universe we are interested in and is decomposing them in their constitutive elements.
articulated in two radically different subclasses (Fig. 1): The Historicism Pattern illustrated in Fig. 2 gives the most
Concrete: the more general class that comprises all the important conceptual structure in the ontology ReMuNaICCD.
concepts that model the domain that we have to analyze and to It shows how the various kinds of historical reports are
formally represent. represented in terms of the fundamental classes, i.e.
Endurant, Perdurant, and Space-Time Region and some
Entity sub properties of comprises, the most general objectProperty
that formalizes the specific tools for performing the analysis of
subclass_of Concrete.
Concrete Appellation In this ontology pattern, Participation, a subclass of
Perdurant, plays the role of the basic atomic module by
subclass_of means of which all the classes representing the various kinds
Endurant Perdurant Time-Space Region of historical reports can be built. The constructors are some
(non-transitive) sub properties of comprises. Participation
formalizes the observation of a single object (has_present =
Fig. 1. The ReMuNaICCD’s top-level ontology Endurant) while it plays a certain role (has_role = Role), in
participating in an elementary interaction (participates_in =
Appellation: the root of the dictionaries that were created H i s t o r y _ F r a g m e n t ), at a certain place and time
and are controlled by third parties, whose semantics remains (has_space-time_location = Space-Time_Region).
alien to ReMuNaICCD.Concrete is divided into three disjoint
sequence of attribute-value pairs concerning the Cultural
Heritage. The admissible values of the attributes depend on
Concrete
the cultural asset in question. In any case, the assignment of
comprises values to attribute is not always compulsory, just as repeated
subclass_of assignments of single independent values or groups of values
has_space-time_ can be permitted.
Endurant Perdurant location Space-Time
Region Actually, the technical specifications of the ICCD, i.e. the
sequential file format, and its intrinsic characteristics, i.e. the
subclass_of arbitrariness of the number of the fields and the presence of
has_ functional dependences among the fields, mean that the results
present
already reported in the literature, like many concerning
Participation Historical_Period
role relational databases, are irrelevant, making it necessary to start
type again from scratch.
participates characterizes
Historical_Event The ontological structure described in the previous
_in paragraph constitutes the basic skeleton of ReMuNaICCD.
report_of That structure was enriched with classes, properties and
History_Fragment
instances deduced by the various segments (paragraphs, fields
type
and subfields) of which the ICCD cards are made up.
It must be remarked that, the modalities for determining the
Fig. 2. The Historicism Pattern
relations in the ICCD schema are radically different from those
used in the ontological model. An example of this can be
Participation has a particular role because, through the
given by comparing the modalities that the two models adopt
primitive relation has_present, it embeds the Endurant into
in order to deal with the relationship between the
the space-time context (“Endurant present_in Perdurant”). subjects/objects and the events to which they participate.
Indeed, Participation is the class that binds the single Let us consider a subject “X” that carries out one of the
Endurant to the attribute and the relation (i.e. the properties following two functions:
h a s _ r o l e and p a r t i c i p a t e s _ i n ) that describe its (a), the function of a scientific director in a survey which
manifestation in the specific space-time context indicated by enabled the finding of a good “α”
has_space-time_location. (b), the function of a collaborator responsible for compiling
The class History_Fragment, a subclass of Perdurant, an ICCD card of the good “α”
models the interactions. Namely, two or more instances of then, according to the ICCD data model:
P a r t i c i p a t i o n are connected b y t h e property in the case (a), the name of the subject “X” has to be
p a r t i c i p a t e s _ i n to the s a m e instance of reported in the simple fields of the ICCD card of the good
History_Fragment: the Endurants that are present_in “α”, which refer to the Scientific Director of the Survey,
those Participations are intended to interact with each other which have enabled the finding of the good “α”;
playing the roles indicated inside their respective in the case (b), the name of “X” has to be reported in the
Participations. fields that refer to the Collaborator responsible for the
The class Historical_Event models observations which compilation of the ICCD card.
are more complex than the single History_Fragment; many In ReMuNaICCD, instead,
History_Fragment s can be composed in a single in the case (a), the subject “X” is an instance of Person,
Historical_Event through the property is_report_of and present_in, an instance of Participation, with the
its inverse has_report. attribute role set to Scientific_Director; that instance of
Finally, every entity comprising whatever number of Participation p a r t i c i p a t e s _ i n an instance of
Historical_Events is defined as Historical_Period. History_Fragment that is report_of an instance of
The Historicism Pattern, through the property role of the Survey (subclass of Historical_Event);
class Participation and the property type, defined for any in the case b), the subject “X” is an instance of Person
Concrete, can describe the conceptual structure of any kind that, present_in a Participation with the role of
of historical report, even reports which are much more C o l l a b o r a t o r , p a r t i c i p a t e s _ i n an instance of
complex than those codified by the ICCD schema. History_Fragment of the type Compilation_of_ICCD_
card
III. FROM ICCD TO REMUNAICCD
A. Comparing the two data models B. The Conceptual Translations
As already mentioned, the ICCD format3 consists of a After the foregoing analysis, which showed the basic
conceptual elements of the ICCD recommendations, a
3
The technical specifications c a n be found at complex re-composition process becomes necessary. Firstly,
http://www.iccd.beniculturali.it/standard/
we must find the correspondences between every ICCD field RSTN and RSTR, the data compiler has to build the instances
and the elements that constitute our ontology. Then, every represented by the red boxes and, at the same time, implement
segment of the ICCD cards must be associated with some the mapping given in Table 1: the contents of the fields in the
ontology pattern that connects “semantically” its ontological first column become the values indicated in the second
representative to the class describing the card’s main subject. column (references are made using the same symbols as Fig.
Therefore, we need to design some formal languages (XML 3); the third column gives the classes of the instances related
documents) that enable us to express: a) the correspondences to the values referenced in the second column. The other boxes
‘ICCD field – ontology element’, b) the ontology patterns, in the pattern represent either built-in instances (in yellow) or
and c) how the compiler must use the previous data so that the instances (in black) that transpire from the translation of other
mechanical translation of an ICCD card into classes, properties ICCD fields.
and instances, does in fact lead to the expected codifications.
To give an example of this process, let us consider the card
for the archaeological find (RA) and its structured field ICCD Instance name Instance Class
reserved to the restoration data. An archaeological find, field or property value or property
reported in the card RA is dealt with by ReMuNaICCD as an RSTD TR Time_Region
instance of the class Archaeological_Find (subclass of RSTS situation(of v2) Situation
(of Restoration)
Endurant), while a report about a restoration is dealt with as RSTE v4 Juridical Person
an instance of R e s t o r a t i o n , a subclass of RSTN v5 Physical Person
History_Fragment. The ontology pattern instance
shown in Fig.3 describes how Archaeological_Find Table 1. Mapping ICCD fields vs ontological elements
instances are related to the ontological correspondents of the
ICCD fields devoted to restorations: RSTD (date), RSTS IV. AN OUTLINE OF THE ICCD2OWL FORMALISM.
(situation), RSTE (responsible agency), RSTN (operator) and
RSTR (financing agency). A. The pattern’s serialization
To make a codification which is machine-understandable,
we serialized all the patterns and all the rules concerning the
has_present Arch_Find matchings into XML documents.
Time-Region AFX In order to optimize the reuse, patterns and fields are defined
TR Participation separately.
role Role
P1 v1
has_time_
location Binding
has_present ICCD field/ RSTE
Jur_Pers
Pattern Arch_Find-Jur_Pers-name
Restoration v4
History_Fragment
Participation
V2, SITUATIONY role Role Binding v1
P2 v3 Parameter/ ”Restored_object”
has_participant value
_in has_present
Jur_Pers v2
v4 ”Restoration”
(2) Participation
Y role Role
SituationY P3 v3 v3
”Financial_Support”
has_present
Phy_Pers
v4 v4
Participation @@RSTE@@
role Role
P4 Start Class Archaeological_Find
v5 Condition:
TSK=”RA” TSK
Fig. 3. Example of Historicism Pattern instance ”RA”
Of course, in the graph, the boxes represent instances: the
upper part of each box contains the name of the instance’s
class and the lower part contains the name of the instance (in Table 2. Example of ICCD field/Pattern binding
the case of Restoration, the value SituationY of the
property situation is also reported). The patterns are referable by unique assigned identifiers so
that each ICCD field can be bound to one or more precise
To transfer the contents of the fields RSTD, RSTS, RSTE,
patterns. Moreover, since the same ICCD field can be bound The foregoing policy is implemented by coding, in the
to different patterns, depending on the context, our formalism configuration document of ICCD2OWL, the properties that
also considers even the possibility of declaring parameters as mostly carry identity criteria and the rules according to which
well as conditions on the choice of the bindings. starting from their values, the instances’ identifiers must be
For example, inside the ICCD, there is the field Card composed.
Type (TSK) that specifies the subject of the card, namely the
C. Class use case specifications
“starting class”. It can be an Archaeological Find or an
Archaeological Site or whatever other cultural good or asset. It As we have already seen, the same class can be instantiated
is clear, that on the basis of this piece of information, the for representing entities that receive the values of the same
choice of the bindings proves to be restricted and the property from different ICCD fields. For example, an instance
parameters that must be passed are determined. The code that of the class Physical_Person receives the value of name
formalizes this choice, for the previous example, is sketched from the field RCGA (scientific advisory) if the ICCD card
in Table 2. reports that entity as a Scientific Director. Differently, in
The patterns are serialized as lists of triples whose the case the entity is reported in the ICCD card as an
elements contain parameters that assume values according to Authority, then the instance of the class Physical_Person
the fields of the ICCD cards. The lists may contain names of must receive the value of name from the field FUR (the
other patterns that can be considered as sub patterns of those collaborator responsible).
codified by the lists. For example, the codification of the
pattern Arch_Find-Jur_Pers-name quoted in Table 2 is
sketched in Table 3.
Class name inside Physical_Person
the config file
Pattern to the instance’s ID @@PREFIX@@Phy_Pers_@@v1@@
Pattern Id Arch_Find-Jur_Pers (referred by v1)
In param. v1,v2,v3,v4
Class name Arch_Find-@@v2@@ inside ReMuNaICCD @@PREFIX@@Physical_Person
subpattern v1,v2
Out param.
Juridical_Person-@@v2@@ Table 4. Example of the use case specification of a class
v3,v4
For the correct interpretation of the ICCD cards,
ICCD2OWL receives the information it needs in cases like the
example above by means of pieces of code like the one shown
Juridical_Person
in Table 4.
name@@v4@@
evaluating D. The global variables
variables The fact that each ontological pattern involves more than
one ICCD field, implies serious difficulties when it comes to
translating one by one the fields of the same card.
Table 3. Example of pattern serialization ICCD2OWL has to create a single pattern of instances that
translate all of the fields involved, and cannot repeat the same
pattern for each field involved. Moreover, more cards may
B. The identity of the instances refer to the same entities involved in the same kind of
Every time one proceeds to an object oriented representation, ontological pattern: what are the instances that can be reused
it is necessary to choose a means of recognizing and and what are those that cannot?
distinguishing the various instances of a certain class. Returning to our first example on the restoration data, we
The simplest possible approach is that of assigning unique can notice that the five ICCD fields RSTD, RSTS, RSTE,
progressive identifiers to the instances as they are created. But RSTN and RSTR all refer to the same ontology pattern
this requires introducing some rules for detecting, identifiers represented in Fig. 3. This means, for example, that exactly
apart, if two or more instances are equivalent, i.e. they refer to the same instance of the pattern Arch_Find-Restoration,
the same entity. For example, before introducing whatever implemented for translating the first field RSTD, must be
new instance, it would be necessary to verify whether no reused in the translation of all four of the other fields.
instance representing the same entity is already recorded. Of course, there can be more than one ICCD card,
In designing ICCD2OWL, a different policy was preferred. reporting different restorations of the same archaeological find
Each instance whose scope is wider then one single card is in which the participants remain the same. In this case, the
endowed with an identifier both unique and significant for the translations of the various restoration data will be made by
entity that it represents. Every time two or more cards refer to means of patterns that share the instance of the endurants
the same entity, it is ossible to create several instances all (Physical_Person, Juridical_Person, Archaeological
having the same identifier: subsequently, the system is able to _Find_Person, etc.) but, for each restoration, each with its
detect the duplications and to delete them. own time location at least, different sets of perdurants
( R e s t o r a t i o n and Participation) a n d different translate either ICCD cards into ReMuNaICCD instances or,
Time_Region must be instantiated. viceversa, ReMuNaICCD instances into ICCD cards.
In other words, if in translating RSTD the compiler A. Compiling ICCD
creates two instances Participation_X1 and Participation_X2,
then in translating the RSTS field the same instances Until now we have spoken about translating from ICCD to
Participation_X1 and Participation_X2 must be reused. ReMuNaICCD. The following steps are performed as the
Viceversa, to record further restorations of the same good, it ICCD file is sequentially read:
will be necessary to implement new pairs of instances of 1. an ICCD field is read;
Participation. 2. the appropriate variables are instantiated;
In order to manage this distinction, the configuration file of 3. the ontological pattern is found that matches the field;
ICCD2OWL is provided with global variables that are created 4. the elements of the pattern are processed sequentially;
when certain precise fields are translated, and that remain at each step one of the following cases may occur:
visible in all the subsequent processes, until the end of the a. the element is a subpattern that contains parameters,
translation of all the correlated fields. then the parameters must be replaced by the actual
values;
b. the element is a triple, then its elements must be
Trigger field RSTD instantiated using the current values of the
variables;
Pattern Restoration_@@RSTN@@ c. the element is a class, then the suitable instance of
the class is instantiated.
Name RX Of course, all the steps of the above process must be
performed according to the rules coded in the configuration
file previously introduced.
TSK B. Compiling ReMuNaICCD
”RA” After the translation, the ontology is transferred into
OWLIM [19] a high-performance semantic repository, where
the reasoner computes the ontological inferred closure. In order
to get both the original and the inferred data in a presentation
format familiar to the customer, an OWL to ICCD compiler
Table 5. Example of global variable declaration. can be of use.
The process that converts the ontological information to
When the compiler processes the first field concerning a the original ICCD format can be described in the following
restoration, let us say RSTD, it creates also an instance of the steps.
global variable RX, that contains the id of the instance of the For each instance of the ontology, and for each of its
class Restoration. In this way, the information relevant to the properties:
status of the translation remains available to the processes that 1. the ontological pattern is found that concerns the class
translate the subsequent fields RSTS, RSTE, etc. of the instance and the property under consideration;
An example of global variables codification is given in 2. the appropriate variables are instantiated;
Table 5. 3. the elements of the pattern are processed sequentially;
at each step one of the following cases may occur:
E. The configuration file a. the element is the triple that evaluate variables,
Summarizing, the configuration file of ICCD2OWL is then the value of the corresponding property must
an XML document that contains the codifications of the be passed;
following items: b. the element is a subpattern that makes references
- a set of ontological patterns each of which, taken as a to variables, then the corresponding value must be
whole, represents a not reducible conceptual structure; passed, and the process restart from point 2;
- a set of mappings that represents conditional binding of 4 . the created pattern generates a query, that will be
ICCD fields to variables inside the ontological performed on the ontology to retrieve the information
patterns; about the property.
- a set of mappings that bind the names used for the
classes inside ReMuNaICCD, the symbolic names that VI. CONCLUSIONS
represent them inside ICCD2OWL and the rule to Formal ontologies offer a promising approach to facilitate
create a new instance; semantic information retrieval from heterogeneous document
- a set of global variables and the corresponding repositories.
instructions for use. The objective of our ontology was to restore a minimal
logical structure to the numerous data that are found in the
ICCD cards and whose relation with the original context
V. AN OUTLINE OF THE COMPILER PROCESSES seems definitively lost.
The formalism introduced above codifies the complete ReMuNaICCD models a “natural” infrastructure for the
specifications that the compiler must apply in order to accommodation of the data. A first arrangement is determined
by the taxonomy of the classes and the taxonomy of the
properties, but the true logic of the model is contained in the [16] Patel-Schneider P. F., Hayes P., and Horrocks I. 2004, OWL web
ontology language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C
patterns of classes and properties that express the group games Recommendation, 10 Feb. 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics.
that the different entities play all together. [17] Masolo C., Borgo S., Gangemi A., Guarino N., Oltramari A. and
Eventually, in trying to populate our ontology with data Schneider L. 2003. The WonderWeb Library of Foundational
coming from the available sources, we realized that sensible Ontologies and the DOLCE ontology. WonderWeb Deliverable D18,
translations of the traditional data models to ontology models Final Report (vr. 1.0, 31-12-2003)
[18] CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/
were not at all trivial for two main reasons. [19] Kiryakov A., Ognyanov D., Manov D. 2005, OWLIM – a Pragmatic
First, translations need pieces of information that could be Semantic Repository for OWL, in Proc. of International Workshop on
acquired by the ontology patterns, but these patterns are not Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems (SSWS 2005),
explicitly represented inside the RDF/RDFS or OWL Galway, Ireland, November 6-10, 2005, LNCS 3729, pp. 668-684.
ontology codifications.
Second, the translations can be context dependent but none
of the current ontology languages is able to express
contextual dependence.
Do these reasons mean that the current ontology languages
are too poor for solving, without essential auxiliary tools, the
problem of semantic interoperability?
In this paper, we investigated the possibility of introducing
supplementary formalizations that could be sufficient for the
accomplishment of our specific task.
Certainly, the technical details may be improved and the
whole formalization may be better situated in the ambits of
the most popular standards.
REFERENCES
[1] Pierobon Benoit R., Proto F., Aiello A., Brandi S., Mango Furnari M.
2005, Concettualizzazione e contestualizzazione dei beni culturali
archeologici, «Archeologia e Calcolatori», 16, 321-339.
[2] de Bruijn J., Polleres A., Lara R., and Fensel D. 2004, OWL Lite¯, in J.
de Bruijn (ed.), Final draft d20.1v0.2, WSML Deliverble
[ 3 ] McGuinness D. L. and van Harmelen F. 2004, (eds.), O W L W e b
Ontology Language Overview, W3C Recommendation, 10 February
2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owlfeatures-20040210/.
[4] Volz L. 2000, Web Ontology Reasoning with Logic Databases. PhD
thesis, AIFB, Karlsruhe.
[5] Guarino N. and Welty C. 2000, Ontological analysis of taxonomic
relationships. In Proceedings of ER-2000: The Conference on
Conceptual Modeling.
[6] Guarino N. 1998, Formal Ontology and Information Systems. In N.
Guarino (ed.), Formal Ontology and Information Systems, Amsterdam,
Nederlands, 3-15
[ 7 ] Guarino N. 1995, Formal Ontology, Conceptual Analysis and
Knowledge Representation. «International Journal of Human and
Computer Studies», 43(5/6), 625-640.
[8] Gangemi A. 2005 Ontology Design Patterns for Semantic Web Content,
in E. Motta and Y. Gil (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International
Semantic Web Conference, LNCS 3729, 262 – 276.
[ 9 ] Rector A.L., Rogers J. 2004, Patterns, Properties and Minimizing
Commitment: Reconstruction of the GALEN Upper Ontology in OWL,
in Core Ontologies Workshop (CORONT), Northampton, UK.
[10] OEP 2004-5, Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working
Group, Task Force on Ontology Engineering Patterns. Description of
work, archives, W3C Notes and recommendations available from
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/ (2004-5).
[11] Gennari J., Musen M., Fergerson R., Grosso W., Crubézy M., Eriksson
H., Noy N., and Tu S.2003, The evolution of Protégé-2000: An
environment for knowledge-based systems development. «International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies», 58(1), 89-123.
[12] Knublauch H., Musen M. A., Rector A. L. 2004, Editing Description
Logic Ontologies with Protégé OWL Plugin, Proceedings of the 2004
International Workshop on Description Logics, Whistler, British
Columbia, Canada.
[13] Broekstra J., Kampman A., van Harmelen F. 2002, Sesame: A Generic
Architecture for Storing and Querying RDF and RDF Schema, in Proc.
1st ISWC.
[14] Giordano M. and Mango Furnari M. 2006 Experimental Ontology Web
Services. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
[15] Aiello A., Mango Furnari M., Massarotti A., Brandi S., Caputo V., and
Barone V. 2006, An experimental ontology server for an information
grid environment. «International Journal on Parallel Programming».