Reviewing the design of DAML+OIL: an ontology language for the semantic web

In the current "Syntactic Web", uninterpreted syntactic constructs are given meaning only by private off-line agreements that are inaccessible to computers. In the Semantic Web vision, this is replaced by a web where both data and its semantic definition are accessible and manipulable by computer software. DAML+OIL is an ontology language specifically designed for this use in the Web; it exploits existing Web standards (XML and RDF), adding the familiar ontological primitives of object oriented and frame based systems, and the formal rigor of a very expressive description logic. The definition of DAML+OIL is now over a year old, and the language has been in fairly widespread use. In this paper, we review DAML+OIL's relation with its key ingredients (XML, RDF, OIL, DAML-ONT, Description Logics), we discuss the design decisions and trade-offs that were the basis for the language definition, and identify a number of implementation challenges posed by the current language. These issues are important for designers of other representation languages for the Semantic Web, be they competitors or successors of DAML+OIL, such as the language currently under definition by W3C.

[1]  Franz Baader,et al.  Qualifying Number Restrictions in Concept Languages , 1991, KR.

[2]  Erich Grädel,et al.  Two-variable logic with counting is decidable , 1997, Proceedings of Twelfth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[3]  Ralf Küsters,et al.  Computing the Least Common Subsumer and the Most Specific Concept in the Presence of Cyclic ALN-Concept Descriptions , 1998, KI.

[4]  Henrik Eriksson,et al.  Knowledge modeling at the millennium : The design and evolution of Protégé-2000 , 1999 .

[5]  Ian Horrocks.  The FaCT System , 1998, TABLEAUX.

[6]  Franz Baader,et al.  A Scheme for Integrating Concrete Domains into Concept Languages , 1991, IJCAI.

[7]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  The Semantic Web: The Roles of XML and RDF , 2000, IEEE Internet Comput..

[8]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Practical Reasoning for Expressive Description Logics , 1999, LPAR.

[9]  Volker Haarslev,et al.  High Performance Reasoning with Very Large Knowledge Bases: A Practical Case Study , 2000, IJCAI.

[10]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  DAML+OIL is not Enough , 2001, SWWS.

[11]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Matching in Description Logics , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[12]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Using an Expressive Description Logic: FaCT or Fiction? , 1998, KR.

[13]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  OilEd: a Reason-able Ontology Editor for the Semantic Web , 2001, Description Logics.

[14]  Tran Cao Son,et al.  Semantic Web Services , 2001, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[15]  Tim Berners-Lee,et al.  Weaving The Web: The Original Design And Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web , 1999 .

[16]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Answering Queries Using Views in Description Logics , 1999, KRDB.

[17]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  DLP System Description , 1998, Description Logics.

[18]  Werner Nutt,et al.  The Complexity of Concept Languages , 1997, KR.

[19]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Ontology Reasoning in the SHOQ(D) Description Logic , 2001, IJCAI.

[20]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  A Semantics and Complete Algorithm for Subsumption in the CLASSIC Description Logic , 1993, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[21]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A Conjunctive Query Language for Description Logic Aboxes , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[22]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Reasoning with Individuals for the Description Logic SHIQ , 2000, CADE.

[23]  I. Horrocks,et al.  Reasoning with Individuals for the Description Logic , 2000 .

[24]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web , 2001, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[25]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Information integration: conceptual modeling and reasoning support , 1998, Proceedings. 3rd IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (Cat. No.98EX122).