Relationship based Reasoning

Print
International Journal of Computer Applications
© 2011 by IJCA Journal
Volume 36 - Number 9
Year of Publication: 2011
Authors:
P. Shanthi Bala
G. Aghila
10.5120/4521-6425

Shanthi P Bala and G Aghila. Article: Relationship based Reasoning. International Journal of Computer Applications 36(9):34-37, December 2011. Full text available. BibTeX

@article{key:article,
	author = {P. Shanthi Bala and G. Aghila},
	title = {Article: Relationship based Reasoning},
	journal = {International Journal of Computer Applications},
	year = {2011},
	volume = {36},
	number = {9},
	pages = {34-37},
	month = {December},
	note = {Full text available}
}

Abstract

Relationship plays a vital role in the development of ontology for a domain. Relationships are fundamental to semantics in ontology in order to associate concepts and their instances. Subsumption, Satisfiablity, Consistency and Instance Checking are carried out in reasoning. It is accomplished with the use of concepts (TBox) and instances (ABox). Relationship based reasoning is important and very complex to implement. It can be achieved only with the use of finding semantic similarity between relationships. This paper discusses how the effective reasoning can be attained with the use of relationship. It discusses about the advantages of relationship based reasoning.

References

  • Dmitry Tsarkov and Ian Horrocks, 2006. Fact++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Description. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), vol. 4130 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 292–297.
  • Shearer R, Motik B, Horrocks I, 2008. HermiT: a highly-efficient OWL reasoner In the Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions.
  • Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Cuenca, B. Grau, Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y, 2007, Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoned, J. Web Semantics 5(2), 51–53.
  • Thomas Bittner, Maureen Donnelly, Barry Smith, 2004. Individuals, Universals, Collections: On the Foundational Relations of Ontology. In the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, 37 – 48.
  • Tania Tudorache, 2004. Representation and Management of Reified Relationships in Protégé, Protégé Conference, Bethesda Maryland.
  • Smith B, Ceusters W, Klagges B, Kohler J, Kumar A, Lomax J, Mungall CJ, Neuhaus F, Rector A, Rosse C, 2005. Relations in Biomedical Ontologies.Genome Biology.
  • Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., 2008. What's in a Relationship: An Ontological Analysis, In the Proceedings of 27th Intl. Conf. on Conceptual Modeling, Barcelona, LNCS 5231, Springer Verlag,
  • Christopher J. Mungall, Colin Batchelor, Karen Eilbeck, 2011. Evolution of the Sequence Ontology terms and relationships, Journal of Biomedial Informatics, Science Direct, 44, 87-93.
  • The Gene Ontology Website. [Online]. Available : http://www.geneontology.org/
  • The European Bioinformatics Institute Website. [Online]. Available : www.ebi.ac.uk
  • (2006) The Protégé Website. [Online]. Available : http://owl.man.ac.uk/
  • Huanying (Helen) Gu, Duo Wei, Jose L.V. Mejino, Gai Elhanan., 2009. Relationship auditing of the FMA ontology, Journal of Biomedial Informatics, Science Direct, 42, 550-557.
  • A. Sheth, I. B. Arpinar, and V. Kashyap ., 2002, Relationships at the Heart of Semantic web: Modeling, Discovering and Exploiting Complex Semantic Relationship. Technical Report, LSDIS Lab, Computer Science, University of Georgia, Athens.
  • Smith, B. et al., 2005. Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biol.
  • Wen-fei and Xin-li,,2008, Construction the relationship between Concepts in Government Ontology Based on E-Government Thesauri, In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Management Science & Engineering.