We investigate the problem of verbalizing Web Ontology Language (OWL) axioms of domain ontologies in this paper. The existing approaches address the problem of fidelity of verbalized OWL texts to OWL semantics by exploring different ways of expressing the same OWL axiom in various linguistic forms. They also perform grouping and aggregating of the natural language (NL) sentences that are generated corresponding to each OWL statement into a comprehensible structure. However, no efforts have been taken to try out a semantic reduction at logical level to remove redundancies and repetitions, so that the reduced set of axioms can be used for generating a more meaningful and human-understandable (what we call redundancy-free) text. Our experiments show that, formal semantic reduction at logical level is very helpful to generate redundancy-free descriptions of ontology entities. In this paper, we particularly focus on generating descriptions of individuals of SHIQ based ontologies. The details of a case study are provided to support the usefulness of the redundancy-free NL descriptions of individuals, in knowledge validation application.
Over the last decade, several CNLs such as Attempto Controlled English (ACE) @cite_1 @cite_13 , Ordnance Survey's Rabbit (Rabbit) @cite_5 , and Sydney OWL Syntax (SOS) @cite_10 , have been specifically designed for ontology language OWL. All these languages are meant to make the interactions with formal ontological statements easier and faster for users who are unfamiliar with formal notations. Unlike the other languages @cite_0 @cite_12 @cite_8 that have been suggested to represent OWL in controlled English, these CNLs are designed to have formal language semantics and bidirectional mapping between NL fragments and OWL constructs. Even though these formal language semantics and bidirectional mapping are helpful in enabling a formal check that the resulting NL expressions are unambiguous, they generate a collection of unordered sentences that are difficult to comprehend.
@cite_8 @cite_10 @cite_1 @cite_0 @cite_5 @cite_13 @cite_12
2575901507 89942291 14390946 2423178067
At OWLED2007 a task force was formed to work towards a common Controlled Natural Language Syntax for OWL 1.1. In this paper members of the task force compare three controlled natural languages (CNLs) — Attempto Controlled English (ACE), Ordnance Survey Rabbit (Rabbit), and Sydney OWL Syntax (SOS) — that have been designed to express the logical content of OWL 1.1 ontologies. The common goal of these three languages is to make OWL ontologies accessible to people with no training in formal logics. We briefly introduce these three CNLs and discuss a number of requirements to an OWL-compatible CNL that have emerged from the present work. We then summarise the similarities and differences of the three CNLs and make some preliminary recommendations to an OWL-compatible CNL. This paper describes a proposed new syntax that can be used to write and read OWL ontologies in Controlled Natural Language (CNL): a well-defined subset of the English language. Following the lead of Manchester OWL Syntax in making OWL more accessible for non-logicians, and building on the previous success of Schwitter’s PENG (Processable English), the proposed Sydney OWL Syntax enables two-way translation and generation of grammatically correct full English sentences to and from OWL 1.1 functional syntax. Used in conjunction with OWL tools, it is designed to facilitate ontology construction and editing by enabling authors to write an OWL ontology in a defined subset of English. It also improves readability and understanding of OWL statements or whole ontologies, by enabling them to be read as English sentences. It is hoped that by providing the option of an intuitive, easy to use English syntax which requires no specialized knowledge, the broader community will be far more likely to develop and benefit from Semantic Web applications. This paper is a discussion paper covering the scope, design, and examples of Sydney OWL Syntax in use, and the authors invite feedback on all aspects of the proposal via email to krr.sydneysyntax@cse.unsw.edu.au. Working drafts of the full specification are available at http: www.ics.mq.edu.au rolfs sos. We describe a verbalization of the logical content of OWL ontologies — using OWL 1.1 without data-valued properties — in Attempto Controlled English (ACE). Because ACE is a subset of English, the verbalization makes OWL ontologies accessible to people with no training in formal methods. We conclude that OWL can be verbalized in concise and understandable English provided that a certain naming style is adopted for OWL individuals, classes, and properties. Attempto Controlled English (ACE) is a language specifically designed to write specifications. ACE is a controlled natural language, i.e. a subset of English with a domain specific vocabulary and a restricted grammar in the form of a small set of construction and interpretation principles. This means that all ACE sentences are correct English, but that not all English sentences are allowed in ACE. The restriction of full natural language to a controlled subset is essential for ACE to be suitable for specification purposes. The main goals of this restriction are: to support the writing of precise specifications, to reduce ambiguity and vagueness inherent in full natural language, to encourage domain specialists to deliberately choose a clear and unambiguous writing style so that readers of a specification understand it in the same way as the writer, to make specifications computer processable, to render specifications unambiguously translatable into formal specification languages, particularly into first-order logic, and to make specifications executable. In brief, ACE allows domain specialists to express specifications in familiar natural language and to combine this with the rigor of formal specification languages. ACE has been used to specify a simple automatic teller machine, Kemmerer''s library data base problem, Schubert''s steamroller, and a number of smaller problems. Recently, ACE has also been used as the input language of a theorem prover, and first attempts have been made to interface it to a program synthesiser. Clearly, ACE can be adapted and extended for other purposes requiring precise input, e.g. writing technical documentation or updating databases. The use of ACE presupposes only basic knowledge of English grammar. Note however, that because ACE is a controlled natural language not all standard grammatical notions are directly applicable or suitable for the description of the ACE grammar. Some grammatical notions have a restricted meaning in ACE, while other notions are especially coined for an effective description of the language. The divergences are kept to a minimum so that ACE can be easily learned extending basic grammatical knowledge.