A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1

Rolf Schwitter, Kaarel Kaljurand, Anne Cregan, Catherine Dolbear, Glen Hart

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

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.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1-10
Number of pages10
JournalCEUR Workshop Proceedings
Volume496
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Ontology
Formal logic
Ordnance

Cite this

Schwitter, R., Kaljurand, K., Cregan, A., Dolbear, C., & Hart, G. (2009). A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 496, 1-10.
Schwitter, Rolf ; Kaljurand, Kaarel ; Cregan, Anne ; Dolbear, Catherine ; Hart, Glen. / A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 2009 ; Vol. 496. pp. 1-10.
@article{e332b8cb495442199c6b4bf6bb40044f,
title = "A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Rolf Schwitter and Kaarel Kaljurand and Anne Cregan and Catherine Dolbear and Glen Hart",
year = "2009",
language = "English",
volume = "496",
pages = "1--10",
journal = "CEUR Workshop Proceedings",
issn = "1613-0073",
publisher = "RWTH Aachen University",

}

Schwitter, R, Kaljurand, K, Cregan, A, Dolbear, C & Hart, G 2009, 'A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1', CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 496, pp. 1-10.

A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1. / Schwitter, Rolf; Kaljurand, Kaarel; Cregan, Anne; Dolbear, Catherine; Hart, Glen.

In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 496, 2009, p. 1-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1

AU - Schwitter, Rolf

AU - Kaljurand, Kaarel

AU - Cregan, Anne

AU - Dolbear, Catherine

AU - Hart, Glen

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893189427&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 496

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - CEUR Workshop Proceedings

T2 - CEUR Workshop Proceedings

JF - CEUR Workshop Proceedings

SN - 1613-0073

ER -