A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1

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

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 journal › Article › peer-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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-10
Number of pages	10
Journal	CEUR Workshop Proceedings
Volume	496
Publication status	Published - 2009

Cite this

@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",

}

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

AN - SCOPUS:84893189427

SN - 1613-0073

VL - 496

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - CEUR Workshop Proceedings

JF - CEUR Workshop Proceedings

ER -

A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1

Abstract

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this