%0 Conference Paper %1 WPH06 %A Wang, Taowei David %A Parsia, Bijang %A Hendler, James %B Proc. of the 5th Int. Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006), Athens, Georgia %D 2006 %K Semantic_Web iswc2006 ontologies www %T A Survey of the Web Ontology Landscape %U http://www.mindswap.org/papers/2006/survey.pdf %X The Semantic Web envisions a metadata-rich Web where presently human-readable content will have machine-understandable semantics. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) from W3C is an expressive formalism for modelers to define various logical concepts and relations. OWL ontologies come in three species: Lite, DL, and Full, or- dered in increasing expressivity. Every Lite ontology is also a DL ontology, and every DL ontology is also a Full ontology. OWL Lite and OWL DL are the species that use only the OWL language features in the way that complete and sound reasoning proce- dures exist. OWL Full, on the other hand, is undecidable. While OWL recently became a W3C recommendation in 2004, people have been working with it a few years, and many interesting ontologies already exist on the Web. We are interested in evaluating these ontologies and see if there are interesting trends in modeling practices, OWL con- struct usages, and OWL species utilization.

@inproceedings{WPH06, abstract = {The Semantic Web envisions a metadata-rich Web where presently human-readable content will have machine-understandable semantics. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) from W3C is an expressive formalism for modelers to define various logical concepts and relations. OWL ontologies come in three species: Lite, DL, and Full, or- dered in increasing expressivity. Every Lite ontology is also a DL ontology, and every DL ontology is also a Full ontology. OWL Lite and OWL DL are the species that use only the OWL language features in the way that complete and sound reasoning proce- dures exist. OWL Full, on the other hand, is undecidable. While OWL recently became a W3C recommendation in 2004, people have been working with it a few years, and many interesting ontologies already exist on the Web. We are interested in evaluating these ontologies and see if there are interesting trends in modeling practices, OWL con- struct usages, and OWL species utilization. }, added-at = {2006-11-07T21:04:08.000+0100}, author = {Wang, Taowei David and Parsia, Bijang and Hendler, James}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2bc8de6df6e2ce7590c57791221df3e09/lysander07}, booktitle = {Proc. of the 5th Int. Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006), Athens, Georgia}, interhash = {2e54c8ec64e96ee7c96db1093496595f}, intrahash = {bc8de6df6e2ce7590c57791221df3e09}, keywords = {Semantic_Web iswc2006 ontologies www}, timestamp = {2009-06-02T11:03:13.000+0200}, title = {A Survey of the Web Ontology Landscape}, url = {http://www.mindswap.org/papers/2006/survey.pdf}, year = 2006 }