Semantic Web: Choosing the Right Methodologies,

Tools and Standards

Noman Islam1, Abu Zafar Abbasi2 and Zubair A. Shaikh3
Center for Research in Ubiquitous Computing
National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences
Karachi, Pakistan
1
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

AbstractSemantic Web is a succession of the current world concludes with our recommendations based on the comparative
wide web in which all the contents, resources and services over study.
the web will have well-defined meanings. Due to this well-defined
semantics, semantic web will enable the automated processing of
web contents by machines. To achieve this vision; a number of
II. RELATED WORK
methodologies, tools and standards for semantic web have been A number of papers have been reported in literature that
proposed during last few years. In this paper, a critical review of provides comparisons of different aspects of semantic web. In
these constituents of semantic web has been presented. In [2], the authors provided guidelines on choosing an ontology
particular, a comparative analysis of ontology languages, language for knowledge intensive applications. The work on
ontology tools, ontology development methodologies and semantic [3] focused on the features provided by currently available
web services is done. In addition, some missing research areas ontology languages. The authors of the paper have provided
have also been also highlighted in which further research work guidelines to the developers on choosing the language that
should be carried out. meets their requirements. [4] provided a survey of ontology
languages for semantic web and introduced semantic web
Keywords- Semantic Web, Ontology Languages, Ontology
ontology creation process. [5],[6] and [7] have done a survey of
Editors, Ontology Development Methodology, Semantic Web
Services currently available tool for ontology development. In [8], [9],
[10], a survey on ontology development methodologies have
been provided. Surveys on Semantic Web Services include
I. INTRODUCTION [11], [12],[13]. Among other surveys done on issues and topics
The internet of todays world comprises of a huge related to semantic web, [14] has provided a study of querying
repository of web pages, resources and web services. Because languages for ontologies and [15] provided a good overview on
of such huge amount of information, it is very difficult for an semantic web portals. Despite the surveys done in past on
internet user to find out the desired information. Search engines different aspects of semantic web, we feel that an updated
like Google solves the problem to some extent by indexing the analysis of recent methodologies, tools and standards of
key words of the web pages and then search for user semantic web is required. Realizing this need, an up-to-date
information based on these keywords. However, the basic and comprehensive study of the different components of
problem with internet is that there is no semantic information semantic web is presented in this paper.
associated with contents over the web. Due to its inherent
limitation, machines can only perform syntactic processing of III. ONTOLOGY LANGUAGES
the web contents. To address this issue; the term semantic web
was proposed by Tim Berners Lee[1]. Semantic Web is a Ontology is an important component of semantic web. It
vision proposed to extend the capabilities of internet by provides the vocabulary of a particular domain by describing
attaching semantic information to internet contents. Semantic the concepts of a particular domain using their attributes and
Web is a combination of a number of elements that includes a relationships. Ontology languages provide a mechanism to
number of formal and informal knowledge representation encode the vocabulary of a domain. A good ontology language
languages, editing and publishing tools and a set of should provide a range of constructs to specify the ontology
methodologies and standards for semantic web applications. In and should be supported by well known ontology tools.
this paper, we have presented an analysis of currently available Ontology languages proposed in literature can be classified as
ontology languages, editing tools, ontology development XML based or Non-XML based languages. Among the XML
methodologies and semantic web services. In addition, we have based languages we have SHOE, XOL, OIL[16], RDF[17],
also highlighted the missing areas in which further research on DAML[18] and OWL[19] etc. Among the non XML based
semantic web should be pursued. Before presenting the languages, we have Cycl[20], Ontolingua[21], Unified
comparative study, we will fist discuss the related work in this Modeling Language UML etc. XML based languages are the
area. Then, we will present our comparative study for the natural choice for semantic web because XML addresses the
different constituents of semantic web. In the end, the paper interoperability issue very well which is one of the core

978-1-4244-8003-6/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE

 TABLE I. A COMPARISON OF ONTOLOGY LANGUAGES requirements of semantic web. Table 1 shows the summary of
Language W3C Expressive Editors Other Supporting
Support Power Tools /
some of the XML based ontology languages. RDF(S) is the
Languages simplest and most scalable XML based ontology language. It is
SHOE Low RFEdit PIQ based on predicate calculus and uses triples i.e. subjects,
SHOE Search predicate and object, to specify the semantics. However, it is
RDF/RDFS Medium Protge, Jena SPARQL, not expressive enough and it has the provision for only
NeOnToolkit, RD-QL, specifying concepts and binary relations among the concepts.
DOE,
pOWL, OWL extended RDF(S) to provide constructs to express
Swoop, TopBraid concepts, relationships, cardinalities, annotations and
OIL Low OilEd Fact instantiation of concepts etc. In addition, OWL is supported by
DAML + Low OntoEdit DQL, a large number of ontology editors and reasoners. This makes
OIL Ontolingua, Pellet,
WebODE, Racer
OWL as the most suitable language for semantic web.
IsaViz
OWL Strong Protg, Jena, OWL-QL, IV. ONTOLOGY EDITORS
DOE, Altova Fact++,
Semantic Works, Pellet, Ontology Editors assist the developers by providing a user
WebODE, RacerPro
Swoop, Morla
friendly interface for ontology development. A good ontology
editor should provide an easy interface for ontology creation,
should be supported by well-known ontology tools and should
provide support for major ontology languages. Table II shows
the summary of some of the most popular ontology editing
tools. Our analysis concludes that most of the current ontology

TABLE II. A COMPARISON OF ONTOLOGY EDITING TOOLS

Open Java
Tools Free Extensibility Collaboration Architecture Import Languages Export Languages Tools
Source Based
Pellet
Protg Standalone RDF(S), OWL RDF(S), OWL, CLIPS
RDF(S), DAML+OIL, None
OntoEdit (Free) Standalone RDF(S), DAML + OIL
OWL
RDF(S), DAML+OIL,
DOE Standalone RDF(S), OWL None
OWL
Jena
IsaViz Standalone RDF(S), N-Triples RDF(S), N-Triples
ATP
Ontolingua Client Server DAML+OIL, CLIPS DAML+OIL, CLIPS
Altova
SemanticWorks Built-in
Standalone RDF(S), OWL RDF(S) , OWL
Reasoner

OilEd Fact
Standalone RDF(S), DAML+OIL RDF(S), DAML+OIL,OWL
RDF(S), CLIPS, PROLOG
WebODE N-tier architecture RDF(S), DAML+OIL, OWL
DAML+OIL, OWL
RDQL
pOWL N-tier architecture RDF(S), N-Triple. RDF(S), N-Triple
Pellet
SWOOP Standalone RDF(S), OWL RDF(S), OWL
TopBraid
Client Server RDBMS, OWL, RDF(S) OWL,RDF(S), XML Pellet
Composer
Ontobroker
NeOn Toolkit Standalone RDF(S), OWL RDF(S) , OWL
SPARQL,
Morla Client Server RDF(S), OWL RDF(S),OWL RDQL

OBO-Edit
OBO-Edit Standalone OBO File format, OWL OBO File format, OWL Reasoner

Standalone and
Hozo RDF(S), subset of OWL OWL, RDF(S) Own Reasoner
Client Server
Standalone and Possible
OntoBuilder RDF(S), OWL, WSDL RDF(S) , Microsoft BizTalk
Client server
MINS, Pellet,
WSML-XML , subset of OWL-
WSMO Studio Standalone WSML-XML, OWL-DL IRIS
DL , RDF(S)

TODE N-Tier RDF(S), OWL, N-Triple RDF(S), OWL, N-Triple Jena

 TABLE III. A COMPARISON OF ONTOLOGY DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGIES

On-To- Noy and

Ushcold and Grninger and
Features Methontology Knowledge Sensus Kactus DILIGENT HCOME McGuinness UPON
King Fox (TOVE)
(OTK) method

Life Cycle

Recommendation

Pre Development
Process
Proposed
Requirement
Process
Explained
Design Process

Explained

Implementation
Post

Development
Activities

Documentation

Described

Configuration
Management
Details
Knowledge
Acquisition
Details
Evaluation

Details

Distributed

Working

Project
Management
Activities

Athena,
On-To- Military air
Projects/ SINERGIA,
Enterprise TOVE OntoWeb Knowledge, campaign KACTUS OPKK Grid4All
Applications LEMAIA,
OntoWeb planning project
LDCAST
Protg-
HCONE
2000,
Supporting OntoEdit with KAON, and Athos,
None None ODE, WebODE OntoSaurus None Ontolingua,
Tools plugins SWAP. SharedHC Ontolearn
and
ONE
Chimaera

editing tools have evolved from research projects as proof-of- guide an ontology developer in the process of ontology
concept of some research idea. The editing tools like Protg, creation. These methodologies include Ushcold and King[22],
OntoEdit and IsaViz provides a powerful desktop interface for TOVE[23], Methontology[24], On-To-Knowledge
ontology editing. In addition, these tools provide support for methodology, SENSUS, KACTUS[25], Ontology 101[26],
well-known ontology languages like RDF(S) and OWL. On the DILIGENT[27], HCOME[28] and UPON[29] etc. Table III
other hand, tools like WebODE, SWOOP and NeOnToolkit provides a comparison of these methodologies. Based on our
provide support for multiple users to collaborate and create study, we concluded that existing ontology development
ontology. The editors like WebODE, DOE and OntoEdit and methodologies can be divided in to three basic categories.
TODE recommends a particular methodology for ontology There are some simple methodologies that provide only basic
engineering. The choice of the particular ontology editing tool guidelines for ontology development and lacks details about
depends on the particular requirement of the semantic wb requirements analysis, management and documentation etc.
application for which the ontology is being developed. These methodologies include methodology of Sensus, Kactus,
Uschold and King, Grninger and Fox, Noy and McGuinness
V. ONTOLOGY DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY etc. They are to be used for small scale semantic web
applications. There are however some mature methodologies
Ontology Development is a highly complicated task and it that provide a comprehensive and detailed approach to
requires lots of skills and experiences. In literature, a number of ontology development, recommend a life cycle and comprise of
ontology development methodologies have been proposed to a number of pre and post development supporting activities.
These include Methontology, OTK and UPON etc. There is TABLE IV. A COMPARISON OF SEMANTIC WEB SERVICES STANDARDS
another important aspect of ontology development i.e. WSDL DAML-S OWL-S WSMO
collaboration. The methodologies like HCOME and Semantics
DILIGENT provide ontology development in a distributed XML based
fashion and are well suited for environment where ontologies Discovery WSDL/UDDI Profile Profile Capability
are to be shared among multiple users working in scattered
places. Invocation SOAP Grounding Grounding + Grounding
WSDL/SOAP

VI. SEMANTIC WEB SERVICES Service Composition Composite Choreography

process
Web services promised to revolutionize the way business QoS
are being done on internet by bringing closer the diverse Heterogeneity
organizations and service providers. However, the current
standards for web services provide only syntactic description of
their capabilities without much to be comprehended by In the area of ontology development methodologies, we feel
autonomous agents. They provide the infrastructure that that new paradigms for ontology development should evolve.
describes how to discover and invoke the service rather than This includes methodologies for rapid ontology development
why and what is being sent through them. The lack of machine etc. These methodologies are required to cater scenarios where
readable semantics necessitates human intervention for service ontology development is being carried out in dynamic
discovery or composition within contributing systems and environments. For example, a Mobile Ad hoc Network[31-33]
hence limiting or complicating the use of web services in can be formed on-the-fly between collections of vehicles
business contexts. With semantic web services, this limitation running on the road. An ontology developer working in such
is overcome by providing a semantic layer on top of the web environment would like to coordinate and share their
services which facilitates automated discovery, invocation, ontologies with other people in this environment. Such a
composition and interoperation of services within an open scenario requires an entirely new approach to ontology
environment. A number of web services standards have development. DILIGENT, developed for distributed
emerged during last few years. Some current standards of environments, to some extent can cope with such scenario but
semantic web services evolved from earlier versions replacing will not perform well in highly dynamic and mobile
them like OWL-S from DAML-S. Other initiatives like environments.
WSMO is also gaining popularity due to some of their unique
features. Table IV shows a comparison of major web services ACKNOWLEDGMENT
standard. From the comparison, we can say that OWL-S is The authors would like to acknowledge Higher Education
currently more mature than other standards but WSMO also Commission(HEC), Pakistan for their support in this research
offers some unique advantages like it is much closer to human work.
perception.
REFERENCES
VII. CONCLUSION
[1] T. Berners-Lee, "Semantic Web road map". W3C Draft
In this paper, we have provided a comprehensive survey of http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html, September 1998
current available languages, tools, methodologies and standards [2] A.V. Zhdanova and U. Keller. "Choosing an ontology language," in
of semantic web. As far as ontology languages are concerned, proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,
we can see that RDF and OWL have been standardized. RDF 2005.
provides support for querying language like RDQL. Similarly [3] A. Gmez-Prez and O. Corcho, "Ontology languages for the semantic
web," IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2002: p. 54-60.
OWL has the support for OWL-QL. Both of these languages
are recommended by W3C and are supported in most of the [4] J.R.G. Pulido, M.A.G. Ruiz, R. Herrera, E. Cabello, S. Legrand, and D.
Elliman, "Ontology languages for the semantic web: A never completely
current ontology editing tools. So, RDF and OWL can be said updated review". Knowledge-Based Systems, 2006. 19(7): p. 489-497.
as the languages of choice for ontology developers. [5] A. Gomez-Perez, J. Angele, M. Fernandez-Lopez, V. Christophides, A.
A number of ontology editors have been developed and Stutt, and Y. Sure, "A survey on ontology tools," Technical Report, OntoWeb
deliverable, UPM, May 2002.
many are still under development. However the area still
[6] J. Cardoso, "The semantic web vision: Where are we?" IEEE Intelligent
requires further work. We dont see too many ontology systems, 2007. 22(5): p. 84-88.
development tools available in Microsoft Dot Net environment. [7] K. Suresh, S.K. Malik, N. Prakash, and S.A.M. Rizvi. "A Case Study on
The communities of other platforms are working extensively Role of Ontology Editors," in proceedgins of National Conference on
on the development of tools and plug-ins, but the community of Advancements in Information & Communication Technology (NCAICT),
Dot Net is not so active. Only few tools like Dot Net based tool Allahabad, India, 2008.
TODE[30] have been cited in literature. Another area of [8] M.F. Lopez. "Overview of methodologies for building ontologies," in
research in ontology editors includes ontology editing tools for proceedings of IJCAI99 Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving
Methods: Lessons Learned and Future Trends, Stockholm, 1999.
mobile devices. The future is of ubiquitous computing; hence
development of ontology tools for mobile devices should be [9] M. Fernandez-Lopez and A. Gomez-Perez, "A survey on methodologies
for developing, maintaining, evaluating and reengineering ontologies,"
taken as an important research area. Technical Report, Deliverable 1.4 of the OntoWeb project, UPM,
[10] M. Cristani and R. Cuel, "Methodologies for the Semantic Web: state-of- [32] N. Islam and Z.A. Shaikh. "A Novel Approach to Service Discovery in
the-art of ontology methodology," Column of SIGSEMIS Bulletin, 2004 Mobile Adhoc Network", in proceedings of International Networking and
[11] S. Torma, J. Villstedt, V. Lehtinen, I. Oliver, and V. Luukkala, "Semantic Communication Conference (INCC 2008), Lahore, Pakistan, 2008
Web ServicesA SURVEY", Technical Report, Helsinki University of [33] N. Islam and Z.A. Shaikh. "Exploiting Correlation among Data Items for
Technology, Laboratory of Software Technology, 2008 Cache Replacement in Ad-hoc Networks". in proceedings of 2nd IEEE
[12] R. Lara, A. Polleres, H. Lausen, D. Roman, J. de Bruijn, and D. Fensel, International Conference on Information Management and Engineering (IEEE
"A conceptual comparison between WSMO and OWL-S," WSMO Final ICIME 2010),Chengdu, China, 2010
Draft, 2005
[13] A.H. Bouk, S. Li, and N. Channa, "Comparative Study of Semantic web
Services," Journal of Information & Communication Technology, 2007. 1(1):
p. 01-10.
[14] P. Haase, J. Broekstra, A. Eberhart, and R. Volz, "A comparison of RDF
query languages," in The Semantic Web ISWC 2004: p. 502-517.
[15] H. Lausen, Y. Ding, M. Stollberg, D. Fensel, R.L. Hernndez, and S.K.
Han, "Semantic web portals: state-of-the-art survey," Journal of Knowledge
Management, 2005. 9(5): p. 40.
[16] D. Fensel, I. Horrocks, F. Van Harmelen, S. Decker, M. Erdmann, and
M. Klein. "OIL in a nutshell," in proceedigns of 12th European Workshop on
Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, London, UK, 2000.
[17] G. Klyne, J.J. Carroll, and B. McBride, "Resource Description
Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax," W3C recommendation,
2004
[18] "DAML Home Page". Series "DAML Home Page" Sep, 09 [last
accessed on 2010 March 2010]; Available from: http://www.daml.org.
[19] "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and
Functional-Style Syntax, W3C Working Draft". Series," W3C Working Draft
[last accessed on March 2010]; Available from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-syntax-20080411/.
[20] "The Syntax of CycL". Series "The Syntax of CycL" [last accessed on
March 2010]; Available from: http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/ref/cycl-
syntax.html.
[21] A. Farquhar, R. Fikes, and J. Rice, "The ontolingua server: A tool for
collaborative ontology construction," International journal of human-computer
studies, 1996.
[22] M.U.a.M. King. "Towards a Methodology for Building Ontologies," in
proceedings of Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing,
held in conduction with IJCAI-95 , 1995, Montreal, Canada
[23] M. Gruninger and M.S. Fox. "Methodology for the Design and
Evaluation of Ontologies," in proceedings of the Workshop on Basic
Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing IJCAI (1995), 1995.
[24] M. Fernandez, A. Gomez-Perez, and N. Juristo. "Methontology: From
ontological art towards ontological engineering," Expert Update, Universidad
Politecnica de Madrid, 1997.
[25] G. Schreiber, B. Wielinga, and W. Jansweijer. "The KACTUS view on
theOword," in proceedings of. IJCAI95 Workshop on Basic Ontological
Issues in. Knowledge Sharing, Montreal, Canada , 1995.
[26] N. Noy, D.L. McGuinness, "Ontology Development 101: A guide to
Creating your First Ontology, Stanford Medical Informatics," Technical
Report No. SMI-2001-0880, 2000
[27] H.S. Pinto, S. Staab, and C. Tempich, "DILIGENT: towards a fine-
grained methodology for distributed, loosely-controlled and evolving
engineering of ontologies," In de Mantaras, R. L. and Saitta, L., (eds.), in
proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI
2004), Valencia, Spain., August 22-27 2004: p. 393-397
[28] K. Kotis, G.A. Vouros, and J.P. Alonso, "HCOME: A tool-supported
methodology for engineering living ontologies," Semantic Web and
Databases, 2005. 3372: p. 155-166.
[29] A. De Nicola, M. Missikoff, and R. Navigli, "A proposal for a Unified
Process for ONtology building: UPON," in proceedings of 16th International
Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA}, 2005
[30] N. Islam, M.S. Siddiqui, and Z.A. Shaikh. "TODE: A Dot Net based
Tool for Ontology Development and Editing". in proceedigns of 2nd
International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology(ICCET
2010). Chengdu, China, April 16-18, 2010
[31] N. Islam and Z.A. Shaikh. "Service Discovery in Mobile Ad hoc
Networks Using Association Rules Mining". in proceedings of 13th IEEE
International Multitopic Conference (INMIC-2009), Islamabad, Pakistan,
2009