XS2OWL: A Formal Model and a System for Enabling XML Schema Applications to Interoperate with OWL-DL Domain Knowledge and Semantic Web Tools.
ABSTRACT The domination of XML in the Internet for data exchange has led to the development of standards with XML Schema syntax for
several application domains. Advanced semantic support, provided by domain ontolo gies and semantic Web tools like logic-based
reasoners, is still very useful for many applications. In order to provide it, interoperability between XML Schema and OWL
is necessary so that XML schemas can be converted to OWL. This way, the semantics of the standards can be enriched with domain
knowledge encoded in OWL domain ontologies and further semantic process ing may take place. In order to achieve interoperability
between XML Schema and OWL, we have developed XS2OWL, a model and a system that are presented in this paper and enable the
automatic transformation of XML Schemas in OWL-DL. XS2OWL also enables the consistent transformation of the derived knowledge
(individuals) from OWL-DL to XML constructs that obey the original XML Schemas.
Article: Discovering OWL ontologies from XML[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: By now, XML has reached a wide acceptance as a data exchange format in the Internet, and to make the Semantic Web a reality, such data need to be interpreted with respect to ontologies. In order to provide it, a semantic mapping from the XML format data to the ontology is necessary so that XML format data can be converted to OWL. To accomplish this, we offer a mapping formalism to convert the XML format data to the ontology, both a model and a system are presented in this paper to enable the automatic transformation of XML format data in OWL_DL.01/2010; 6. DOI:10.1109/ICACTE.2010.5579194
Conference Paper: Validation of XML Document Content Using Ontology[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The spread of the Internet has introduced many online government forms and electronic commerce applications using standard forms defined in the XML format. In case of fields that require specialized knowledge of a certain field, it is important not only to verify XML format but also to verify the validity of the form or transaction data before transmission. In this paper, we propose a validation system to perform verification on the basis of the XML document content. The feature of the proposed system is to construct ontologies using OWL, SWRL and extended rules. And it is to execute reasoning using these ontologies to judge the validity of the document content. To demonstrate usefulness in a use case of the proposed method, we present a validation system for a Japanese real property registration application.The International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition (AIPR2014), Asia Pacific University of Technology & Innovation (APU), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 11/2014
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Most healthcare data are available in XML format, which mainly focuses on the structure level and lacks support for data representation. Therefore, a variety of medical applications and medical semantic search engines have difficulty understanding and integrating healthcare data in a highly heterogeneous environment. OWL (Web Ontology Language) and Semantic Web technologies provide an infrastructure that can solve these problems. The aim of our study is to present a mechanism to ease the interpretation and automate the semantic transformation of XML healthcare data into the OWL ontology (S-Trans), which allows an easier and better semantic communication among hospital information systems. On the basis of the XML schemas (XSD or DTD), we extract the document structure and add more descriptions for XML elements. Moreover, to classify the semantic level of duplicate elements in an XML schema, we propose novel metrics to measure the similarity between them. Experimental results show that the proposed method reliably predicts semantic similarity of duplicates and produces a better-quality OWL ontology.Knowledge-Based Systems 11/2012; 35:349–356. DOI:10.1016/j.knosys.2012.04.009 · 3.06 Impact Factor