Control Systems and Computers, N3, 2019, Article 3

Control Systems and Computers, 2019, Issue 3 (281), pp. 23-37.

UDC 004.318

O.VPALAGIN, Academician of NAS of Ukraine, Professor, Doctor (Eng.), Deputy director of V.M. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics,
The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Glushkov ave., 40, Kyiv, 03187, Ukraine,

M.G. PETRENKO, Doctor (Eng.), Leading Researcher, Microprocessor Technology Department, V.M. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics, The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,


Introduction. The paper discusses the features of building ontological models of subject areas. A comparative analysis of the most well-known logical theories of the formalization of these models and the corresponding tools for the construction and use of ontologies is performed. An example of using the developed information technology based on the standards and recommendations of the W3C consortium is given.

Purpose.Consideration of the most well-known tools for the formal description of domain ontologies, their comparative analysis and the choice of a formal language and ontoeditor for practical use.

Methods. The methods and models used in the work are based on the information technologies of the Semantic Web, focused on the development and use of domain ontologies. Ontologies are the basic components of these technologies for both research and the creation of large projects, including commercial ones. The use of methods of system-ontological analysis revealed the advantages and disadvantages of various formal and informal descriptions of ontologies. Of the informal models, the CRF model was considered, and the formal models, the Frame model and the OWL model. It also compares the characteristics of these models with a set of descriptive logics.

Results. Information technology has been developed to enable the construction of ontologies of subject areas, including the outline design stage, the input information input into the computer, the formal description of the project, and the practical use of ontologies.

Conclusion. The formalization of the definition of the domain ontology is briefly considered; a comparative analysis of known models of ontologies, such as CRF, Frame and OWL, is performed. Their advantages and disadvantages are noted, and it was concluded that when developing large ontologies, all three indicated models should be used. At the initial stage – a CRF-model for automating the construction of the structure of domain concepts and their semantic consistency.At the stage of input and formalization – a model of Protйgй-frames.And at the stage of ontology use – the OWL-model with the mechanisms of inquiries and reasoning. At the same time, ontology sharing implies its placement on the Semantic Web. The article gives an example of building and using owl-ontology for a certain construction company.

 Download full text! (In Ukrainian!)

Keywords: descriptive logic, ontology, ontology model, conceptualization, ontograph, Protégé.

  1. Ohrstrom, P., Andersen, J., Schärfe, H., 2005. “What has happened to ontology”. In F. Dau, M.-L. Mugnier, and G. Stumme, editors, Conceptual Structures: Common Semantics for Sharing Knowledge, 13th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2005, Kassel, Germany, July 17-22, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3596 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 425-438.
  2. Gruber, T.R., 1993. “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontologies”, Knowledge Acquisition, 5 (2), pp. 199-220.
  3. Gruber, T.R., 1995. “Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing”, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 43 (5-6), pp. 907-928.
  4. Borst, W., 1997. Construction of Engineering Ontologies. PhD thesis, Institute for Telematica and Information Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
  5. Studer, R., Benjamins, R., Fensel, D., 1998. “Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods”, Data & Knowledge Engineering, 25 (1-2), pp. 161-198.
  6. Guarino, N. Giaretta, P., 1995. “Ontologies and Knowledge Bases: Towards a Terminological Clarification”. In N. Mars, editor, Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases: Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 25-32.
  7. Genesereth, M.R. , Nilsson, N.J., 1987. Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.
  8. Guarino, N., 1998. “Formal Ontology in Information Systems”. In N. Guarino, editor, Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Proceedings of FOIS’98, Trento, Italy, June 6-8, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 3-15.
  9. Carnap, R., 1956. Meaning and Necessity – A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, The University of Chicago Press, second edition.
  10. Dowty, D.R., Wall, R., Peters, S., 1980. Introduction to Montague Semantics, volume 11 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer, Heidelberg.
  11. Gruber, T.R., 1993. Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing, In N. Guarino and R. Poli, editors, Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Deventer, The Netherlands.
  12. Palagin, A.V., Kryvyy, S.L., Petrenko, N.G., 2012. Ontological methods and means of processing subject knowledge, Lugansk: V.I. Dal East Ukr. Nac. University. Retrieved from (in Russian).
  13. Uschold, M., 2004. “Ontologies and Semantics for Seamless Connectivity”, SIGMOD Record, 33 (4), pp. 58-64.
  14. Das, S.K., 1992. Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Addison Wesley.
  15. Vaught, R.L., 1986. “Alfred Tarski’s Work in Model Theory”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 51 (4), pp. 869-882.
  16. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer, [online] Available at:<> [Accessed 16 Oct. 2018].
  17. Horridge, M., 2011. A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protégé 4 and CO-ODE Tools. Edition 1.3, Copyright The University Of Manchester, March 24, 107 p.
  18. DuCharme, B., 2013. Learning SPARQL: Querying and Updating with SPARQL 1.1. O’Reilly Media. All rights reserved, 367 p.

Received 11.07.2019