DEFINITIONS OVERVIEW OF FUZZY ONTOLOGY
Hai Bang Truong, and Hoang Thanh Duong
University of Information Technology, VNU HCM
ABSTRACT
The conceptual formalism supported by ontology
is not sufficient for handling vague information that is
commonly found in many applications. Fuzzy
ontology is an extension of the domain ontology for
solving the uncertainty problems. Current fuzzy
ontology models do not focus on essential semantic
relationships between fuzzy concepts, which lead
difficulty in ontology integrating. To represent
formally the fuzzy knowledge, this paper presents a
series Definitions of fuzzy ontology and issues related.
Keywords: Ontology, Fuzzy ontology, Fuzzy
system.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the last few years, the application of ontologies
as formalisms for knowledge representation in many
different application domains has grown significantly.
An ontology is defined as an explicit and formal
specification of a shared conceptualization, which
means that ontologies represent the concepts and the
relationships in a domain promoting interrelation with
other models and automatic processing. Ontologies
have a lot of advantages, such as making possible to
add semantics to data, making knowledge
maintenance, information integration as well as the
reuse of components easier.
Ontologies are formal descriptions of some
domain’s vocabulary. They allow adding semantic
descriptions to data, which makes knowledge
maintenance, information integration and the reuse of
components easier. Significant use as formalisms for
Knowledge Representation, they have been
successfully used in expert and multi-agent systems, in
the Semantic Web… Their main theoretical formalism
is Description Logics (DL) [5] [9]. Current standard
language of ontology is OWL, Web Ontology
Language, which is based on a DL. Several extensions
to OWL have been proposed. Among them, OWL 2
seems to become its successor [11].
2. ONTOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION
LOGICS
2.1. Definition of Ontology
Definition 1[12]
Most often ontology is defined as a structure
consisting of the following elements (Gruber 1993;
Fensel 2001):
C – a set of concepts (classes);
I – set of instances of concepts;
R – set of binary relations defined on C;
Z – set of axioms which are logic formulas
representing integrity constraints in the sets of
instances and concepts.
Definition 2[1]
An ontology is a 4-tuple O = (C, P, R, A), where:
 C is a set of concepts defined for the domain. A
concept is often considered as a class in ontology.
 P is a set of concept properties. A property p ∈ P is
defined as an instance of a ternary relation of the
form p(c, v, f), where c ∈ C is an ontology concept,
v is a property value associated with c and f
defines restriction facets on v. Some of the
restriction facets are – type (ft), cardinality (fc), and
range (fr). The type facet ft may be any one from
the standard data types supported by ontology
editors, i.e. ft ∈ {boolean, integer, float, string,
symbol, instance, class, …}. The cardinality facet
fc defines the upper and lower limits on the number
of values for the property. The range facet fr
specifies a range of values that can be assigned to
the property.
 R = {r | r  C × C × Rt} is a set of binary semantic
relations defined between concepts in C. Rt =
{one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many} is the
set of relation type.
 A is a set of axioms. An axiom is a real fact or
reasoning rule.
2.2. Description Logics
Description Logics (DLs) are a family of logics
for representing structured knowledge. From a
historical point of view, DLs were born to provide a
semantic for semantic works and frames, two classical
models of structured knowledge representation. In
order to overcome their lack of semantics, it was
observed that they could be given a semantic by using
First Order Logic (FOL). DLs are a family of logics
for structured knowledge representation, born to give a
semantic to frames and semantic networks. Usually,
they are fragments of First Order Logic with binary
relations.
3. FUZZY ONTOLOGY
3.1. Fuzzy Ontology
Various Definitions of Fuzzy Ontology have been
introduced, although we think that neither of them is
general enough. A list of the most relevant definitions
is included here, where the notation has been
homogenized and, in some cases, summarized. It is
worth to note, however, that some of the authors do
not claim to be proposing a universal definition of the
term.
Definition 1[2]
i. Domain Ontology:
A domain ontology defines a set of
representational terms that we call concepts. Inter-
relationships among these concepts describe a target
world. There are four layers, including domain layer,
category layer, event layer, and class layer, defined in
the domain ontology. The domain layer represents the
domain name of an ontology and consists of various
categories defined by domain experts. Each category is
composed of the event set, which is derived from the
news corpus by domain experts. Every event
comprises several concepts of class layer. In class
layer, each concept contains a concept name, an
attribute set, and an operation set for an application
domain. There are three kinds of relationship,
including generalization, aggregation, and
association, in the domain ontology. The relationship
between a domain and its corresponding category is
generalization that represents “is-kind-of” relationship.
The relationship between each category and its
corresponding events is aggregation. The aggregation
denotes “is-part-of” relationship. The association
represents a semantic relationship between concepts in
class layer.
ii. Fuzzy Ontology:
A fuzzy ontology is an extended domain ontology
with fuzzy concepts and fuzzy relationships. Fig. 2
shows the structure of the fuzzy ontology:
Fig. 1: Structure of fuzzy ontology
Definition 2[1]:
i. Fuzzy domain ontology:
A fuzzy domain ontology is a 4-tuple OF(C, PF,
RF, AF) where:
 C is a set of concepts. Every concept here has
some properties whose value is fuzzy concept or
fuzzy set.
 PF is a set of properties. A property defined as a
5-tuple of the form PF(c, vF, qF, f, U), where c ∈ C
is an ontology concept, vF represents property
values, qF models linguistic qualifiers, which can
control or alter the strength of a property value vF,
f is the restriction facets on vF, and U is the
universe of discourse. Both vF and qF are the fuzzy
concepts at U, but qF changes the fuzzy degree of
vF.
 RF is a set of inter-concept relations between
concepts. Like fuzzy concept properties, rF ∈ RF is
defined as a 5-tuple of the form rF(c1, c2, t, sF, U)
where c1, c2 ∈ C are ontology concepts, t
represents relation type, U is the universe of
discourse, and sF models relation strengths and is
fuzzy concept at U, which can represent the
strength of association between concept-pairs c1,
c2.
 AF is a set of fuzzy rules. In a fuzzy system the set
of fuzzy rules is used as knowledge base. The
fuzzy domain ontology is used to model domain
expert knowledge. But, due to the lack of
relationships between fuzzy concepts that can be
the value of properties, it is difficult to integrate
diverse ontology systems. For example, in an
 ontology the set of property “price” value is
{cheap, appropriate, expensive, …}, and in other
ontology the same set is {high, low, middle, …}.
To map these ontologies, it is necessary to define
the semantic relationship between fuzzy concepts,
e.g. “cheap” and “expensive” have the relation of
disjointness, and “low” and “high” have the same
relation of disjointness etc.
ii. Fuzzy linguistic variable
Fuzzy linguistic variable is the variable whose
value is term or concept in natural language. A fuzzy
linguistic variable is a 4-tuple (X, T, M, U) where:
 X is the name of fuzzy linguistic variable, e.g.
“price” or “speed” etc.
 T is the set of terms which is the value of fuzzy
linguistic variable, e.g. T = {cheap, appropriate,
expensive,…} or T = {fast, middle, slow,…}.
 M is the mapping rules which map every term of
T to fuzzy set at U.
 U is the universe of discourse. Introducing
semantic relationships between concepts we
obtain the ontology model.
iii. Fuzzy linguistic variable ontology
A fuzzy linguistic variable ontology is a 5-tuple
OF = (ca, CF, R, F, U) where:
 ca is a concept on the abstract level, e.g. “price”,
“speed” etc.
 CF is the set of fuzzy concepts which describes all
values of ca.
 R = {r | r ⊆ CF × CF} is a set of binary relations
between concepts in CF. A kind of relation is set
relation RS = {inclusion, intersection, disjointness,
complement}, and the other relations are the order
relation and equivalence relation RO = {≤, ≥, =}.
CF and an order relation r compose the ordered
structure CF, r.
 F is the set of membership functions at U, which
is isomorphic to CF.
 U is the universe of discourse.
iv. Extended fuzzy ontology
An extended fuzzy ontology is a 7-tuple OF = (ca,
CF, R, F, Q, O, U), where:
 ca, CF, R, F, U have same interpretations as
defined in (iii).
 Q is the set of the linguistic qualifiers, e.g. Q =
{very, little, close to, …}. An qualifier q ∈ Q and a
fuzzy concept F, CF ∈ C compose a composition
fuzzy concept that can be the value of ca , e.g.
“very cheap”.
 O is the set of fuzzy operators at U, which is
isomorphic to Q.
v. Basic fuzzy ontology
A basic fuzzy ontology is a 4-tuple OF = (ca, CF,
F, U), where: ca, CF, F, U has same interpretations as
defined in definition (iii), which satisfy the following
conditions:
 CF = {c1, c2,… , cn} is a limited set.
 Only one relation of set, the relation of
disjointness, exists in CF, and CF is complete at U.
In the other words, CF is a fuzzy partition of U.
 CF has an ordered relation ≤, and CF, ≤ is a
complete ordered set, i.e. all concepts in CF
constitute a chain n c1 ≤ c2 ≤…≤ cn.
 F is optional element of ontology.
An example of basic fuzzy ontology is OF ＝ (ca
= price of fruit, CF = {very cheap, cheap, appropriate,
expensive, very expensive}, U = [0,100]).
Fig. 2: Three-layered ontology structure
Definition 3 [5, 3]
A Fuzzy Ontology is defined as the 5-tuple OF =
{I, C, R, F, A} where:
 I is the set of individuals, also called instances of
the concepts.
 C is the set of concepts. Each concept c ∈ C is a
fuzzy set on the domain of instances C: I → [0, 1].
The set of entities of the fuzzy ontology will be
indicated by E, i.e., E = C ∪ I.
 R is the set of relations. Each r ∈ R is an n-ary
fuzzy relation on the domain of entities, R: En →
[0, 1]. A special role is held by the taxonomic
relation T: E2 → [0, 1] which identifies the fuzzy
subsumption relation among the entities.
 F is the set of the fuzzy relations on the set of
entities E and a specific domain contained in D =
{integer, string, ...}. In detail, they are n-ary
functions such that each element f ∈ F is a relation
F: E(n−1) × P → [0, 1] where P ∈ D.
 A is the set of axioms expressed in a proper logical
language, i.e., predicates that constrain the
meaning of concepts, individuals, relationships
and functions.
Definition 4 [6]
A fuzzy ontology is an ontology extended with
fuzzy values which are assigned through the two
functions g: (Concepts  Instances) × (Properties 
Pro_val) → [0; 1] and h: Concepts  Instances → [0;
1].
Definition 5 [8]
A Fuzzy Ontology OF, is a quadruple of the form
OF = (C, ΡF, F, M), where:
 C is a set of concepts defined for the domain.
 ΡF is a set of fuzzy concept properties. A property
p  P is defined as a quadruple of the form pf(c, vf,
qf, f), where c  C is an ontology concept, ‘vf’
represents fuzzy attribute values and could be
either fuzzy numbers or fuzzy quantifiers, ‘qf’
models linguistic qualifiers and are hedges, which
can control or alter the strength of an attribute
value and f is the restriction facet on vf.
 F is a set of fuzzy inter-concept relations
between concepts. Like fuzzy concept properties,
F is defined as a quadruple of the form F (ci, cj,
t, qf), where ci, cj  C are ontology concepts, ‘t’
represents relation type, and ‘qf’ models relation
strengths and are linguistic variables, which can
represent the strength of association between
concept-pairs ci, cj.
 The choice of fuzzy numbers or fuzzy quantifiers
for values is dictated by the nature of the
underlying attribute and also its restriction facets.
The complete range of values over which an
attribute can take values defines the universe of
discourse M. The universe of discourse is
decomposed into a collection of fuzzy sets. Each
fuzzy set is defined over a domain that overlays
part of the universe of discourse.
Definition 6 [15]
The fuzzy ontology is based around the concept
that each index term or object is related to every other
term (or object) in the ontology, with a degree of
membership assigned to that relationship based on
fuzzy logic as introduced by (Zadeh, 1965). The fuzzy
membership value µ is used for the relationship
between the term or object in question where 0< µ <1
and µ corresponds to a fuzzy membership relation such
as “strongly”, “partially”, “somewhat”, “slightly”
where for each term:
i=n
∑ μ i=1
i=1
Where n is the number of relations a particular
object has, where n = (N - 1), with N representing the
total number of objects in the ontology. That is, each
term used in the system has the total membership value
of its relations as a value of 1 summed over each
dependant relation. This rule is not commutative, for
the relationship between two objects, A, B:
A related ¿ B … μ AB
→
B related ¿ A … μBA
→
µAB > µBA or µAB < µBA or µAB = µBA are all possible. For
simplicity, it is assumed there is only one type of
relation between the objects A and B. For further
simplicity, for each membership value for a relation
originating from A, the membership value is written as
µB rather than µAB as the A can be assumed. The overall
value of 1 is used in order to prevent objects with large
numbers of relations having a larger effect in a search
process than those with relatively small numbers of
relations.
Imagine that such a constraint does not apply.
Consider a query with two terms A and B. If A has only
2 relations, with µ1 = 0.7 and µ2 = 0.6 then ∑ = 1.3.
However, if B has 6 relations say, µ1 = 0.7 and µ2 =
0.5, µ3 = 0.7 and µ4 = 0.6, µ5 =0.7 and µ6 = 0.6 then ∑
= 3.8. This doesn’t matter if A and B are the only
elements in the query and both are needed, but if there
is a list of terms, so that all of them is unlikely to
retrieve wanted documents then there will be a
tendency to select B as part of the final query rather
than A and hence a bias will occur, and there will be a
tendency to expand via related terms of B. Obviously
this argument can be reversed, so that relatives of A
could be seen as having too high a membership value,
but it is likely that in a well designed ontology, the
relatives of very connected terms will have sufficiently
distinct meanings to be related but unwanted.
Practically, in addition, if a threshold value of µ is
used, large numbers of relatives will not qualify and so
huge query expansion will not occur.
This does mean that there is not a consistent
mapping between the strength of a relationship in
words and the membership value, but for each object,
the strongest relationship will continue to have the
highest membership value.
Computer
Tree Food
company
µ=0.2 is a is a
µ=0.3 µ=0.09
product of µ=0.01
Apple
manufactures
Granny is a iPod
Smith µ=0.2
is a
Sµ=1 µ=0.2
Pippin
Fig. 3: Example Fuzzy Ontology Scheme
An example, Figure 3, may take this clearer, each
µ represents the membership value of the relationship
from the apple to tree, fruit and computer company.
Any relationships not shown, e.g. between IPOD and
pippin, are assumed to have a µ = 0, relationships
directed to “Apple” do not have µ values shown for
clarity.
The apple can be a product of a tree (to distinguish
an apple tree from another kind of tree); it can be a
fruit (if the query relates to distinguishing between
fruit, for example apple pie, cherry pie) or a computer
company. The fuzzy ontology applies membership
values to each of these possibilities; depending on how
likely it is that a particular relation is required. These
different relations will have different membership
values depending on the context of the query, and
particularly the user’s view of the world. The
capitalization of the word Apple/apple may also be
used to assist this differentiation, but most web-based
searching tools seem to ignore this information.
In conventional ontologies, particular objects may
occur in multiple locations, leading to ambiguity when
being used for query construction. In addition,
unwanted cyclic relationships may occur. Unwanted
relationships can be assigned zero membership values.
In practice, unused terms or objects may also be
ignored in the ontology, as there is no need to retain
them to act as a bridge between otherwise useful
terms.
4. DISCUSSION
These definitions try to formalize the notion of
fuzzy ontology by means of an enumeration of the
elements of the ontology which are extended in order
to support vague knowledge. Despite the merit of these
definitions, this approach has many problems
discussion. Typically, different domains will need to
represent vagueness and imprecision at different
levels. Furthermore, future languages will offer new
possibilities to be extended which are unknown
nowadays, but these definitions do not allow other
fuzzy elements than the explicitly mentioned. As a
consequence, the scalability and reusability of the
definition are compromised. For example, a fuzzy role
hierarchy falls out of these definitions since taxonomic
relations between roles are not mentioned.
Most of the approaches are even more restrictive
and are dependent application dependent, since they
propose the minimal extensions which are sufficient to
cover a particular application. For example, do not
fuzzy concepts, whereas does not fuzzy relations.
Moreover, some definitions are tied to a particular
formalism. For example is attached to the fuzzy
language FUZZY OWL based on a fuzzy extension of
the DL SHOIN. But even if it became a standard
language for fuzzy ontologies representation, there are
still some interesting features which cannot be
represented in it, such as fuzzy nominals or fuzzy
concepts or role hierarchies. We understand fuzzy
ontologies in a more general sense. In our opinion, a
fuzzy ontology is simply an ontology which uses fuzzy
logic to provide a natural representation of imprecise
and vague knowledge, and eases reasoning over it.
Typically, concepts, (abstract and concrete)
relations and axioms can be fuzzified. But fuzziness
can also be in fuzzy concrete domains or in external
formalisms such as a fuzzy rule layer. Our informal
definition is general enough to allow the ontologists to
decide in which levels they want to introduce the
fuzziness, makes possible to have a crisp ontology
with fuzziness being dealt with using a external
formalism, and, what seems more important to us, will ontology framework is common, just the membership
not be compromised by the apparition of future values are different.
ontology languages.
Finally, this approach holds out the possibility
It is also worth to recall that since fuzzy logic is a that the representation of a potentially very large
generalization of classical logic, classical ontologies ontology can be compressed. If whole areas are not
are special case of fuzzy ontologies, so this formalism required, the relations to the core can be set to zero.
is by nature backwards compatible with current crisp Unwanted intermediate levels can also be removed,
ontologies. with lower-level terms only communicating directly
with higher levels. This aspect removes the need to
Finally, we note in passing that, although in the create artificial groupings to avoid orphaned terms. At
Artificial Intelligence literature the term approximate the limit a fuzzy ontology, with all membership values
reasoning is directly related to fuzzy logic, in the set to 0 or 1, will have each term or object having one
ontology literature this term has nothing to do with relation only. If each term only has one relation then a
fuzziness. B-tree structure is possible, with each term only
relating to its parent, however this arrangement is more
5. ADVANTAGES OF THE FUZZY
properly called a hierarchy. Table 1 summaries some
ONTOLOGY [15]
of the differences between crisp and fuzzy ontology.
Many issues arise from the use of multiple
ontologies including the difficulties associated with Problems Fuzzy Ontology Crisp Ontology
communicating between ontologies and the need for Compared
maintenance of large numbers of ontologies. The Multiple- Does not occur Issue for
Located terms disambiguation
fuzzy ontology as described is partly suggested in
Query Depends on Depends on
order to allow a common framework, or base ontology, expansion membership location only
with different membership values associated with value
different users and groups. Customization Simple, based on Requires new
modification ontology and/or
Another advantage of this approach is membership ontology sharing
completeness. Rather than impose an arbitrary values
standard of the importance of a particular location in Storage Depends on the Depends on
the ontology, which is required in a crisp ontology to required number of term number of terms
avoid too many examples of a term appearing in the in the ontology in the ontology
and the
ontology, the term or object can be located in all
membership
relevant locations. values of the
relations, can be
Most importantly, for searching processes, the use smaller or larger
of a fuzzy ontology for the mapping of search terms than crisp
allows the relative weight of each term in the required Knowledge Related to use Related to
output to be calculated. By allowing these weights to representation structure.
be calculated accurately, it removes the bias associated Table 1: Comparison between Fuzzy Ontology and
with multiply located terms being used for searching. Crisp Ontology
If a term is located in multiple locations in a crisp
ontology, and is used for query expansion purposes –
say by including offspring, then the danger is that the
large number of relatively irrelevant expansion terms
6. APPLICATIONS
outweigh those which are useful. One of the most important applications is
Semantic Web [4] and, more generally, the Internet,
In particular, the use of a fuzzy ontology approach Electronic Commerce [9], Knowledge Management
allows the convenient representation of the [1]. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recently
relationship in a domain according to a particular view, set up an incubator group on Uncertainty Reasoning
without sacrificing commonality with other views; the for the Web, where “uncertain is intended to
encompass a variety of aspects of imperfect
knowledge, including incompleteness,
inconclusiveness, vagueness, ambiguity, and others” .
Another important application is information
retrieval [10]. More specifically, medical information
retrieval [12], data mining [11]… have been the
subject of considerable research.
Fig. 4: Fuzzy Ontology-Classes Tab: Asserted Class
Hierarchy
Among the other examples that appear in the
literature we may cite multilingual ontologies,
ontology mapping, ontology integration, ontology
dynamics, Chinese news summarization [2], and
educational computer games [16]. Regarding fuzzy
ontology editors, there is KAON editor, which presents
an extension of the ontology[3]. There are also Fuzzy
extensions of Semantic Web languages such as RDF
[13], OWL, OWL 2 [5,7,14].
7. REFERENCES
[1] Jun Zhai, Lixin Shen, Zhou Zhou, Yan Liang,
Fuzzy Ontology Model for Knowledge Management,
School of Economics and Management, Dalian
Maritime University, Dalian P. R. China.
[2] C.S. Lee, Z.W. Jian, L.K. Huang, A fuzzy ontology
and its application to news summarization, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part
B: Cybernetics 35 (5) (2005) 859–880.
[3] Silvia Calegari and Davide Ciucci, Fuzzy Ontology
and Fuzzy-OWL in the KAON Project, Dipartimento
Di Informatica, Sistemistica e Comunicazione
Universith di Milano - Bicocca.
[4] Jun Zhai, Yan Chen, Qinglian Wang, Miao Lv,
Fuzzy Ontology Models Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set
for Knowledge Sharing on the Semantic Web, School
of Economics and Management, Dalian Maritime
University, Dalian, P.R. China.
[5] Silvia Calegari and Davide Ciucci, Fuzzy
Ontology, Fuzzy Description Logics and Fuzzy-OWL,
Dipartimento di Informatica Sistemistica e
Comunicazione Universit`a di Milano – Bicocca
(Italia).
[6] Silvia Calegari and Davide Ciucci, Interrating
Fuzzy logi In Ontologyes, Dipartimento di Informatica,
Sistemistica e Comunicazione, Universit`a degli Studi
di Milano Bicocca, via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi,
Milano, Italy.
[7] Hua-Mao Gu1, Xun Wang, Yun Ling, and Jin-Qin
Shi, Building a Fuzzy Ontology of Edutainment Using
OWL, College of Information, Zhejiang Gongshang
University, Hangzhou, China.
[8] Muhammad Abulaish, Member, IEEE & IEEE-CS,
Department of Mathematics, Jamia Millia Islamia (A
Central Univ.) Jamia Nagar, New Delhi – 25, India.
Lipika Dey, Member, IEEE & IEEE-CS, A Fuzzy
Ontology Generation Framework for Handling
Uncertainties and Nonuniformity in Domain
Knowledge Description, Department of Mathematics,
Indian Institute of Technology Hauz Khas, New
Delhi , India,
[9], Jun Zhai, Yiduo Liang, Yi Yu and Jiatao Jiang,
Semantic Information Retrieval Based on Fuzzy
Ontology for Electronic Commerce. School of
Management, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, P.
R. China.
[10] Silvia Calegari and Elie Sanchez, Dipartimento Di
Informatica, Sistemistica e Comunicazione Universit`a
di Milano – Bicocca V.le Sarca, Milano (Italia) LIF,
Biomathematiques et Informatique Medicale Faculte
de Medecine (Universite Aix-Marseille II) Bd Jean
Moulin, Marseille Cedex, A Fuzzy Ontology-Approach
to improve Semantic Information Retrieval
[11] Eduardo L. G. Escovar, Cristiane A. Yaguinuma,
Mauro Biajiz, Using Fuzzy Ontologies to Extend
Semantically Similar Data Mining, Department of
Computer Science – Federal University of S˜ao Carlos
(UFSCar).
[12] DavidParry, Fuzzy Ontology for Medical
Document Retrieval, Proceedings of the 11th
International ConferenceonI nformation Pro-Cessing
and Managment of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based
Systems (IPMU2006).Paris, France2006.Pages2276–
2283.
[13] Giorgos Stoilos, Giorgos Stamou, Vassilis
Tzouvaras, Jeff Z. Pan, and Ian Horrocks. “Fuzzy
OWL: Uncertainty and the Semantic Web”. Fuzzy
OWL: Uncertainty and the Semantic Web, In:
Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on
OWL: Experience and Directions (OWLED 2005),
Volume 188, Galway, Ireland: CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, 2005.
[14] Fernando Bobillo and Umberto Straccia, Dpt.of
Computer Science & Systems Engineering, An OWL
Ontology for FuzzyOWL2. University of Zaragoza,
Spain Istituto di Scienzae Tecnologie dell’
Informazione (ISTI-CNR), Pisa ,Italy.
[15] David Tudor Parry, Fuzzy Ontology and
Intelligent System for Discovery of Useful medical
Information, a thesis submitted to Aucklend University
of Technology in Fulfillment the degree of Doctor
Philosophy, 2005.
[16] website: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/
[17] Hanêne GHORBEL, Afef BAHRI, Rafik
BOUAZIZ, Fuzzy Protégé for Fuzzy Ontology Models,
MIRACL Laboratory, Faculty of economics and
management of Sfax – Tunisia.