I’ve had an initial stab at encoding the RCC8 spatial relations as an ontology. This is probably actually more RCC6 as I collapsed the TPP/NTPP and TPPi/NTPPi relations down to simpler properties. The ontology here is an extension of the spatial relations ontology I wrote for work. I’ve tried to capture as many property compositions as possible using OWL. Here is an example including the data for Hampshire to show some of the reasoning in action. As with the Allen Interval algebra ontology this is not a complete axiomatisation of the RCC8 relationships (not possible in OWL), but hopefully has some use. Again feedback appreciated…
A few years back me and my friend Robert Stevens discussed the how ‘cool’ it would be to create an ontology for elementary particles and the standard model. We didn’t really proceed too far with this, however one recent rainy weekend I decided to give it some more thought. This  was the result – it is still far from complete and very much a work in progress. Interestingly the ontology does use a lot of the features of OWL2.
It appears meanwhile that Robert has also been building his own version.
Hopefully our efforts will see the start of some linked open data from CERN – I can dream :) I’ll write up this work when the ontology is complete. Meanwhile comments welcome (comments aside from “you need to get out more” that is).
 – best viewed in Protege 4.1
I’ve been working with semantic web technologies for around seven/eight years now and one thing that still puzzles to some extent is why a lot of IT professionals and computer scientists find OWL (the Web Ontology Language) so hard. I do not have a computer science background (I’m a mathematician by training) but during my career I’ve had to get to grips with a number of technologies from Java to SQL and RDBMS. I’ve dabbled with OO design, UML, GIS etc.
Personally I’ve found OWL no harder to pick up that any of these, and to be honest I think OWL is considerably easier to work with than, say, developing in C++ or implementing a complex RDBMS. So I am genuinely curious – what makes people think OWL is scary (esp. compared to some of the technologies I’ve listed here)?