Results 1 - 10
of
110
Ontology Mapping: The State of the Art
, 2003
"... Ontology mapping is seen as a solution provider in today's landscape of ontology research. As the number of ontologies that are made publicly available and accessible on the Web increases steadily, so does the need for applications to use them. A single ontology is no longer enough to support t ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 446 (10 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Ontology mapping is seen as a solution provider in today's landscape of ontology research. As the number of ontologies that are made publicly available and accessible on the Web increases steadily, so does the need for applications to use them. A single ontology is no longer enough to support the tasks envisaged by a distributed environment like the Semantic Web. Multiple ontologies need to be accessed from several applications. Mapping could provide a common layer from which several ontologies could be accessed and hence could exchange information in semantically sound manners. Developing such mappings has been the focus of a variety of works originating from diverse communities over a number of years. In this article we comprehensively review and present these works. We also provide insights on the pragmatics of ontology mapping and elaborate on a theoretical approach for defining ontology mapping.
Ontology Evolution: Not the Same as Schema Evolution
, 2003
"... As ontology development becomes a more ubiquitous and collaborative process, ontology versioning and evolution becomes an important area of ontology research. The many similarities between database-schema evolution and ontology evolution will allow us to build on the extensive research in schema evo ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 207 (6 self)
- Add to MetaCart
As ontology development becomes a more ubiquitous and collaborative process, ontology versioning and evolution becomes an important area of ontology research. The many similarities between database-schema evolution and ontology evolution will allow us to build on the extensive research in schema evolution. However, there are also important differences between database schemas and ontologies. The differences stem from different usage paradigms, the presence of explicit semantics, and different knowledge models. A lot of problems that existed only in theory in database research come to the forefront as practical problems in ontology evolution. These differences have important implications for the development of ontology-evolution frameworks: The traditional distinction between versioning and evolution is not applicable to ontologies. There are several dimensions along which compatibility between versions must be considered. The set of change operations for ontologies is different. We must develop automatic techniques for finding similarities and differences between versions.
A Component-Based Framework For Ontology Evolution
, 2003
"... Support for ontology evolution becomes extremely important in distributed development and use of ontologies. A component-base approach can lead us to a distrubuted ontology. ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 87 (5 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Support for ontology evolution becomes extremely important in distributed development and use of ontologies. A component-base approach can lead us to a distrubuted ontology.
Change Management for Distributed Ontologies
, 2004
"... ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan ..."
(Show Context)
Specifying Ontology Views by Traversal
- Proceedings of the 3 rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC
, 2004
"... Abstract. One of the original motivations behind ontology research was the belief that ontologies can help with reuse in knowledge representation. However, many of the ontologies that are developed with reuse in mind, such as standard reference ontologies and controlled terminologies, are extremely ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 73 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. One of the original motivations behind ontology research was the belief that ontologies can help with reuse in knowledge representation. However, many of the ontologies that are developed with reuse in mind, such as standard reference ontologies and controlled terminologies, are extremely large, while the users often need to reuse only a small part of these resources in their work. Specifying various views of an ontology enables users to limit the set of concepts that they see. In this paper, we develop the concept of a Traversal View, a view where a user specifies the central concept or concepts of interest, the relationships to traverse to find other concepts to include in the view, and the depth of the traversal. For example, given a large ontology of anatomy, a user may use a Traversal View to extract a concept of Heart and organs and organ parts that surround the heart or are contained in the heart. We define the notion of Traversal Views formally, discuss their properties, present a strategy for maintaining the view through ontology evolution and describe our tool
Tracking Changes During Ontology Evolution
- In Proceeding of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2004
, 2004
"... Abstract. As ontology development becomes a collaborative process, developers face the problem of maintaining versions of ontologies akin to maintaining versions of software code or versions of documents in large projects. Traditional versioning systems enable users to compare versions, examine chan ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 52 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. As ontology development becomes a collaborative process, developers face the problem of maintaining versions of ontologies akin to maintaining versions of software code or versions of documents in large projects. Traditional versioning systems enable users to compare versions, examine changes, and accept or reject changes. However, while versioning systems treat software code and text documents as text files, a versioning system for ontologies must compare and present structural changes rather than changes in text representation of ontologies. In this paper, we present the PROMPTDIFF ontology-versioning environment, which address these challenges. PROMPTDIFF includes an efficient version-comparison algorithm that produces a structural diff between ontologies. The results are presented to the users through an intuitive user interface for analyzing the changes that enables users to view concepts and groups of concepts that were added, deleted, and moved, distinguished by their appearance and with direct access to additional information characterizing the change. The users can then act on the changes, accepting or rejecting them. We present results of a
Ontology change: classification and survey
, 2007
"... Ontologies play a key role in the advent of the Semantic Web. An important problem when dealing with ontologies is the modification of an existing ontology in response to a certain need for change. This problem is a complex and multifaceted one, because it can take several different forms and includ ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 51 (5 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Ontologies play a key role in the advent of the Semantic Web. An important problem when dealing with ontologies is the modification of an existing ontology in response to a certain need for change. This problem is a complex and multifaceted one, because it can take several different forms and includes several related subproblems, like heterogeneity resolution or keeping track of ontology versions. As a result, it is being addressed by several different, but closely related and often overlapping research disciplines. Unfortunately, the boundaries of each such discipline are not clear, as the same term is often used with different meanings in the relevant literature, creating a certain amount of confusion. The purpose of this paper is to identify the exact relationships between these research areas and to determine the boundaries of each field, by performing a broad review of the relevant literature.
Can you tell the difference between DL-Lite ontologies
- IN PROCEEDINGS OF KR’08
, 2008
"... We develop a formal framework for comparing different versions of DL-Lite ontologies. Four notions of difference and entailment between ontologies are introduced and their applications in ontology development and maintenance discussed. These notions are obtained by distinguishing between differences ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 49 (5 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We develop a formal framework for comparing different versions of DL-Lite ontologies. Four notions of difference and entailment between ontologies are introduced and their applications in ontology development and maintenance discussed. These notions are obtained by distinguishing between differences that can be observed among concept inclusions, answers to queries over ABoxes, and by taking into account additional context ontologies. We compare these notions, study their meta-properties, and determine the computational complexity of the corresponding reasoning tasks. Moreover, we show that checking difference and entailment can be automated by means of encoding into QBF satisfiability and using off-the-shelf QBF solvers. Finally, we explore the relationship between the notion of forgetting (or uniform interpolation) and our notions of difference between ontologies.
Evaluating Ontology-Mapping Tools: Requirements and Experience
- In Proceedings of OntoWeb-SIG3 Workshop at the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management
, 2002
"... The appearance of a large number of ontology tools may leave a user looking for an appropriate tool overwhelmed and uncertain on which tool to choose. Thus evaluation and comparison of these tools is important to help users determine which tool is best suited for their tasks. However, there is n ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 44 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The appearance of a large number of ontology tools may leave a user looking for an appropriate tool overwhelmed and uncertain on which tool to choose. Thus evaluation and comparison of these tools is important to help users determine which tool is best suited for their tasks. However, there is no "one size fits all" comparison framework for ontology tools: di#erent classes of tools require very di#erent comparison frameworks. For example, ontology-development tools can easily be compared to one another since they all serve the same task: define concepts, instances, and relations in a domain. Tools for ontology merging, mapping, and alignment however are so di#erent from one another that direct comparison may not be possible. They di#er in the type of input they require (e.g., instance data or no instance data), the type of output they produce (e.g., one merged ontology, pairs of related terms, articulation rules), modes of interaction and so on. This diversity makes comparing the performance of mapping tools to one another largely meaningless.
