| File | aaai2000.pdf |
|---|---|
| Title |
Dynamic Ontologies on the Web. |
| Authors | J. Heflin, and Hendler |
| Citation | Heflin, J. and Hendler, J. Dynamic Ontologies on the Web. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000). AAAI/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA, 2000. pp. 443-449. |
| Abstract | We discuss the problems associated with managing ontologies in distributed environments such as the Web. The Web poses unique problems for the use of ontologies because of the rapid evolution and autonomy of web sites. We present SHOE, a web-based knowledge representation language that supports multiple versions of ontologies. We describe SHOE in the terms of a logic that separates data from ontologies and allows ontologies to provide different perspectives on the data. We then discuss the features of SHOE that address ontology versioning, the effects of ontology revision on SHOE web pages, and methods for implementing ontology integration using SHOE’s extension and version mechanisms. |
| Link | http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/SHOE/pubs/aaai2000.pdf |
| Web Site | SHOE (Simple HTML Ontology Extensions) [NW] |
| Review | It discuss the problem of dynamic and of versioning. It's quite technic and so the read is not so simple. |
| Note |
In this article there is also a presentation of related work about
ontology versioning. |
| File | SWWS01.pdf |
|---|---|
| Title |
Ontology versioning on the Semantic Web. |
| Authors | Michel Klein and Dieter Fensel |
| Citation | Michel Klein and Dieter Fensel. Ontology versioning for the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), pages 75-91, Stanford University, California, USA, July~30 - August~1, 2001. |
| Abstract | Ontologies are often seen as basic building blocks for the Semantic Web, as they provide a reusable piece of knowledge about a specific domain. However, those pieces of knowledge are not static, but evolve over time. Domain changes, adaptations to different tasks, or changes in the conceptualization require modifications of the ontology. The evolution of ontologies causes operability problems, which will hamper their effective reuse. A versioning mechanism might help to reduce those problems, as it will make the relations between different revisions of an ontology explicit. This paper will discuss the problem of ontology versioning. Inspired by the work done in database schema versioning and program interface versioning, it will also propose building blocks for the most important aspects of a versioning mechanism, i.e., ontology identification and change specification. |
| Link | http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mcaklein/papers/SWWS01.pdf |
| Web Site | |
| Review | The dynamic problem is well discussed in this article. The
authors describe what they intend for "versioning of ontologies"
and propose a solution. They explain the different causes that produce
changes to an ontology and the consequences of this changes. They explain
the type of compatibility of a modified ontology; backward and upward
compatibility are illustrated. The authors also state that currently,
there is no agreed versioning methodology for ontologies on the web, but
they try to sketch a typical scenario for ontology changes. Moreover the
general goal for a versioning framework and a list of requirements are
stated. One of these requirements is the identification of the ontology
referenced by a concept or a relation. About this argument a discussion
on the use of URI or URL is carried out; they assume that an ontology
is represented in a file on the web. An ontology version has a URI and
the file that contains the ontology has a URL. Some ideas to keep relations
between different versions of the ontologies are illustrated. This article is interesting because it tries to explain in a clear way the problem of the dynamic applied to ontologies. The authors propose the ontology versioning as solution of the problem. Probably this way is the more important and there are several documents about versioning. The studies about this argument take advantage also from schema versioning in the field of database. |
| Note |
It presents the problem of ontology versioning and
makes some examples. It defines the general goal of a versioning framework,
it also list more detailed requirements and presents elements of versioning
metodology.
The ideas that are presented in this paper will be implemented in the On-To-Knowledge project which builds an ontology-based tool environment to perform knowledge management, dealing with large numbers of heterogeneous, distributed, and semistructured documents typically found in large company intranets and the World-Wide Web. |
| File | pinto99some.pdf |
|---|---|
| Title |
Some issues on ontology integration. |
| Authors | H. Sofia Pinto, Asunción Gómez-Pérez and João P. Martins |
| Citation | Pinto, H. S., G´omez-P´erez, A., and Martins, J. P. (1999). Some issues on ontology integration. In Proceedings of the workshop on Ontologies and Problem Solving Methods during IJCAI-99, Stockholm, Sweden. |
| Abstract | The word integration has been used with different meanings in the ontology field. This article aims at clarifying the meaning of the word “integration” and presenting some of the relevant work done in integration. We identify three meanings of ontology integration”: when building a new ontology reusing (by assembling, extending, specializing or adapting) other ontologies already available; when building an ontology by merging several ontologies into a single one that unifies all of them; when building an application using one or more ontologies. We discuss the different meanings of “integration”, identify the main characteristics of the three different processes and propose three words to distinguish among those meanings: integration, merge and use. |
| Link | http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mcaklein/papers/SWWS01.pdf |
| Web Site | |
| Review | This article explain the different scenario related to the three words: integration, merge and use. For each word discuss the meaning and give many example of existing works or project. It tries to enlighten a methodology, if it exists, but often there's not a well defined method to carry out the process of integration it speaks about. The authors cite often other works and so the read is not so simple. The works cited are article or documents related to projects on ontology integration or ontology experience. The most interesting thing in this article is the explanation of the difference between the integration and the merge of ontologies. |
| Note |
Repeat the reading later when the argument is more understood
and clear.
|
| File | IJCAI01-ws.pdf |
|---|---|
| Title |
Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. |
| Authors | Michel Klein |
| Citation | Michel Klein: Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, IJCAI'01, Seattle, USA, August 4-5, 2001 |
| Abstract | With the grown availability of large and specialized online ontologies, the questions about the combined use of independently developed ontologies have become even more important. Although there is already a lot of research done in this area, there are still many open questions. In this paper we try to classify the problems that may arise into a common framework. We then use that framework to examine several projects that aim at some ontology combination task, thus sketching the state of the art. We conclude with an overview of the different approaches and some recommandations for future research. |
| Link | http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mcaklein/papers/IJCAI01-ws.pdf |
| Web Site | |
| Review | In section 2 there is an interesting list of terms; it's useful to clarify the meaning of each term in the context of ontology integration. In section 3 there is an important classification about the mismatches between ontologies, in other words it explores how ontologies may differ. This section is important to understand the problems that arise when we wont to modify and to integrate ontologies. Another interesting argument of section 3 it is the ontology versioning; it lists the aspects that a versioning schema should take care. In section 4 it examines several tools and techniques to solve problems related to ontology mismatches (OKBC, OntoMorph, SKC, Chimaera, PROMPT, SHOE for ontology versioning). In section 5 it analyses the various approach to solve ontology problems. This article is important in order to understand the many problems related to the integration of ontologies and to understand how we can work to solve them. |
| Note |
There are some useful schema and table about mismatches
between ontologies.
|
| File | EDBT02-ws.pdf |
|---|---|
| Title |
Supporting evolving ontologies on the Internet. |
| Authors | Michel Klein |
| Citation | Michel Klein. Supporting evolving ontologies on the internet. In Wolfgang Lindner and J\'ulius \vStuller, editors, Proceedings of the EDBT 2002 PhD Workshop, pages 51-58, Prague, Czech Republic, March~28 2002. |
| Abstract | The idea of a “Semantic Web” has created a lot of interest in the use of ontologies—formal descriptions of a part of the world—for describing the meaning of information on the web. However, when ontologies are used on the web, several problems appear: how can different ontologies be combined, what happens when they are changed, and how should they be adapted for new tasks. Those questions require the management of ontologies, their use and their evolution. This paper describes a research project that will investigate the management of ontologies in a web-based setting. |
| Link | http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mcaklein/papers/EDBT02-ws.pdf |
| Web Site | |
| Review | This article repeats in some parts the arguments of the previous one (Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions). In section 2 there is an interesting analysis of the evolving ontologies in which the problem of compatibility is taken into account. In section 3 it speaks about the project the author is working on that is "Which mechanisms and methods are necessary to support the combination of ontologies from different sources and the changes to them in an open, distributed environment". The system, that will be developed, is called OntoView. Later on it explains the different type of change that determines a new version of an ontology. The principle functions of the system are also listed. |
| Note |
It's a presentation of the OntoView project. Many arguments
are also treated in the previous and next article.
|
| File | EKAW02.pdf |
|---|---|
| Title |
Ontology versioning and change detection on the Web. |
| Authors | Michel Klein |
| Citation | Michel Klein, Atanas Kiryakov, Damyan Ognyanov, and Dieter Fensel: Ontology Versioning and Change Detection on the Web. In 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW02), Sigüenza, Spain, October 1-4, 2002. |
| Abstract | To effectively use ontologies on the Web, it is essential that changes in ontologies are managed well. This paper analyzes the topic of ontology versioning in the context of the Web by looking at the characteristics of the version relation between ontologies and at the identification of online ontologies. Then, it describes the design of a web-based system that helps users to manage changes in ontologies. The system helps to keep different versions of web-based ontologies interoperable, by maintaining not only the transformations between ontologies, but also the conceptual relation between concepts in different versions. The system allows ontology engineers to compare versions of ontology and to specify these conceptual relations. For the visualization of differences, it uses an adaptable rule-based mechanism that finds and classifies changes in RDF-based ontologies. |
| Link | http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mcaklein/papers/EKAW02.pdf |
| Web Site | |
| Review | This article is an organic and well done work on the ontology versioning problem. It starts illustrating the characteristics of a version relation (also in the previous article); that is the differences between version relations and conceptual relations inside an ontology. Then, in section 3 the problem of ontology identification on the web is treated. The proposal is to maintain the ontology stored in a file on the web. The file has an URL whereas the ontology has an identifier (an URI). The different type of change to the identification of the ontology or of the file is taken in consideration. The OntoView project is illustrated in section 4 and 5: the features, the techniques adopted, the methodologies to compare ontologies and to find changes in them. |
| Note |
The OntoView project seems very important for my research.
|
| Title | |
|---|---|
| Authors | Deborah L. McGuinness and Frank van Harmelen |
| Abstract | The OWL Web Ontology Language is being designed by the W3C Web Ontology Working Group in order to provide a language that can be used for applications that need to understand the content of information instead of just understanding the human-readable presentation of content. OWL facilitates greater machine readability of web content than XML, RDF, and RDF-S support by providing a additional vocabulary for term descriptions. This document provides an introduction to the OWL language. It first describes a simpler version of the full OWL language which is referred to as OWL Lite and then describes OWL by addition to OWL Lite. |
| Link | www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ |
| Review | This page may be useful to understand the features of the new language for ontology integration. |
| Note |
It's quite technic.
|
| Title | |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mike Dean, Dan Connolly, Frank van Harmelen, James Hendler, Ian Horrocks, Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Lynn Andrea Stein |
| Abstract | OWL is a semantic markup language for publishing and sharing ontologies on the World Wide Web. OWL is derived from the DAML+OIL Web Ontology Language [DAML+OIL] and builds upon the Resource Description Framework [RDF/XML Syntax]. |
| Link | www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/ |
| Review | This document gives a systematic, compact and informal description of all the modelling primitives of OWL. |
| Note |
It's a draft document.
|
| Title | |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Ian Horrocks, and Frank van Harmelen |
| Abstract | The OWL Web Ontology Language is being designed by the W3C Web Ontology Working Group as a revision of the DAML+OIL web ontology language. This description of OWL contains a high-level, abstract syntax for both OWL and OWL Lite, a subset of OWL. This syntax serves as part of a high-level specification for the formalism. A mapping from the abstract syntax to the OWL exchange syntax is also provided. |
| Link | www.w3.org/TR/owl-absyn/ |
| Review | This document contains a high-level description of the features that will be in OWL, in the form of constructs and informal descriptions of the meaning of these constructs. |
| Note |
This page contains a list of differeces from DAML+OIL.
|
| File | |
|---|---|
| Title |
Evaluating Ontology-Mapping Tools: Requirements and Experience. |
| Authors | N. F. Noy, M. A. Musen |
| Citation |
Evaluating Ontology-Mapping Tools: Requirements and Experience. N. F. Noy, M. A. Musen. Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology Tools at EKAW'02 (EON2002). 2002. |
| Abstract | 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: different classes of tools require very different 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 different from one another that direct comparison may not be possible. They differ 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. We present criteria that partition the set of such tools in smaller groups allowing users to choose the set of tools that best fits their tasks. We discuss what resources we as a community need to develop in order to make performance comparisons within each group of merging and mapping tools useful and effective. These resources will most likely come as results of evaluation experiments of stand-alone tools. As an example of such an experiment, we discuss our experiences and results in evaluating PROMPT, an interactive ontology-merging tool. Our experiment produced some of the resources that we can use in more general evaluation. However, it has also shown that comparing the performance of different tools can be difficult since human experts do not agree on how ontologies should be merged, and we do not yet have a good enough metric for comparing ontologies. |
| Link | http://smi-web.stanford.edu/pubs/SMI_Abstracts/SMI-2002-0936.html |
| Web Site | |
| Review | This article describes an experiment done to start a discussion on a framework for evaluating ontology-mapping tools. The authors state that it's too difficult to find out the "best" merging ontology tool among the numerous ones and they try to use the user point of view as a criteria to make the choose. They have prepared a set of "pragmatic" criteria related to input requirements, level of user interaction, type of output, content of output to evaluate which tool to use. They used the PROMPT plug-in for Protégé-2000 to conduct their experiment. They asked four people to merge two ontologies and then they compare the merged ontology. They explain also the criteria they used to evaluate the results. This article is not so technical but it may be interesting to understand how to face the ontology integration problem in a different way, that is the user point of view. |
| Note |
This article can be usefull to understand a different
point of view on ontology-mapping tools.
|
| File | |
|---|---|
| Title |
An Ontology Model supporting Multiple Ontologies for Knowledge sharing. |
| Authors | Valentina Tamma |
| Citation |
An Ontology Model supporting Multiple Ontologies for Knowledge sharing. Valentina Tamma PhD thesis. 2001 |
| Abstract | In this thesis we focus our attention on sharing ontologies,
and we concentrate on a conceptual metamodel for ontologies which supports
an alternative approach to knowledge sharing. These are the two main research
threads followed in thesis: The primary thread concentrates on an enriched
ontology model which provides a precise characterisation of the attributes
used to define concepts in the ontology. This characterisation has been
modelled by a set of metaproperties for attributes which encompass the
behaviour of concepts' properties in the concept definition and over time,
namely: Mutability, Mutability Frequency, Reversible Mutability, Event
Mutability, Modality, Prototypicality, Exceptionality, Inheritance and
Distinction. This conceptual metamodel is based on a multidisciplinary
theoretical background which includes the formal tools of ontological
analysis (namely identity, rigidity, unity and dependence) (see the OntoClean
methodology by Nicola Guarino and Chris Welty), on the cognitive notions
of prototypes and exceptions, and the notion of modality. The novelty
of this extended conceptual metamodel is that it explicitly represents
the behaviour of attributes over time by describing the changes in a property
that are permitted for members of the concept. It also explicitly represents
how concepts' properties are inherited by subconcepts. Finally, the metamodel
does not only describe the prototypical properties holding for a concept
but also the exceptional ones. No previous work on ontology has provided
such a precise characterisation of attributes' properties. This conceptual metamodel has been developed to enable the assessment of semantic similarity in the structure of multiple ontologies, called ontology clustering, which is the object of the secondary research thread. Ontology clustering locates the shared knowledge in a structure of multiple ontologies which are hierarchically organised. Although this has not been a primary direction, we believe that such a structure has advantages over the others especially if considered in the context of an open environment such as the Internet. |
| Link | http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~valli/Thesis.zip |
| Web Site | |
| Review | In the first chapter there is a presentation of the problems related to ontology integration and knowledge sharing. The second chapter presents an interesting review of the theoretical foundations of ontologies; there are a lot of ontology definitions, explanations of the meaning that the term "ontology" assumes in the different areas such as philosophy, AI, knowledge sharing and others. The third chapter presents the diverse approaches to the problems of knowledge sharing and reuse presented in the literature. A rich classification of the problems and the mismatches in the onotlogy integration is given. Moreover a novel proposal for knowledge sharing namely ontology clustering is presented. Ontology clustering is based on the ability to assess semantic similarity among concepts. After a brief survey of the measures for semantic similarity in the literature, the author argues the need for more sensitive measures that return not only a binary value, but a degree of similarity between concepts that can be used to perform some kind of semantic matching. The author proposes to take into account the structure of the concept's description and the relationships holding between concepts. In chapter four an extended conceptual model for ontologies is introduced; it represents semantic information about concepts' properties. The model results from enriching the usual conceptual model with meta-properties for attributes (that model concepts' properties) which precisely characterises the concept's properties and expected ambiguities, including which properties are prototypical of a concept and which are exceptional, the behaviour of properties over time and the degree of applicability of properties to subconcepts. This enriched conceptual model permits a precise characterisation of what is represented by class membership mechanisms and helps a knowledge engineer to determine, in a straightforward manner, the metaproperties holding for a concept. Chapter five presents an example of modelling by using the ontology model introduced before. |
| Note | There are a lot of usefull ontology definition and classification
in the first part. A rich classification of the problems and the mismatches in the onotlogy heterogeneity is given and there are a lot of reference to others works. An interesting table that summarize all the mismatches in ontologies integration is presented at page 61. It's quite long. |
| File | |
|---|---|
| Title |
Formal Ontology in Information Systems. |
| Authors | Guarino Nicola |
| Citation |
Guarino, N. 1998. Formal Ontology in Information Systems. In N. Guarino (ed.) Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Proceedings of FOIS'98, Trento, Italy, 6-8 June 1998. IOS Press, Amsterdam: 3-15. |
| Abstract |
Research on ontology is becoming increasingly widespread in the computer science community, and its importance is being recognized in a multiplicity of research fields and application areas, including knowledge engineering, database design and integration, information retrieval and extraction. We shall use the generic term “information systems”, in its broadest sense, to collectively refer to these application perspectives. We argue in this paper that so-called ontologies present their own methodological and architectural peculiarities: on the methodological side, their main peculiarity is the adoption of a highly interdisciplinary approach, while on the architectural side the most interesting aspect is the centrality of the role they can play in an information system, leading to the perspective of ontology-driven information systems. |
| Link | http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/Ontology/Papers/FOIS98.pdf |
| Web Site |
http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/Ontology/Papers/OntologyPapers.html [NW] |
| Review | This article presents a detailed description of the term "ontology". The author gives a formal definition of "ontology". In section 3 the role of ontologies in information system are described and different scenarios are depicted. Momis is cited. |
| Note | There are a lot of usefull ontology definition and classification in the first part. It's a very important article becouse its ontology definition is often cited in literature. In some parts is very technical. |
| File | |
|---|---|
| Title |
MAFRA - A Mapping FRAmework for Distrinuted Ontologies |
| Authors | Alexander Maedche, Boris Motik, Nuno Silva, Raphael Volz |
| Citation |
Alexander Maedche, Boris Motik, Nuno Silva, Raphael Volz. MAFRA - A Mapping FRAmework for Distrinuted Ontologies. 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management Siguenza, Spain, October 1-4 2002 |
| Abstract |
Ontologies as means for conceptualizing and structuring domain knowledge within a community of interest are seen as a key to realize the Semantic Web vision. However, the decentralized nature of the Web makes achieving this consensus across communities difficult, thus, hampering efficient knowledge sharing between them. In order to balance the autonomy of each community with the need for interoperability, mapping mechanisms between distributed ontologies in the Semantic Web are required. In this paper we present MAFRA, an interactive, incremental and dynamic framework for mapping distributed ontologies. |
| Link | http://wim.fzi.de/wim/publications/entries/1023194613.pdf |
| Web Site | |
| Review | This article describes a framework for mapping distributed
ontologies. It presents the modules that compone the framework and makes
an example. The authors state that the exiting information integration
system approaches are "centralized" and so they are not enough
flexible for scaling up to the Web. They, in fact, start from this observation
to design a distributed system of mediation. The authors define the ontology mapping process as the set of activities required to transform instances of a source ontology into instances of a target ontology. |
| Note | The article focuses on representation and execution aspects of mappings. The project is under development. The dynamic and on-line aspects are not yet resolved. The MOMIS approach is quoted. |
| File | |
|---|---|
| Title |
User-Driven Ontology Evolution Management |
| Authors | Ljiljana Stojanovic, Alexander Maedche, Boris Motik, Nenad Stojanovic |
| Citation |
Ljiljana Stojanovic, Alexander Maedche, Boris Motik, Nenad Stojanovic. User-Driven Ontology Evolution ManagementOntologies. 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management Siguenza, Spain, October 1-4 2002 |
| Abstract |
With rising importance of knowledge interchange, many industrial and
academic applications have adopted ontologies as their conceptual |
| Link | http://wim.fzi.de/wim/publications/entries/1023194568.pdf |
| Web Site | |
| Review | This article speaks about ontology evolution in a very detailed way. It explains the various consequences and drawbacks of a change in an ontology. The authors define ontology evolution as the timely adaptation of an ontology to changed business requirements, to trends in ontology instances and patterns of usage of the ontology-based application, as well as the consistent management/propagation of these changes to dependent elements. They analyze ontology evolution requirements and present a novel, process-oriented approach that fulfils them. In section 3 they explore the complexity of the semantics of changes problem and introduce different evolution strategies that allow user to control and to customize the evolution ontology process. |
| Note | It's a very interesting article because it considers all the consequences of a change in an ontology. It also presents a clear example of an ontology change. It describes their framework (KAON) that they are developing at the Karlsruhe University. There is a clever and wide review of related work. |
| File | |
|---|---|
| Title |
Mapping Ontologies into Cyc. |
| Authors | Stephen L. Reed and Douglas B. Lenat |
| Citation | Stephen L. Reed and Douglas B. Lenat. Mapping Ontologies into Cyc. Cycorp, Inc. |
| Abstract | The advent of Web services, and the Semantic Web described by domain ontologies, highlight the bottleneck to their growth: ontology mapping, merging, and integration. In this paper we present the process by which over the last 15 years several ontologies of varying complexity have been mapped or integrated with Cyc, a large commonsense knowledge base. These include SENSUS, FIPS 10-4, several large (300k-term) pharmaceutical thesauri, large portions of WordNet, MeSH/Snomed/UMLS, and the CIA World Factbook. This has to date required trained ontologists talking with subject matter experts. To break that bottleneck – to enable subject matter experts to directly map/merge/integrate their ontologies – we have been developing interactive clarification-dialog-based tools. |
| Link | http://www.cyc.com/doc/white_papers/mapping-ontologies-into-cyc_v31.pdf |
| Web Site | |
| Review | |
| Note |
To read. Probably it's quite technic but it presents
a real case of ontology integration.
|
| File | |
|---|---|
| Title |
A Framework for Ontology Integration. |
| Authors | Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini |
| Citation |
A framework for ontology integration. Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini. In Proc. of 2001 Int. Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS 2001), pages 303-316, 2001. |
| Abstract | One of the basic problems in the development of techniques for the semantic web is the integration of ontologies. Indeed, the web is constituted by a variety of information sources, each expressed over a certain ontology, and in order to extract information from such sources, their semantic integration and reconciliation in terms of a global ontology is required. In this paper, we address the fundamental problem of how to specify the mapping between the global ontology and the local ontologies. We argue that for capturing such mapping in an appropriate way, the notion of query is a crucial one, since it is very likely that a concept in one ontology corresponds to a view (i.e., a query) over the other ontologies. As a result query processing in ontology integration systems is strongly related to view-based query answering in data integration. |
| Link | http://www.semanticweb.org/SWWS/program/full/paper21.pdf |
| Web Site | |
| Review | |
| Note |
To read.
|
| File | |
|---|---|
| Title |
An Environment for Merging and Testing Large Ontologies. |
| Authors | D. L. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, & S. Wilder |
| Citation |
An Environment for Merging and Testing Large Ontologies. D. L. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, & S. Wilder. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2000), Breckenridge, Colorado, April, 2000. |
| Abstract | Large-scale ontologies are becoming an essential component
of many applications including standard search (such as Yahoo and Lycos),
ecommerce (such as Amazon and eBay), configuration (such as Dell and PC-Order),
and government intelligence (such as DARPA’s High Performance Knowledge
Base (HPKB) program). The ontologies are becoming so large that it is
not uncommon for distributed teams of people with broad ranges of training
to be in charge of the ontology development, design, and maintenance.
Standard ontologies (such as UNSPSC) are emerging as well which need to
be integrated into large application ontologies, sometimes by people who
do not have much training in knowledge representation. This process has
generated needs for tools that support broad ranges of users in (1) merging
of ontological terms from varied sources, (2) diagnosis of coverage and correctness of ontologies, and (3) maintaining ontologies over time. In this paper, we present a new merging and diagnostic ontology environment called Chimaera, which was developed to address these issues in the context of HPKB. We also report on some initial tests of its effectiveness in merging tasks. |
| Link | http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-00-16.html |
| Web Site | |
| Review | |
| Note |
To read.
|
|
Updated on Mar 09-Set-2003
|
|
| The MOMIS HomePage |
This page was created by Alain
Fergnani
|