Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Approach to Comparing Different Ontologies in the Context of Hydrographical Information

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Fusion and Geographic Information Systems

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography ((LNGC))

Abstract

Geographical Information is increasingly captured, managed, and updated by different cartographic agencies. This information presents different structures and variable levels of granularity and quality. In practice, such heterogeneity causes the building up of multiple sets of geodata with different underlying models and schemas that have different structures and semantics.Ontologies are a proposal widely used for solving heterogeneity and a way of achieving the data harmonization and integration that Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Special Data Infrastructures (SDI) need.This paper presents three hydrographical ontologies (which are built using top-down and bottom-up approaches) and an approach for comparing them; the goal of this approach is to prove which ontologies have a better coverage of the domain. In order to compare the resultant ontologies, six qualitative facets have been studied: sources used (amount, richness, and consensus), reliability of building approaches (community extending use, recommenddations), ontology richness (number and types of components), formalization (language), granularity (scale factor), and the design criteria followed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arpírez JC, Corcho O, Fernández-López M, Gómez-Pérez A (2003) WebODE in a nutshell. J AI Magazine

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arpírez JC, Gómez-Pérez A, Lozano A, Pinto HS (1998) (ONTO) 2Agent: An ontology-based WWW broker to select ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez A, Benjamins RV (eds) ECAI’98 Workshop on Applications of Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods. Brighton, United Kingdom, pp 16–24

    Google Scholar 

  3. . Chaudhri VK, Farquhar A, Fikes R, Karp PD, Rice JP (1998) Open Knowledge Base Connectivity 2.0.3. Technical Report KSL-98-06, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford, CA, http://www.ai.sri.com/ okbc/okbc-2-0-3.pdf

  4. . De Diego R (2001) Método de mezcla de catálogos electrónicos. Grade thesis, Facultad de Informática, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  5. . Euzenat J (2004) An API for ontology alignment, in: Proceedings of the third International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Farquhar A, Fikes R, Rice J (1997) The Ontolingua Server: A Tool for Collaborative Ontology Construction. J International Journal of Human Computer Studies 46 (6): 707–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ganter B, Wille R (1997) Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA Translator-C. Franzke

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gessler DD, Joslyn CA, Verspoor KM, Schmidt SE (2006) Deconstruction, re-construction, and ontogenesis for large, monolithic, legacy ontologies in semantic web service applications. Technical Report 06-5859, Los Alamos

    Google Scholar 

  9. . Giménez-Lugo GA, Amandi A, Sichman JS, Godoy D (2002) Enriching Information Agents’ Knowledge by Ontology Comparison: a Case Study. In: Proceedings of 8th Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA’02), Seville, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gómez-Pérez A, Fernández-López M, Corcho O (2003) Ontological Engineering. Springer-Verlag, London (United Kingdom)

    Google Scholar 

  11. . Gómez-Pérez A, Juristo N, Pazos J (1995) Evaluation and assessment of knowledge sharing technology. In: Mars NJ (ed) Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases. Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing, pp 289-296, IOS Press

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gómez-Pérez A (2003) Ontology Evaluation. In: Staab S, Studer R (eds) Handbook on Ontologies, Springer-Verlag, pp 251–274

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gruber TR (1993) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In: International Workshop on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. Padova, Italy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. J International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43 (5–6)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. J Knowledge Acquisition 5: 199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. . Guarino N, Welty C (2000) A Formal Ontology of Properties. In: Dieng R and Corby O (eds), Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Methods, Models and Tools. 12th Intnal. Conference, EKAW2000. Springer Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  17. . Hyung Hwang S, Kim HG, Yang HS (2005) A FCA-based ontology construction for the design of class hierarchy. In: ICCSA (3), pp 827-835

    Google Scholar 

  18. . IEEE 1996. IEEE Standard for Developing Software Life Cycle Processes. IEEE Std 1074-1995. IEEE Computer Society, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. . Kim IC (2004) FCA-based ontology augmentation in a medical domain. In: PAKM

    Google Scholar 

  20. . Lopez-Pellicer F, Vilches-Blázquez LM, Nogueras-Iso J, Corcho O, Bernabé MA, Rodríguez AF (2007) Using a hybrid approach for the development of an ontology in the hydrographical domain. In: Proceedings of 2nd Workshop of COST Action C21 -Towntology Ontologies for urban development: conceptual models for practitioners

    Google Scholar 

  21. Maedche A, Staab S (2001) Comparing Ontologies- Similarity Measures and a Comparison Study, Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, Internal Report

    Google Scholar 

  22. . Mizoguchi R, Vanwelkenhuysen J, Ikeda M (1995) Task ontology of reuse of problem solving knowledge. Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases: Knowledge Building & Knowledge Sharing, pp 46-59

    Google Scholar 

  23. . Noy NF, Musen MA (2004) Using prompt ontology—comparison tools in the EON ontology alignment contest, in: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools (EON)

    Google Scholar 

  24. . Noy NF, Fergerson RW, Musen MA (2000) The knowledge model of Protege-2000: Combining interoperability and flexibility. In: Dieng R, Corby O (eds) 12th International Conference in Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW’00). Juan-Les-Pins, France. (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence LNAI 1937) Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 17-32

    Google Scholar 

  25. . Rodríguez Pascual AF, García Asensio L (2005) A fully integrated information system to manage cartographic and geographic data at a 1:25,000 scale. XXII International Cartographic Conference (ICC2005), A Coruña, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  26. Studer R, Benjamins VR, Fensel D (1998) Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods. IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering 25(1–2):161–197

    Google Scholar 

  27. Uschold M, Grüninger M (1996) Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. J Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2): 93–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van Heijst G, Schreiber A, Wielinga B (1997) Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. J International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(2/3):183–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. . Vilches-Blázquez LM, Bernabé-Poveda MA, Suárez-Figueroa MC, Gómez-Pérez A, Rodríguez-Pascual AF (2007) Towntology & hydrOntology: Relationship between Urban and Hydrographic Features in the Geographic Information Domain. In: Ontologies for Urban Development. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 61, pp 73-84

    Google Scholar 

  30. . Wang JZ, Ali F, Appaneravanda R (2005) A Web Service for Efficient Ontology Comparison. ICWS 2005, pp 843-844

    Google Scholar 

  31. . Wang JZ, Ali F (2005) An Efficient Ontology Comparison Tool for Semantic Web Applications. In: Proceedings Web Intelligence 2005, pp 372-378

    Google Scholar 

  32. . Weinstein P, Birmingham W (1999) Comparing concepts in differentiated ontologies. In: Proceedings of KAW-99

    Google Scholar 

  33. . Zimmermann K (2004) Ontology Comparison D19 v0.1. SW-Portal Working Draft. Available in http://www.deri.at/research/projects/sw-portal/2004/d19/v0.1/20040906/

  34. . Dean M, Schreiber G (2003) OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Working Draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/

  35. . McGuinness DL, van Harmelen F (2004) OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

  36. Fonseca FT, Egenhofer MJ, Davis CA, Câmara G (2002) Semantic Granularity in Ontology-Driven Geographic Information Systems. J AMAI Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 36 (1–2): 121 – 151

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ontology Engineering Group, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    L. M. Vilches-Blázquez, J. A. Ramos, F. J. López-Pellicer, O. Corcho & J. Nogueras-Iso

Authors
  1. L. M. Vilches-Blázquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. A. Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. J. López-Pellicer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Corcho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Nogueras-Iso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. M. Vilches-Blázquez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. 39, 14th Linia, V.O., 199178, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Vasily V. Popovich (Deputy Director of SPIIRAS for Research, Professor, Dr Sci Tech) (Deputy Director of SPIIRAS for Research, Professor, Dr Sci Tech)

  2. Naval Academy Research Institute, Lanveoc-Poulmic BP 600, F-29240, Brest Naval, France

    Christophe Claramunt

  3. GmbH Central European Institute of Technology Department of Urbanism, Transport, Environment and Information Society, CEIT ALANOVA gemeinnützige, Am Concorde Park 2, Gebäude F, A-2320, Schwechat, Austria

    Manfred Schrenk

  4. B1320 1176 Howell St., Newport, RI, 02841-1708, USA

    Kyrill V. Korolenko P.E. (Chief Scientist/NUWC Code 1543) (Chief Scientist/NUWC Code 1543)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Vilches-Blázquez, L.M., Ramos, J.A., López-Pellicer, F.J., Corcho, O., Nogueras-Iso, J. (2009). An Approach to Comparing Different Ontologies in the Context of Hydrographical Information. In: Popovich, V.V., Claramunt, C., Schrenk, M., Korolenko, K.V. (eds) Information Fusion and Geographic Information Systems. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00304-2_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation