Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Banerjee J et al (1987) Semantics and implementation of schema evolution in object-oriented databases. SIGMOD Conference
Batini C, Lenzerini M, Navathe SB (1986) A comparative analysis of methodologies of database schema integration. ACM Comput Surv 18(4):323–364
Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The Semantic Web. Sci Am 284(5):34–43
Bernstein PA, Halevy AY, Pottinger RA (2000) A vision for management of complex models. SIGMOD Rec 29(4):55–63
Brickley D, Guha RV (1999) Resource description framework (RDF) schema specification. W3C Recommendation http://www.w3.org/RDF
Chalupsky H (2000) OntoMorph: a translation system for symbolic knowledge. In: Cohn AG, Giunchiglia F, Selman B (eds), Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the 5th international conference (KR2000), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA
Chaudhri VK et al (1998) OKBC: A programmatic foundation for knowledge base interoperability. In: 15th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-98). AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Madison, WI
Corcho O, Gómez-Pérez A (2000) A roadmap for ontology specification languages. In: 12th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW-2000), Springer, Juan-les-Pins, France
Fensel D et al (2000) OIL in a nutshell. In: 12th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW-2000). Springer, Juan-les-Pins, France
Genesereth MR, Fikes RE (1992) Knowledge interchange format, version 0.3, reference manual. http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/Hypertext/kif-manual.html
Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowl Acquis 5:199–220
Heflin J, Hendler J (2000) Dynamic ontologies on the Web. In: 17th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-2000), Austin, TX
Hendler J, McGuinness DL (2000) The DARPA agent markup language. IEEE Intell Syst 16(6):67–73
Karp PD et al (1996) EcoCyc: encyclopedia of E. coli genes and metabolism. Nucleic Acids Res 24(1):32–40
Klein M (2001) Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In: IJCAI-2001 workshop on ontologies and information sharing, Seattle, WA
Klein M et al (2002) Ontology versioning and change detection on the Web. In: 13th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW02), Sigüenza, Spain
Lerner BS (2000) A model for compound type changes encountered in schema evolution. ACM Trans Database Syst 25(1):83–127
Marco D (2000) Building and managing the meta data repository: a full lifecycle guide. Wiley
McGuinness DL (2001) Ontologies come of age. In: Fensel D et al (eds) Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to its Full Potential. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Mitra P, Wiederhold G, Kersten M (2000) A graph-oriented model for articulation of ontology interdependencies. In: Proceedings of the conference on extending database technology 2000 (EDBT’2000), Konstanz, Germany
Noy NF, Fergerson RW, Musen MA (2000) The knowledge model of Protégé-2000: combining interoperability and flexibility. In: 12th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW-2000). Springer, Juan-les-Pins, France
Noy NF, Musen MA (2000) PROMPT: algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. In: 17th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-2000), Austin, TX
Noy NF, Musen MA (2002) PromtDiff: A fixed-point algorithm for comparing ontology versions. In: 18th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-2002), Edmonton, Alberta
Rahm E, Bernstein PA (2001) A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J 10(4)
Rector A et al (1994) The GALEN CORE model schemata for anatomy: towards a re-usable application-independent model of medical concepts. Med Inf Europe, MIE’94
Roddick JF (1995) A survey of schema versioning issues for database systems. Inf Softw Technol 37(7):383–393
Sheth AP, Larson JA (1990) Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases. ACM Comput Surv 22(3):183–236
Ventrone V, Heiler S (1991) Semantic heterogeneity as a result of domain evolution. SIGMOD Rec (ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data) 20(4):16–20
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Noy, N., Klein, M. Ontology Evolution: Not the Same as Schema Evolution. Know. Inf. Sys. 6, 428–440 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-003-0137-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-003-0137-2