New Generation Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 61–96 | Cite as

Tutorial on ontological engineering Part 2: Ontology development, tools and languages

  • Riichiro Mizoguchi
Tutorial Series


Practical aspects of ontological engineering are discussed in this part. First topic is the methodology of ontology development. Next, ontology representation languages and support tools are discussed as well as ontology alignment and merging which are becoming practically important to cope with distributed development of ontologies. We next discuss several ontologies developed thus far including large-scale knowledge bases such as Cyc, practical domain ontologies such as Enterprise ontology and gene ontology and generic ontologies such as PSL: Process Specification Language and SUO: Standard Upper Ontology. The first topic of ontology applications is the semantic web in which semantic interoperability, metadata and web service ontology are described. e-Learning is also a good application area of ontology in which LOM: Learning Object Metadata and ontology-aware authoring systems are discussed followed by conclusion.


Ontology Development Semantic Interoperability Ontological Engineering Ontology Editor Ontology Application 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1).
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and Lassila, O., “The Semantic Web is an extension of the current web in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation,”The Semantic Web, Scientific American, May 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2).
    Corcho, O., Fernandez-Lopez, M., Gomez-Perez, A. and Vicente, O., “WebODE: An Integrated Workbench for Ontology Representation, Reasoning and Exchange,” inProc. of EKAW2002, Springer LNAI 2473, pp. 138–153, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3). Scholar
  4. 4). Scholar
  5. 5). Scholar
  6. 6). Scholar
  7. 7).∼chris.angus/epistle/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  8. 8). Scholar
  9. 9). Scholar
  10. 10). Scholar
  11. 11).
    Gangemi, A., Pisanelli, D. M. and Steve, G., “An Overview of the ONIONS Project: Applying Ontologies to the Integration of Medical Terminologies,”Data Knowledge Engineering, 31, 2, pp. 183–220, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12).
    Golbeck, J., Fragoso, G., Hartel, F., Hendler, J., Parsia, B. and Oberthaler, J., “The National Cancer Institute’s Thesaurus and Ontology,”Journal of Web Semantics,1,1, Oct. 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13).
    Guarino, N. and Welty, C., “Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean,”Communications of the ACM, 2, 45, pp. 61–65, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14).
    Oltramari, A., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N. and Masolo, C., “Restructuring Word-Net’s Top-Level: The OntoClean Approach,” inProc. of LREC2002 (OntoLex workshop), Las Palmas, Spain.Google Scholar
  15. 15).
    Hirata, K., Takaoka, Y., Ohta, M. and Ikeda, M., “The Meaning of LOM and LOM Authoring Tool on HRD,” inProc. of International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications 2001, pp. 259–262, National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 22–26, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16). Scholar
  17. 17).
    Jasper, R. and Uschold, M., “A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology Applications,” inProc. of KAW99, Banff, Canada, Oct. 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18). Scholar
  19. 19).
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G. and Wu, J., “Logical Foundations of Object-oriented and Frame-based Languages,”Journal of the ACM, 42, pp. 741–843, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20).
    Kitamura, Y. and Mizoguchi, R., “Ontology-based Description of Functional Design Knowledge and its Use in a Functional Way Server,”Expert Systems with Application, 24, 2, pp. 153–166, Feb. 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21).
    Kozaki, K., Kitamura, Y., Ikeda, M. and Mizoguchi, R., “Hozo: An Environment for Building/Using Ontologies Based on a Fundamental Consideration of “Role” and “Relationship,” inProc. of the 13th International Conference Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW2002), pp. 213–218, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22).
    Fernandez-Lopez, M., Gomez-Perez, A. and Pazos Sierra, J., “Building a Chemical Ontology Using Methontology and the Ontology Design Environment,”IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14, 1, pp. 37–46, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23).
    Mizoguchi, R., Ikeda, M., Seta, K. and Vanwelkenhuysen, J., “Ontology for Modeling the World from Problem Solving Perspectives,” inProc. of IJCAI-95 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, pp. 1–12, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24).
    Mizoguchi, R., Kozaki, K., Sano, T. and Kitamura, Y., “Construction and Deployment of a Plant Ontology,” inProc. of the 12th International Conference Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW2000), pp. 113–128, 2000.Google Scholar
  25. 25).
    Mizoguchi, R. and Bourdeau, J., “Using Ontological Engineering to Overcome AI-ED Problems,”International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 2, pp. 107–121, 2000.Google Scholar
  26. 26).
    Mizoguchi, R., “Ontology-based Systematization of Functional Knowledge,” inProc. of TMCE2002: Tools and methods of competitive engineering, Wuhan, P.R. China, pp. 45–64, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27).
    “Knowledge Systematization Through Ontological Engineering,” inProc. of the 6th Sanken International Symposium — Data mining, Semantic web and Computational sciences —, Osaka University, Mar. 2003.Google Scholar
  28. 28).
    Musen, M. A., Fergerson, R. W., Grosso, W. E., Crubezy, M., Eriksson, H., Noy, N. F. and Tu, S. W., “The Evolution of Protégé: An Environment for Knowledge-Based Systems Development,”International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 58, 1, pp. 89–123, 2003. Scholar
  29. 29).
    Noy, N. F. and Musen, M. A., “PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment,”Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000), Austin, TX, 2000.Google Scholar
  30. 30).
    Noy, N. F. and McGuinness, D. L., “Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology,”SMI technical report SMI-2001-0880, 2001.Google Scholar
  31. 31). Scholar
  32. 32). Scholar
  33. 33). Scholar
  34. 34).
    Schreiber, G. et al.,Knowledge Engineering and Management: The Common KADS Methodology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1999.Google Scholar
  35. 35). Scholar
  36. 36).
    Sunagawa, E., Kozaki, K., Kitamura, Y. and Mizoguchi, R., “An Environment for Distributed Ontology Development Based on Dependency Management,” inProc. of ISWC-2003, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 2003.Google Scholar
  37. 37).
    Staab, S. H., Schunurr, P., Studer, R. and Sure, Y., “Knowledge processes and ontologies,”IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Knowledge Management, 16, 1, pp. 26–34, 2001.Google Scholar
  38. 38). Scholar
  39. 39).
    Sure, Y., Staab, S., Erdmann, M., Angele, J., Studer, R. and Wenke, D., “OntoEdit: Collaborative Ontology Development for the Semantic Web,” inProc. of ISWC2002, pp. 221–235, 2002.Google Scholar
  40. 40). Scholar
  41. 41).
    Zuniga, Z., “Ontology: Its transformation from philosophy to information systems,” inProc. of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Welty and Smith eds.), ACM Press, pp. 187–197, 2001.Google Scholar
  42. 42).
    Gruninger, R. and Fox, M., “The design and evaluation of ontologies for enterprise engineering,” inProc. of Comparison of Implemented Ontologies, ECAI’94 Workshop, W13, pp. 105–128, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ohmsha, Ltd. and Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riichiro Mizoguchi
    • 1
  1. 1.The Institute of Scientific and Industrial ResearchOsaka UniversityIbaraki, OsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations