Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 428–440 | Cite as

Ontology Evolution: Not the Same as Schema Evolution

Ontology Paper

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.

Keywords

Ontologies Ontology evolution Schema evolution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banerjee J et al (1987) Semantics and implementation of schema evolution in object-oriented databases. SIGMOD Conference Google Scholar
  2. Batini C, Lenzerini M, Navathe SB (1986) A comparative analysis of methodologies of database schema integration. ACM Comput Surv 18(4):323–364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The Semantic Web. Sci Am 284(5):34–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein PA, Halevy AY, Pottinger RA (2000) A vision for management of complex models. SIGMOD Rec 29(4):55–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brickley D, Guha RV (1999) Resource description framework (RDF) schema specification. W3C Recommendation http://www.w3.org/RDF Google Scholar
  6. 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 Google Scholar
  7. 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 Google Scholar
  8. 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 Google Scholar
  9. 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 Google Scholar
  10. Genesereth MR, Fikes RE (1992) Knowledge interchange format, version 0.3, reference manual. http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/Hypertext/kif-manual.html Google Scholar
  11. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowl Acquis 5:199–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heflin J, Hendler J (2000) Dynamic ontologies on the Web. In: 17th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-2000), Austin, TX Google Scholar
  13. Hendler J, McGuinness DL (2000) The DARPA agent markup language. IEEE Intell Syst 16(6):67–73 Google Scholar
  14. Karp PD et al (1996) EcoCyc: encyclopedia of E. coli genes and metabolism. Nucleic Acids Res 24(1):32–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klein M (2001) Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In: IJCAI-2001 workshop on ontologies and information sharing, Seattle, WA Google Scholar
  16. 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 Google Scholar
  17. Lerner BS (2000) A model for compound type changes encountered in schema evolution. ACM Trans Database Syst 25(1):83–127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marco D (2000) Building and managing the meta data repository: a full lifecycle guide. Wiley Google Scholar
  19. 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 Google Scholar
  20. 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 Google Scholar
  21. 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 Google Scholar
  22. 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 Google Scholar
  23. 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 Google Scholar
  24. Rahm E, Bernstein PA (2001) A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J 10(4) Google Scholar
  25. 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 Google Scholar
  26. Roddick JF (1995) A survey of schema versioning issues for database systems. Inf Softw Technol 37(7):383–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sheth AP, Larson JA (1990) Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases. ACM Comput Surv 22(3):183–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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):16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford Medical InformaticsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Vrije University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations