Advertisement

Journal on Data Semantics

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 155–197 | Cite as

A Categorical Approach to Networks of Aligned Ontologies

  • Mihai Codescu
  • Till Mossakowski
  • Oliver Kutz
Original Article

Abstract

Ontology matching and alignment are key mechanism for linking the diverse datasets and ontologies arising in the Semantic Web and other application areas for formalised ontologies. We show that category theory provides the powerful abstractions needed for a uniform treatment of ontology alignment at various levels: semantics, language design, reasoning and tools. The general representation and reasoning framework that we propose includes: (1) an abstract notion of logical system, consisting of a logic syntax and a model theory, based on an extension of institutions with additional features specific to alignments, (2) a declarative language to specify networks of ontologies and alignments, with independent control over specifying local ontologies and complex alignment relations, based on and improving the Distributed Ontology, Model and Specification Language DOL, (3) the possibility to align logically heterogeneous ontologies, and (4) the provision of generic proof support for global reasoning over networks of aligned ontologies, employing different semantics. In particular, we show how the three semantics of Zimmermann and Euzenat can be uniformly and faithfully represented using \(\mathsf {DOL}\) language constructs, by refining them into four different kinds of semantics: simple, integrated (general and inclusive), and contextualised. Finally, we discuss the implementation of the \(\mathsf {DOL}\) alignment features in the Ontohub/Hets tool system.

Keywords

Ontology alignment Networks of ontologies Category theory DOL Semantics Reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jérôme Euzenat and Fabian Neuhaus for extensive discussions of ideas found in this paper. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their substantial feedback and for suggesting a number of improvements, both on a technical level and regarding the presentation of results.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) (2003) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader F, Lutz C, Sturm H, Wolter F (2002) Fusions of description logics and abstract description systems. J Artif Intell Res (JAIR) 16:1–58MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bao J, Voutsadakis G, Slutzki G, Honavar V (2009) Package-based description logics. In: Stuckenschmidt H, Parent C, Spaccapietra S (eds) Modular ontologies: concepts, theories and techniques for knowledge modularization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5445. Springer, pp 349–371.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01907-4_16. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bib/series/lncs/BaoVSH09
  4. 4.
    Barlatier P, Dapoigny R (2012) A type-theoretical approach for ontologies: the case of roles. Appl Ontol 7(3):311–356Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borgida A, Serafini L (2003) Distributed description logics: assimilating information from peer sources. J Data Semant 1:153–184CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borzyszkowski T (1999) Higher-order logic and theorem proving for structured specifications. In: Bert D, Choppy C, Mosses PD (eds) Recent trends in algebraic development techniques, 14th international workshop, WADT ’99, Château de Bonas, France, 15–18 Sept 1999, Selected Papers, volume 1827 of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 401–418Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouquet P, Giunchiglia F, van Harmelen F, Serafini L, Stuckenschmidt H (2003) C-OWL: contextualizing ontologies. In: ISWC, pp 164–179Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewka G, Roelofsen F, Serafini L (2007) Contextual default reasoning. In: Veloso MM (eds) IJCAI 2007, proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Hyderabad, India, 6-12 Jan 2007, pp 268–273Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lenzerini M (2002) Description logics for information integration. In: Kakas AC, Sadri F (eds) Computational logic: logic programming and beyond, volume LNCS 2408. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2004) Logical foundations of peer-to-peer data integration. In: Beeri C, Deutsch A (eds) PODS. ACM, pp 241–251Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang CC, Keisler HJ (1990) Model theory, 3rd edn. North-Holland, AmsterdamMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Codescu M, Kuksa E, Kutz O, Mossakowski T, Neuhaus F (2017) Ontohub: a semantic repository for heterogeneous ontologies. Appl Ontol.  https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-170190
  13. 13.
    Codescu M, Mossakowski T (2008) Heterogeneous colimits. In: Boulanger F, Gaston C, Schobbens P-Y (eds) MoVaH’08 workshop on modeling, validation and heterogeneity. IEEE Press, New York, pp 131–140Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Codescu M, Mossakowski T, Kutz O (2014) A categorical approach to ontology alignment. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on ontology matching (OM-2014), ISWC-2014, Riva del Garda, Trentino, Italy, CEUR-WS online proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cuenca-Grau B, Kutz O (2007) Modular ontology languages revisited. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI’07 workshop on semantic web for collaborative knowledge acquisition (SWeCKa), Hyderabad, India, Jan 2007, pp 22–31Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    David J, Euzenat J, Scharffe F, dos Santos CT (2011) The alignment API 4.0. Semant Web 2(1):3–10Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diaconescu R (2002) Grothendieck institutions. Appl Categ Struct 10:383–402CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diaconescu R (2008) Institution-independent model theory. Birkhäuser, BaselMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Euzenat J (2015) Revision in networks of ontologies. Artif Intell 228:195–216CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Euzenat J, Shvaiko P (2013) Ontology matching, 2nd edn. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Euzenat J, Stuckenschmidt H (2003) The ‘family of languages’ approach to semantic interoperability. Knowl Transform Semant Web 95:49–63Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faria D, Pesquita C, Santos E, Cruz IF, Couto FM (2014) AgreementMakerLight 2.0: towards efficient large-scale ontology matching. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on posters & demonstrations track-volume 1272, pp 457–460. CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fitting M, Mendelsohn RL (1998) First-order modal logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Padilha NF, Baião F, Revoredo K (2012) Ontology alignment for semantic data integration through foundational ontologies. In: Castano S, Vassiliadis P, Lakshmanan LVS, Lee M-L (eds) Advances in conceptual modeling. ER 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7518. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 172–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33999-8_21
  25. 25.
    Ghidini C, Serafini L (1998) Distributed first order logics. In: Frontiers of combining systems 2, Studies in logic and computation. Research Studies Press, pp 121–140Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ghidini C, Serafini L (2014) Multi-context logics—a general introduction. In: Brezillon P, Gonzales A (eds) Context Comput. Springer, Berlin, pp 381–399Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghidini C, Serafini L, Tessaris S (2007) On relating heterogeneous elements from different ontologies. In: Kokinov B, Richardson D, Roth-Berghofer T, Vieu L (eds) Modeling and using context, volume of 4635 lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 234–247Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goguen JA (1991) A categorical manifesto. Math Struct Comput Sci 1:49–67CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goguen JA, Burstall RM (1992) Institutions: abstract model theory for specification and programming. J Assoc Comput Mach 39:95–146 (Predecessor. LNCS 164, 221–256, 1984)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goguen JA, Roşu G (2002) Institution morphisms. Form Asp Comput 13:274–307CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goguen JA, Roşu G (2004) Composing hidden information modules over inclusive institutions. In: Owe O, Krogdahl S, Lyche T (eds) From object-orientation to formal methods, essays in memory of Ole-Johan Dahl, volume 2635 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 96–123Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guizzardi G, Wagner G (2005) Towards ontological foundations for agent modelling concepts using the unified fundational ontology (UFO). Agent-oriented information systems II. Springer, Berlin, pp 110–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Herrlich H, Strecker G (1973) Category theory. Allyn and Bacon, BostonMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hitzler P, Euzenat J, Krötzsch M, Serafini L, Stuckenschmidt H, Wache H, Zimmermann A (2006) Integrated view and comparison of alignment semantics. Deliverable D2.2.5 (Knowledge Web—FP6)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hois J, Kutz O (2008) Counterparts in language and space—similarity and \({\cal{S}}\)-connection. In: Eschenbach C, Grüninger M (eds) Formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2008). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 266–279Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hois J, Kutz O, Freksa C (2008) Natural language meets spatial calculi. In: Newcombe NS, Gärdenfors P, Wölfl S (eds) Spatial cognition VI. Learning, reasoning, and talking about space, volume 5248 of LNAI. Springer, Berlin, pp 266–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Homola M (2007) Distributed description logics revisited. In: Calvanese D, Franconi E, Haarslev V, Lembo D, Motik B, Turhan A-Y, Tessaris S (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 international workshop on description logics (DL2007), Italy, 8–10 June 2007, CEUR-WS. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-250/paper_51.pdf
  38. 38.
    Horridge M, Drummond N, Goodwin J, Rector A, Stevens R, Wang HH (2006) The Manchester OWL syntax. In OWL: experiences and directions (OWLED-06)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Horrocks I, Kutz O, Sattler U (2006) The even more irresistible \({\cal{SROIQ}}\). In: Doherty P, Mylopoulos J, Welty C (eds) Proceedings of the 10th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-06). AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF, van Harmelen F (2003) From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. J Web Semant 1(1):7–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jiménez-Ruiz E, Cuenca Grau B (2011) LogMap: logic-based and scalable ontology matching. In: Proceedings of the 10th international semantic web confernece (ISWC 2011). Springer, pp 273–288Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jiménez-Ruiz E, Payne TR, Solimando A, Tamma V (2016) Limiting logical violations in ontology alignment through negotiation. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, KR’16. AAAI Press, pp 217–226Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kazakov Y (2008) RIQ and SROIQ are harder than SHOIQ. In: Brewka G, Lang J (eds) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the eleventh international conference, KR 2008, Sydney, Australia, 16-19 Sept 2008. AAAI Press, pp 274–284Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Khan Z, Keet CM (2013) The foundational ontology library ROMULUS. In: Cuzzocrea A, Maabout S (eds) Model and data engineering. MEDI 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8216. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 200–211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41366-7_17. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bib/conf/medi/KhanK13
  45. 45.
    Khan Z, Keet CM (2016) Romulus: the repository of ontologies for multiple uses populated with mediated foundational ontologies. J Data Semant 5(1):19–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13740-015-0052-1
  46. 46.
    Kracht M, Kutz O (2007) Logically possible worlds and counterpart semantics for modal logic. In: Jacquette D (ed) Philosophy of logic, handbook of the philosophy of science, vol 5. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 943–996Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kuksa E, Mossakowski T (2016) Ontohub: version control, linked data and theorem proving for ontologies. In: Proceedings of the joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2016). Episode 2: the French summer of ontology; co-located with FOIS 2016, volume 1660 of CEUR-WSGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kutz O, Lutz C, Wolter F, Zakharyaschev M (2004) \(\cal{E}\)-connections of abstract description systems. Artif Intell 156(1):1–73CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kutz O, Mossakowski T, Codescu M (2008) Shapes of alignments—construction, combination, and computation. In: Sattler U, Tamilin A (eds) International workshop on ontologies: reasoning and modularity (WORM-08), vol 348 of CEUR-WSGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kutz O, Mossakowski T, Hastings J, Castro AG, Sojic A (2011) Hyperontology for the biomedical ontologist: a sketch and some examples. In: Workshop on working with multiple biomedical ontologies (WoMBO at ICBO, (2011) Buffalo, NY, Aug 2011Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kutz O, Mossakowski T, Lücke D (2010) Carnap, Goguen, and the hyperontologies: logical pluralism and heterogeneous structuring in ontology design. Log Univ 4(2):255–333 (Special Issue on ‘Is Logic Universal?’)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lambert K (1997) Free logics: their foundations, character, and some applications thereof. Academia Verlag, Sankt AugustinGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Le Duc C, Lamolle M, Zimmermann A, Curé O (2013) Draon: a distributed reasoner for aligned ontologies. In: ORE, pp 81–86Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lehmann J, Chan M, Bundy A (2013) A higher order approach to ontology evolution in physics. J Data Semant 2(4):163–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mac Lane S (1971) Categories for the working mathematician. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Meilicke C, Stuckenschmidt H, Tamilin A (2007) Repairing ontology mappings. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 22–26 July 2007, Vancouver, BC. AAAI Press, pp 1408–1413Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Morales-González A, Fernández-Reyes FC, Keet CM (2012) Ontoparts: a tool to select part-whole relations in OWL ontologies. In: Simperl E, Norton B, Mladenic D, Valle ED, Fundulaki I, Passant A, Troncy R (eds) The semantic web: ESWC 2012 satellite events—ESWC 2012 satellite events, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 27–31 May 2012. Revised selected papers, volume 7540 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 452–457Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mossakowski T, Codescu M, Kutz O, Lange C, Grüninger M (2014) Proof support for common logic. In: Benzmüller C, Otten J (eds) Automated reasoning in quantified non-classical logics (ARQNL), number 33 in EasyChair proceedings in computing. EasyChair, pp 42–58Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mossakowski T, Codescu M, Neuhaus F, Kutz O (2015) The road to universal logic-Festschrift for 50th birthday of Jean-Yves Beziau, volume II. in: The distributed ontology, modelling and specification language–DOL. Studies in universal logic. BirkhäuserGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mossakowski T, Krumnack U, Maibaum T (2014) What is a derived signature morphism? In Codescu M, Diaconescu R, Tutu I (eds) Recent trends in algebraic development techniques—22nd international workshop, WADT 2014, Sinaia, Romania, 4–7 Sept 2014, Revised selected papers, volume 9463 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 90–109Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mossakowski T, Kutz O (2011) The onto-logical translation graph. In: Modular ontologies (WoMO 2011), volume 230 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 94–109Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mossakowski T, Kutz O, Codescu M, Lange C (2013) The distributed ontology, modeling and specification language. In: Del Vescovo C et al (eds) Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on modular ontologies (WoMO-13), volume 1081. CEUR-WSGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mossakowski T, Maeder C, Lüttich K (2007) The heterogeneous tool set. In: Grumberg O, Huth M (eds) TACAS 2007 volume 4424 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 519–522Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mossakowski T, Rabe F, Codescu M (2017) Canonical Selection of Colimits. In: Markus R (ed) WADT 2016. LNCS. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mosses PD (ed) (2004) CASL Reference manual Lecture notes in computer science: 2960. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Nalon C, Kutz O (2014) Towards resolution-based reasoning for connected logics. In: Elsevier’s electronic notes in theoretical computer science (ENTCS), vol 305, pp 85–102. Post-proceedings of the 8th workshop on logical and semantic frameworks (LSFA-13)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Neuhaus F, Hayes P (2012) Common logic and the Horatio problem. Appl Ontol 7(2):211–231Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Object Management Group (2015) The distributed ontology, modeling, and specification language (DOL), Draft answer to RFP https://ontoiop.org
  69. 69.
    Rabe F (2013) A logical framework combining model and proof theory. Math Struct Comput Sc 23(5):945–1001CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rector A, Horrocks I (1997) Experience building a large, re-usable medical ontology using a description logic with transitivity and concept inclusions. In: Proceedings of the WS on ontological engineering, AAAI spring symposium (AAAI’97). AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sannella D, Tarlecki A (2012) Foundations of algebraic specification and formal software development. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schneider M, Rudolph S, Sutcliffe G (2013) Modeling in OWL 2 without restrictions. In: Rodriguez-Muro M, Jupp S, Srinivas K (eds) Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on OWL: experiences and directions (OWLED 2013) co-located with 10th extended semantic web conference (ESWC 2013), Montpellier, France, 26–27 May 2013, volume 1080 of CEUR workshop proceedings. CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Scott DS (1979) Identity and existence in intuitionistic logic. In: Fourman M, Mulvey C, Scott D (eds) Application of sheaves, volume 753 of lecture notes in mathematics. Springer, Berlin, pp 660–696Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Serafini L, Tamilin A (2005) DRAGO: distributed reasoning architecture for the semantic web. In: Proceedings 2nd European semantic web conference (ESWC), volume 3532 of lecture notes in computer science, Hersounisous (GR), May 2005, pp 361–376Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Shvaiko P, Euzenat J (2013) Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 25(1):158–176Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sojic A, Kutz O (2012) Open biomedical pluralism—formalising knowledge about breast cancer phenotypes. J Biomed Semant 3(2) 2012. Proceedings of ontologies in biomedicine and life sciences (OBML 2011)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Stuckenschmidt H, Parent C, Spaccapietra S (eds) (2009) Modular ontologies: concepts, theories and techniques for knowledge modularization, volume 5445 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Zimmermann A (2007) Integrated distributed description logics. In: Calvanese D, Franconi E, Haarslev V, Lembo D, Motik B, Turhan A, Tessaris S (eds) Description logics, volume 250 of CEUR workshop proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Zimmermann A (2013) Logical formalisms for agreement technologies. In: Ossowski S (ed) Agreement technologies volume 8 of law, governance and technology series. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–82Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zimmermann A, Euzenat J (2006) Three semantics for distributed systems and their relations with alignment composition. In: Proceedings 5th international semantic web conference (ISWC), LNCS 4273, Athens (GA US), pp 16–29Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Zimmermann A, Krötzsch M, Euzenat J, Hitzler P (2006) Formalizing ontology alignment and its operations with category theory. In: Proceedings of FOIS-06, pp 277–288Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Zimmermann A, Le Duc C (2008) Reasoning with a network of aligned ontologies. In: International conference on web reasoning and rule systems. Springer, pp 43–57Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KRDBFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBozen-BolzanoItaly
  2. 2.IKSOtto-von-Guericke University of MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations