oMAP: Combining Classifiers for Aligning Automatically OWL Ontologies

  • Umberto Straccia
  • Raphaël Troncy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3806)


This paper introduces a method and a tool for automatically aligning OWL ontologies, a crucial step for achieving the interoperability of heterogeneous systems in the Semantic Web. Different components are combined for finding suitable mapping candidates (together with their weights), and the set of rules with maximum matching probability is selected. Machine learning-based classifiers and a new classifier using the structure and the semantics of the OWL ontologies are proposed. Our method has been implemented and evaluated on an independent test set provided by an international ontology alignment contest. We provide the results of this evaluation with respect to the other competitors.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachimont, B., Isaac, A., Troncy, R.: Semantic Commitment for Designing Ontologies: A Proposal. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 114–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bechhofer, S., Volz, R., Lord, P.W.: Cooking the Semantic Web with the OWL API. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 659–675. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dhamankar, R., Lee, Y., Doan, A., Halevy, A., Domingos, P.: iMap: discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas. In: ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, Paris, France, pp. 383–394 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Dhamankar, R., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Learning to Match Ontologies on the Semantic Web. The VLDB Journal 12(4), 303–319 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrig, M., Staab, S.: QOM - quick ontology mapping. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 683–697. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Euzenat, J.: An API for ontology alignment. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 698–712. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Euzenat, J., Valtchev, P.: Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-Lite. In: 15th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), Valence, Spain, pp. 333–337 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miler, R.J., Popa, L.: Data Exchange: Semantics and Query Answering. In: Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., Motwani, R. (eds.) ICDT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2572, pp. 207–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hahn, U., Cornet, R., Schulz, S. (eds.): KR-MED: 1st Int. Workshop on Formal Biomedical Knowledge Representation, Whistler, Canada (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an OWL rules language. In: 13th Int. World Wide Web Conf. (WWW 2004), New York, USA, pp. 723–731 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isaac, A., Troncy, R.: Designing and Using an Audio-Visual Description Core Ontology. In: Workshop on Core Ontologies in Ontology Engineering at EKAW 2004, Whittlebury Hall, Northamptonshire, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    KW Consortium: State of the Art on Ontology Alignment. Deliverable Knowledge Web 2.2.3, FP6-507482 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P.A., Rahm, E.: Generic schema matching with cupid. In: 27th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 2001), Roma, Italy, pp. 49–58 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nottelmann, H., Straccia, U.: sPLMap: A probabilistic approach to schema matching. In: Losada, D.E., Fernández-Luna, J.M. (eds.) ECIR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3408, pp. 81–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Anchor-PROMPT: Using non-local context for semantic matching. In: Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing at IJCAI 2001, Seattle, Washington, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OWL, Web Ontology Language Reference Version 1.0. W3C Recommendation, February 10 (2004),
  20. 20.
    Porter, M.F.: An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 14(3), 130–137 (1980)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    RDF, Ressource Description Framework Primer W3C Recommendation, February 10 (2004),
  23. 23.
    Sebastiani, F.: Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Comuting Surveys 34(1), 1–47 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sure, Y., Corcho, O., Euzenat, J., Hughes, T. (eds.): 3rd Int. Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools (EON 2004), Hiroshima, Japan (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Umberto Straccia
    • 1
  • Raphaël Troncy
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ISTI-CNRPisaItaly
  2. 2.CWI AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations