Formalism-Independent Specification of Ontology Mappings – A Metamodeling Approach

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4275)


Recently, the advantages of metamodeling for the graphical specification of ontologies have been recognized by the semantic web community. This has lead to a number of activities concerned with the development of graphical modeling approaches for the Web Ontology Language based on the Meta Object Facility (MOF) and the Unified Modeling Language (UML). An aspect that has not been addressed so far is the need to specify mappings between heterogenous ontologies. With an increasing number of ontologies being available, the problem of specifying mappings is becoming more important and the rationales for providing model based graphical modeling support for mappings is the same as for the ontologies themselves. In this paper, we therefore propose a MOF-based metamodel for mappings between OWL DL ontologies.


Semantic Relation Description Logic Ontology Mapping Connected Element Meta Object Facility 
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.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 164–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brockmans, S., Haase, P.: A Metamodel and UML Profile for Networked Ontologies – A Complete Reference. Technical report, Universität Karlsruhe (April 2006),
  3. 3.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: A framework for ontology integration. In: Proceedings of the Semantic Web Working Symposium, Stanford, CA, pp. 303–316 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: Description logics for information integration. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS, vol. 2408, pp. 41–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haase, P., Motik, B.: A mapping system for the integration of owl-dl ontologies. In: Proceedings of the ACM-Workshop: Interoperability of Heterogeneous Information Systems (IHIS 2005) (November 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H., Wache, H.: A formal investigation of mapping languages for terminological knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - IJCAI 2005, Edinburgh, UK (August 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Uschold, M.: Representation of semantic mappings. In: Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M., Sheth, A., Staab, S., Uschold, M. (eds.) Semantic Interoperability and Integration. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Germany, vol. 04391. IBFI, Schloss Dagstuhl (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tessaris, S., Franconi, E.: Rules and queries with ontologies: a unifying logical framework. In: Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Wolter, F. (eds.) Description Logics. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 147, (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: Object Constraint Language 2.0. MITP Verlag (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AIFBUniversität Karlsruhe (TH)Germany
  2. 2.University of MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations