Ontology Versioning and Change Detection on the Web

  • Michel Klein
  • Dieter Fensel
  • Atanas Kiryakov
  • Damyan Ognyanov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2473)


To effectively use ontologies on the Web, it is essential that changes in ontologies are managed well. This paper analyzes the topic of ontology versioning in the context of the Web by looking at the characteristics of the version relation between ontologies and at the identification of online ontologies. Then, it describes the design of a web-based system that helps users to manage changes in ontologies. The system helps to keep different versions of web-based ontologies interoperable, by maintaining not only the transformations between ontologies, but also the conceptual relation between concepts in different versions. The system allows ontology engineers to compare versions of ontology and to specify these conceptual relations. For the visualization of differences, it uses an adaptable rule-based mechanism that finds and classifies changes in RDF-based ontologies.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Banerjee, W. Kim, H.-J. Kim, and H. F. Korth. Semantics and Implementation of Schema Evolution in Object-Oriented Databases. SIGMOD Record (Proc. Conf. on Management of Data), 16(3):311–322, May 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Bechhofer, C. Goble, and I. Horrocks. DAML+OIL is not enough. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), Stanford University, California, USA, July 30–Aug. 1, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Bechhofer, I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and S. Tessaris. A proposal for a description logic interface. In P. Lambrix, A. Borgida, M. Lenzerini, R. Moller, and P. Patel-Schneider, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL’99), pages 33–36, Linköping, Sweden, July 30–Aug. 1 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Berliner. CVS II: Parallelizing software development. In USENIX Association, editor, Proceedings of the Winter 1990 USENIX Conference, pages 341–352, Washington, DC, USA, Jan. 22–26, 1990. USENIX.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, and L. Masinter. RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic syntax, Aug. 1998. Status: DRAFT STANDARD.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5):34–43, May 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Berners-Lee. Generic resources, 1996. Design Issues.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Bray, D. Hollander, and A. Layman. Namespaces in XML. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/, Jan. 1999.
  9. 9.
    D. Brickley and R. V. Guha. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema SpecificationGoogle Scholar
  10. 1.0.
    Candidate recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, Mar. 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    D. J. Brown and K. Runge. Library interface versioning in solaris and linux. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Linux Showcase and Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, Oct., 10–14 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    D. Fensel, I. Horrocks, F. van Harmelen, S. Decker, M. Erdmann, and M. Klein. OIL in a nutshell. In R. Dieng and O. Corby, editors, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management; Methods, Models and Tools, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference EKAW 2000, number 1937 in LNCS, pages 1–16, Juan-les-Pins, France, Oct. 2–6, 2000. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 12.
    D. Fensel and M. A. Musen. The semantic web: A new brain for humanity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    J. Heflin and J. Hendler. Dynamic ontologies on the web. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000), pages 443–449. AAAI/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    M. Klein and D. Fensel. Ontology versioning for the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), pages 75–91, Stanford University, California, USA, July 30–Aug. 1, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    O. Lassila and R. R. Swick. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Model and Syntax Specification. Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, Feb. 1999. See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/.
  17. 16.
    D. L. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder. An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In A. G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman, editors, KR2000: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 483–493, San Francisco, 2000. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    H. S. Pinto and J. ao Pavao Martins. Evolving ontologies in distributed and dynamic settings. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2002), Toulouse, France, Apr. 22–25, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    J. F. Roddick. A survey of schema versioning issues for database systems. Information and Software Technology, 37(7):383–393, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    P. R. S. Visser, D. M. Jones, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and M. J. R. Shave. An analysis of ontological mismatches: Heterogeneity versus interoperability. In AAAI 1997 Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, Stanford, USA, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Klein
    • 1
  • Dieter Fensel
    • 1
  • Atanas Kiryakov
    • 2
  • Damyan Ognyanov
    • 2
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamHV Amsterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.OntoText Lab. Sirma AI Ltd.SofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations