MAFRA — A MApping FRAmework for Distributed Ontologies

  • Alexander Maedche
  • Boris Motik
  • Nuno Silva
  • Raphael Volz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2473)

Abstract

Ontologies as means for conceptualizing and structuring domain knowledge within a community of interest are seen as a key to realize the Semantic Web vision. However, the decentralized nature of the Web makes achieving this consensus across communities difficult, thus, hampering efficient knowledge sharing between them. In order to balance the autonomy of each community with the need for interoperability, mapping mechanisms between distributed ontologies in the Semantic Web are required. In this paper we present MAFRA, an interactive, incremental and dynamic framework for mapping distributed ontologies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. Bergamaschi, S. Castano, D. Beneventano, and M. Vincini. Semantic integration of heterogeneous information sources. In Special Issue on Intelligent Information Integration, Data & Knowledge Engineering, volume 36, pages 215–249. Elsevier Science B.V., 2001.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    T. Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web. Harper, San Francisco, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    W. Cohen. The whirl approach to data integration. IEEE Intelligent Systems, pages 1320–1324, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    T. Critchlow, M. Ganesh, and R. Musick. Automatic generation of warehouse mediators using an ontology engine. In Proceedings of the 5 th International Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases (KRDB’98), 1998.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Doan, J. Madhavan, P. Domingos, and A. Halevy. Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web. In Proceedings of the World-Wide Web Conference (WWW-2002), 2002.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Hammer, H. Garcia-Molina, K. Ireland, Y. Papakonstantinou, J. Ullman, and J. Widom. Information Translation, Mediation, and Mosaic-Based Browsing in the TSIMMIS System. In Exhibits Program of the Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, page 483, San Jose, California, June 1995., 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Khoshafian and G. Copeland. Object identity. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM OOPSLA conference, Portland, Oregon, September 1986., 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Alon Y. Levy, Anand Rajaraman, and Joann J. Ordille. Querying Heterogeneous Information Sources Using Source Descriptions. In Proceedings of VLDB-96, 1996, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Madhavan, P. A. Bernstein, and E. Rahm. Generic schema matching with cupid. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conferences on Very Large Databases, pages 49–58, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Maedche and S. Staab. Computing Similarities between Ontologies. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management EKAW-2002, Madrid, Spain, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    P. Mitra, G. Wiederhold, and M. Kersten. A graph-oriented model for articulation of ontology interdependencies. In Proceedings of Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT 2000). Konstanz, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    B. Omelayenko. Integrating Vocabularies: Discovering and Representing Vocabulary Maps. In Proceedings of the First International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2002), Sardinia, Italy, June 9–12, 2002., 2002.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Y Park, J. H. Gennari, and M. A. Musen. Mappings for reuse in knowledge-based systems. In Technical Report, SMI-97-0697, Stanford University, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    E. Rahm and P. Bernstein. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal, 10(4):334–350, 2001.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    P. Resnik. Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 11(11):95–130, 1999.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    M.C. Rousset. Standardization of a web ontology language. IEEE Intelligent Systems, March/April 2002, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    N. Silva. Discovering Mappings between Distributed Ontologies. In Internal Report, University of Karlsruhe, July 2002., 2002.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    L. Stojanovic, A. Maedche, B. Motik, and N. Stojanovic. User-Driven Ontology Evolution. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management EKAW-2002, Madrid, Spain, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    P.R.S. Visser, D.M. Jones, T.J.M. Bench-Capon, and M.J.R. Shave. An analysis of ontology mismatches: Heterogeneity versus interoperability. In AAAI 1997 Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, Stanford CA., USA, pages 164–72, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Maedche
    • 1
  • Boris Motik
    • 1
  • Nuno Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Raphael Volz
    • 1
  1. 1.Forschungszentrum Informatik at the Univ. KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.ISEP Instituto Superior de Engenharia Instituto Politecnico do PortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations