Managing Reference: Ensuring Referential Integrity of Ontologies for the Semantic Web

  • Harith Alani
  • Srinandan Dasmahapatra
  • Nicholas Gibbins
  • Hugh Glaser
  • Steve Harris
  • Yannis Kalfoglou
  • Kieron O’Hara
  • Nigel Shadbolt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2473)

Abstract

The diversity and distributed nature of the resources available in the semantic web poses significant challenges when these are used to help automatically build an ontology. One persistent and pervasive problem is that of the resolution or elimination of coreference that arises when more than one identifier is used to refer to the same resource. Tackling this problem is crucial for the referential integrity, and subsequently the quality of results, of any ontology-based knowledge service. We have built a coreference management service to be used alongside the population and maintenance of an ontology. An ontology based knowledge service that identifies communities of practice (CoPs) is also used to maintain the heuristics used in the coreference management system. This approach is currently being applied in a large scale experiment harvesting resources from various UK computer science departments with the aim of building a large, generic web-accessible ontology.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Abiteboul and P. Kanellakis. Object identity as a query primitive. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data, ACM SIGMOD, Portland, OR, USA, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    AKT. The akt manifesto. Technical report, 2001. http://www.aktors.org/publications/Manifesto.doc
  3. 3.
    H. Alani, K. O’Hara, and N. Shadbolt. ONTOCOPI: Methods and tools for identifying communities of practice. In Proceedings of the 2002 IFIP World Computer Congress, Montreal, Canada, August 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Bagga. Evaluation of coreferences and coreference resolution systems. In Proceedings of the First Language Resource and Evaluation Conference, may 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Berners-Lee, Hendler J., and O. Lassila. The semantic web. Scientific American, may 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Chalupksy. OntoMorph: A Translation System for Symbolic Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2000), Colorado, USA, April 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.F. Codd. Relational completeness of data base sublanguages. In Rustin R., editor, Database Systems. Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DARPA. DARPA Agent Markup Langugage. Technical report, DARPA, mar 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Dayal. Queries and views in an object-oriented data model. In R. Hull, R. Morrison, and D. Stemple, editors, Database Programming Languages: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop. Morgan Kaufmann, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Farquhar, R. Fikes, W. Pratt, and J. Rice. The Ontolingua Server: a Tool for Collaborative Ontology Construction. In proceedings of the 10th Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, KAW’96, Banff, Canada, November 1996. Also available as KSL-TR-96-26.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Fernandez-Lopez, A. Gomez-Perez, and M-D. Rojas-Amaya. Ontology’s crossed life cycles. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW’00), Juan-les-Pins, France, pages 65–79. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Fridman-Noy and M. Musen. PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI’00), Austin, TX, USA, July 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Gardarin, F. Machuca, and P. Pucheral. Ofl: A functional execution model for object query languages. In N.J. Carey and A.S. Schneider, editors, Proceedings of the 1995 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, San Jose, California, USA, pages 59–70. ACM Press, may 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Heiler, R.J. Miller, and V. Vintrone. Using metadata to address problems of semantic interoperability in large object systems. In Proceedings of the First IEEE Metadata Conference, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Jagadish and X. Qian. Integrity maintenance in an object-oriented database. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Very Large Databases, Vancouver, Canada, pages 469–481, August 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Kappel and M. Schrefl. Local referential integrity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling / the Entity Relationship Approach, pages 41–61, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.A. Kripke. Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O. Lassila and R. Swick. Resource Description Framework(RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. W3c recommendation, W3C, feb 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    V.I. Levenstein. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Cybernetics Control Theory, 10:707–710, 1966.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder. An Environment for Merging and Testing Large Ontologies. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2000), Colorado, USA, April 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Motta, S. Buckingham-Shum, and J. Domingue. Ontology-driven document enrichment: principles, tools and applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, (52):1071–1109, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. O’Hara, H. Alani, and N. Shadbolt. Identifying Communities of Practice: Analysing Ontologies as Networks to Support Community Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2002 IFIP World Computer Congress, Montreal, Canada, August 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J.R. Quinlan. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1:81–106, 1986.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Rahm and A. Bernstein. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The Very Large Databases Journal, 10(4):334–350, 2001.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Reiter. Equality and domain closure in first order data bases. Journal of the Association of Computing Machinery, 27:235–249, 1980.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Tennison, K. O’Hara and N. Shadbolt APECKS: Using and Evaluating a Tool for Ontology Construction with Internal and External KA Support. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, In Press Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. Leonard and H. Glaser Large scale acquisition and maintenance from the web without source access Workshop 4, Knowledge Markup and Semantic Annotation, K-CAP 2001Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sollins, K. and Masinter, L. Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names. RFC 1737.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R.A. Wagner and M.J. Fischer. The string-to-string correction problem. Journal of the ACM, 21:168–173, 1974.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. Wenger. Communities of Practice: The Key to Knowledge Strategy. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    I-Y. Yao, K-T. Ko, R. Neches, and R. MacGregor. Semantic interoperability scripting and measurements. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Complex and Dynamic Systems Architecture, Brisbane, Australia, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harith Alani
    • 1
  • Srinandan Dasmahapatra
    • 1
  • Nicholas Gibbins
    • 1
  • Hugh Glaser
    • 1
  • Steve Harris
    • 1
  • Yannis Kalfoglou
    • 1
  • Kieron O’Hara
    • 1
  • Nigel Shadbolt
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligence, Agents and Multimedia Group (IAM), Department of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations