Finding and Characterizing Changes in Ontologies

  • Michel Klein
  • Atanas Kiryakov
  • Damyan Ognyanov
  • Dieter Fensel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2503)


Recently, the interest in the use of ontologies — which can be seen as formal representations of conceptual models — has increased because of the excitement about the vision of a “Semantic Web”. When ontologies are used on the web, the distributed and dynamic nature of it requires advanced support for change management. This paper discusses the working of OntoView, a web-based change management system for ontologies. OntoView provides a transparent interface to different versions of ontologies, by maintaining not only the transformations between them, but also the conceptual relation between concepts in different versions. It uses several rules to find changes in ontologies and it visualizes them — and some of their possible consequences — in the file representations. The user is able to specify the conceptual implication of the differences, which allows the interoperability of data that is described by the ontologies. This paper briefly describes the system and presents the mechanism that we used to find and classify changes in RDFS / DAML ontologies. It also shows how users can specify the conceptual implication of changes to help interoperability.


Conceptual Change Conceptual Relation Resource Description Framework Description Logic Ontological Concept 
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.
    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.
    T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5):34–43, May 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Brickley and R. V. Guha. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0. Candidate recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, Mar. 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    D. Fensel and M. A. Musen. The semantic web: A new brain for humanity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. R. Gruber. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    O. Lassila and R. R. Swick. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Model and Syntax Specification. Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, Feb. 1999. See
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    J. F. Roddick. A survey of schema versioning issues for database systems. Information and Software Technology, 37(7):383–393, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  • Atanas Kiryakov
    • 2
  • Damyan Ognyanov
    • 2
  • Dieter Fensel
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdam
  2. 2.OntoText Lab.SofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations