A Graph-Oriented Model for Articulation of Ontology Interdependencies
Ontologies explicate the contents, essential properties, and relationships between terms in a knowledge base. Many sources are now accessible with associated ontologies. Most prior work on the use of ontologies relies on the construction of a single global ontology covering all sources. Such an approach is not scalable and maintainable especially when the sources change frequently. We propose a scalable and easily maintainable approach based on the interoperation of ontologies. To handle user queries crossing the boundaries of the underlying information systems, the interoperation between the ontologies should be precisely defined. Our approach is to use rules that cross the semantic gap by creating an articulation or linkage between the systems. The rules are generated using a semi-automatic articulation tool with the help of a domain expert. To make the ontologies amenable for automatic composition, based on the accumulated knowledge rules, we represent them using a graph-oriented model extended with a small algebraic operator set. ONION, a user-friendly toolkit, aids the experts in bridging the semantic gap in real-life settings. Our framework provides a sound foundation to simplify the work of domain experts, enables integration with public semantic dictionaries, like Wordnet, and will derive ODMG-compliant mediators automatically.
Keywordssemantic interoperation ontology algebra graph-based model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.The context interchange project, http://context.mit.edu/coin/.
- 2.Cyc knowledge base, http://www.cyc.com/.
- 3.Information integration using infomaster, http://infomaster.stanford.edu/infomaster-info.html.
- 4.The information manifold, http://portal.research.bell-labs.com/orgs/ssr/people/levy/paper-abstracts.html#iga.
- 6.The stanford-ibm manager of multiple information sources, http://www-db.stanford.edu/tsimmis/.
- 7.Extensible markup language (xml) 1.0 http://www.w3.org/tr/rec-xml, Feb 1999.
- 8.Resource description framework (rdf) model and syntax specification, http://www.w3.org/tr/rec-rdf-syntax/, February 1999.
- 9.P. Buneman, S. Davidson, and A. Kosky. Theoretical aspects of schema merging. In Proc. of EDBT’ 92, pages 152–167. EDBT, Springer Verlag, Mar. 1992.Google Scholar
- 10.M. Gyssens, J. Paredaens, and D. Van Gucht. A graph-oriented object database model. In Proc. PODS, pages 417–424, 1990.Google Scholar
- 11.J. Jannink. Resolution of Semantic Differences in Ontologies. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
- 12.C.A. Knoblock, S. Minton, J.L. Ambite, N. Ashish, P.J. Modi, Ion Muslea, A.G. Philpot, and S. Tejada. Modeling web sources for information integration. In Proc. of the Fifteenth National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Madison, WI, 1998.Google Scholar
- 13.A.T. McCray, A.M. Razi, A.K. Bangalore, A.C. Browne, and P.Z. Stavri. The umls knowledge source server: A versatile internet-based research tool. In Proc. AMIA Fall Symp, pages 164–168, 1996.Google Scholar
- 14.P. Mitra. Algorithms for answering queries efficiently using views, http://www-db.stanford.edu/prasen9/qralgo.pdf. Technical report, Infolab, Stanford University, September 1999.
- 15.P. Mitra, G. Wiederhold, and J. Jannink. Semi-automatic integration of knowledge sources. In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. On Information FUSION’99, 1999.Google Scholar
- 16.Y. Papakonstantinou, H. Garcia-Molina, and Widom J. Object exchange across heterogeneous information sources, March 1995.Google Scholar
- 17.P. Scheuermann, C. Yu, A. Elmagarmid, H. Garcia-Molina, F. Manola, D. McLeod, A. Rosenthal, and M. Templeton. Report on the workshop on heterogenous database systems. In ACM SIGMOD RECORD 19,4, pages 23–31, 1989.Google Scholar
- 18.A.P. Sheth and J.A. Larson. Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogenous, and autonomous databases. In ACM Computing Surveys, pages 183–236, 1994.Google Scholar
- 19.M. Siegel and S. Madnick. A metadata approach to solving semantic conflicts. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 133–145, 1991.Google Scholar