OntoEdit: Collaborative Ontology Development for the Semantic Web

  • York Sure
  • Michael Erdmann
  • Juergen Angele
  • Steffen Staab
  • Rudi Studer
  • Dirk Wenke
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2342)


Ontologies now play an important role for enabling the semantic web. They provide a source of precisely defined terms e.g. for knowledge-intensive applications. The terms are used for concise communication across people and applications. Typically the development of ontologies involves collaborative efforts of multiple persons. OntoEdit is an ontology editor that integrates numerous aspects of ontology engineering. This paper focuses on collaborative development of ontologies with OntoEdit which is guided by a comprehensive methodology.


Domain Expert Ontology Development Concept Hierarchy Competency Question Ontology Engineer 
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.


  1. ACFLGP01.
    J.C. Arprez, O. Corcho, M. Fernandez-Lopez, and A. Gomez-Perez. WebODE: a scalable workbench for ontological engineering. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP) Oct. 21–23, 2001, Victoria, B.C., Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. BHGS01.
    S. Bechhofer, I. Horrocks, C. Goble, and R. Stevens. OilEd: A reason-able ontology editor for the semantic web. In KI-2001: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 2174, pages 396–408. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. Buz74.
    T. Buzan. Use your head. BBC Books, 1974.Google Scholar
  4. DEFS99.
    S. Decker, M. Erdmann, D. Fensel, and R. Studer. Ontobroker: Ontology based access to distributed and semi-structured information. In R. Meersman et al., editor, Database Semantics: Semantic Issues in Multimedia Systems. Kluwer Academic, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. Dom98.
    J. Domingue. Tadzebao and WebOnto: Discussing, browsing, and editing ontologies on the web. In Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, April 18th-23rd. Banff, Canada, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. DSW+99.
    A. J. Duineveld, R. Stoter, M. R. Weiden, B. Kenepa, and V. R. Benjamins. WonderTools? A comparative study of ontological engineering tools. In Proc. of the Twelfth Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management. Banff, Alberta, Canada. October 16–21, 1999, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. FFR96.
    A. Farquhar, R. Fickas, and J. Rice. The Ontolingua Server: A tool for collaborative ontology construction. In Proceedings of the 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for KnowledgeBased System Workshop (KAW’95), Banff, Canada, November 1996.Google Scholar
  8. Han01.
    Siegfried Handschuh. Ontoplugins — a flexible component framework. Technical report, University of Karlsruhe, May 2001.Google Scholar
  9. Hor98.
    I. Horrocks. Using an expressive description logic: FaCT or fiction? In Proceedings of KR 1998, pages 636–649. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. LGPSS99.
    M. F. Lopez, A. Gomez-Perez, J. P. Sierra, and A. P. Sierra. Building a chemical ontology using Methontology and the Ontology Design Environment. Intelligent Systems, 14(1), January/February 1999.Google Scholar
  11. LS02.
    T. Lau and Y. Sure. Introducing ontology-based skills management at a large insurance company. In Proceedings of the Modellierung 2002, Tutzing, Germany, March 2002.Google Scholar
  12. MFRW00.
    D. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder. An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In Proceedings of KR 2000, pages 483–493. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. MSS+02.
    A. Maedche, S. Staab, R. Studer, Y. Sure, and R. Volz. SEAL — Tying up information integration and web site management by ontologies. IEEE-CS Data Engineering Bulletin, Special Issue on Organizing and Discovering the Semantic Web, March 2002. To appear.Google Scholar
  14. NFM00.
    N. Fridman Noy, R. Fergerson, and M. Musen. The knowledge model of Protégé-2000: Combining interoperability and flexibility. In Proceedings of EKAW 2000, LNCS 1937, pages 17–32. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. SAA+99.
    G. Schreiber, H. Akkermans, A. Anjewierden, R. de Hoog, N. Shadbolt, W. Van de Velde, and B. Wielinga. Knowledge Engineering and Management — The CommonKADS Methodology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. SPKR96.
    B. Swartout, R. Patil, K. Knight, and T. Russ. Toward distributed use of large-scale ontologies. In Proceedings of the 10th Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (KAW’96), Banff, Canada, November 1996.Google Scholar
  17. SSA+02.
    Y Sure, S. Staab, J. Angele, D. Wenke, and A. Maedche. OntoEdit: Guiding ontology development by methodology and inferencing. In Submitted to: Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems (PAIS), in conjunction with ECAI 2002, July 21–26 2002, Lyon, France, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. SSSS01.
    S. Staab, H.-P. Schnurr, R. Studer, and Y Sure. Knowledge processes and ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Knowledge Management, 16(1), January/Febrary 2001.Google Scholar
  19. TS98.
    J. Tennison and N. Shadbolt. APECKS: A tool to support living ontologies. In Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (KAW’98), Banff, Canada, April 1998.Google Scholar
  20. UK95.
    M. Uschold and M. King. Towards a methodology for building ontologies. In Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, held in conjunction with IJCAI-95, Montreal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • York Sure
    • 1
  • Michael Erdmann
    • 2
  • Juergen Angele
    • 2
  • Steffen Staab
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rudi Studer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dirk Wenke
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute AIFBUniversity of KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Ontoprise GmbHKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.FZI Research Center for Information TechnologiesKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations