Advertisement

Ontologies pp 319-338 | Cite as

Modeling and Reasoning About Changes in Ontology Time Series

  • Tomi Kauppinen
  • Eero Hyvönen
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 14)

Abstract

Ontologies evolve when the underlying domain world changes at different points of time. The result then is a series of ontologies whose concepts are related with each other not only within one ontology valid at a moment but through the time, too. This chapter presents a model for representing ontology time series. The focus is on modeling partial overlap between concepts evolving over long periods of time, and the domain of application is historical geospatial reasoning. A framework is presented for representing and reasoning about conceptual overlap of concepts that evolve over an ontology time series. The idea is to provide the ontology developer with an intuitive change ontology for expressing local ontological changes in a declarative way. An algorithm is presented for reasoning about overlapping concepts globally over long periods of time. This algorithm can be applied, e.g., in concept-based information retrieval for ranking search results according to their relevance.

Keywords

Change Point Global Covering Spatial Reasoning Local Covering Ontology Evolution 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brickley, D. and Guha, R. V. (2004). RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Cohn, A., Bennett, B., Gooday, J., and Gotts, N. (1997). Representing and reasoning with qualitative spatial relations about regions. In Stock, O., editor, Temporal and spatial reasoning. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Fensel, D. (2004). Ontologies: Silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce (2nd Edition). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Grenon, P. and Smith, B. (2004). SNAP and SPAN: Prolegomenon to geodynamic ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation, (1):69–105.Google Scholar
  5. Hearst, M., Elliott, A., English, J., Sinha, R., Swearingen, K., and Lee, K.-P. (2002). Finding the flow in web site search. CACM, 45(9):42–49.Google Scholar
  6. Holi, M. and Hyvönen, E. (2004). A method for modeling uncertainty in semantic web taxonomies. In Proceedings of WWW2004, Alternate Track Papers and Posters, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Hyvönen, E., Junnila, M., Kettula, S., Mäkelä, E., Saarela, S., Salminen, M., Syreeni, A., Valo, A., and Viljanen, K. (2004). Finnish Museums on the Semantic Web. User’s perspective on museumfinland. In Selected Papers from an International Conference Museums and the Web 2004 (MW2004), Arlington, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Klein, M. (2004). Change Management for Distributed Ontologies. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Klein, M. and Fensel, D. (2001). Ontology versioning on the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), pages 75–91, Stanford University, California, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Noy, N. and Klein, M. (2003). Ontology evolution: Not the same as schema evolution. Knowledge and Information Systems 5.Google Scholar
  11. Randell, D. A., Cui, Z., and Cohn, A. (1992). A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In Nebel, B., Rich, C., and Swartout, W., editors, KR’92. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, pages 165–176. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
  12. Sider, T. (2001). Four-Dimensionalism. An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Stell, J. G. and West, M. (2004). A 4-dimensionalist mereotopology. In Varzi, A. and Vieu, L., editors, Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pages 261–272. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  14. Stojanovic, L. (2004). Methods and Tools for Ontology Evolution. PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe, Germany.Google Scholar
  15. Stuckenschmidt, H. and Harmelen, F. V. (2004). Information Sharing on the Semantic Web. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Visser, U. (2004). Intelligent information integration for the Semantic Web. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Väätainen, J. (2004). A database containing descriptions of changes of counties in Finland. The Geological Survey of Finland (GSF), Espoo, Finland.Google Scholar
  18. West, M. (2003). Replaceable parts: A four dimensional analysis. In COSIT-03-Workshop on fundamental issues in spatial and geographic ontologies, Ittingen, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomi Kauppinen
    • 1
  • Eero Hyvönen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Helsinki University of Technology, Media Technology and HIITUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinki

Personalised recommendations