Ontology Alignments

An Ontology Management Perspective
  • Jérôme Euzenat
  • Adrian Mocan
  • François Scharffe
Chapter
Part of the Computing for Human Experience book series (ADSW, volume 7)

Relating ontologies is very important for many ontology-based applications and more important in open environments like the Semantic Web. The relations between ontology entities can be obtained by ontology matching and represented as alignments. Hence, alignments must be taken into account in ontology management. This chapter establishes the requirements for alignment management. After a brief introduction to matching and alignments, we justify the consideration of alignments as independent entities and provide the lifecycle of alignments. We describe the important functions of editing, managing and exploiting alignments and illustrate them with existing components.

Key words

alignment management alignment server mapping ontology alignment ontology matching ontology mediation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Christoph Bussler, Dieter Fensel, and Alexander Mädche. A conceptual architecture for Semantic Web enabled Web services. ACM SIGMOD Record, 31(4):24-29, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Oliver Duschka and Michael Genesereth. Infomaster -an information integration tool. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration, Freiburg, Germany, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. Marc Ehrig. Ontology Alignment: Bridging the Semantic Gap. Semantic Web and Beyond: Computing for Human Experience. Springer, New-York (NY US), 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Jérôme Euzenat and Petko Valtchev. Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-Lite. In Proceedings of 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Valencia (ES), pages 333-337, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Jérôme Euzenat. Alignment infrastructure for ontology mediation and other applications. In Proceedings of the 1st ICSOC International Workshop on Mediation in Semantic Web Services, pages 81-95, Amsterdam, Netherlands, December 2005Google Scholar
  6. Jérôme Euzenat. An API for ontology alignment. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2004), pages 698-712, Hiroshima, Japan, 2004Google Scholar
  7. Jérôme Euzenat and Pavel Shvaiko. Ontology matching. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2007Google Scholar
  8. Michael Genesereth, Arthur Keller, and Oliver Duschka. Infomaster: An Information integration system. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Tucson, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Ningsheng Jian, Wei Hu, Gong Cheng, and Yuzhong Qu. Falcon-AO: Aligning ontologies with Falcon. In Proceedings of K-CAP Workshop on Integrating Ontologies, pages 87-93, Banff, CA, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Yannis Kalfoglou and Marco Schorlemmer. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(1):1-31, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mike Kerrigan, Adrian Mocan, Martin Tanler, Dieter Fensel: The Web Service Modeling Toolkit -An Integrated Development Environment for Semantic Web Services. In Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), System Description Track, June 2007, Innsbruck, Austria.Google Scholar
  12. Loredana Laera, Ian Blacoe, Valentina Tamma, Terry Payne, Jérôme Euzenat, and Trevor Bench-Capon. Argumentation over Ontology Correspondences in MAS. In Proceedings of the 6th International conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Honolulu, USA, 2007Google Scholar
  13. Holger Lausen, Jos de Bruijn, Axel Polleres, and Dieter Fensel: WSML — A Language Framework for Semantic Web Services. W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability, April 2005Google Scholar
  14. Aexander Mädche, Boris Motik, Nuno Silva, and Raphael Volz: MAFRA — A Mapping Framework for Distributed Ontologies. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW-2002), pages 235-250, Siguenza, Spain, September 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Sergey Melnik, Erhard Rahm, and Philip Bernstein. Rondo: A programming platform for model management. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pages 193-204, San Diego (CA US), 2003Google Scholar
  16. Adrian Mocan and Emilia Cimpian: Mapping creation using a view based approach. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Mediation in Semantic Web Services (Mediate-2005), volume 168, pages 97-112, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December 2005.Google Scholar
  17. Adrian Mocan, Matthew Moran, Emilia Cimpian, and Michal Zaremba. Filling the Gap -Extending Service Oriented Architectures with Semantics. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE-2006), pages 594-601, Shanghai, China, October 2006.Google Scholar
  18. Adrian Mocan, Emilia Cimpian, and Mike Kerrigan: Formal Model for Ontology Mapping Creation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2006), pages 459-472, Athens, Georgia, USA, November 2006.Google Scholar
  19. Natalia F. Noy and Mark A. Musen: The PROMPT Suite: Interactive Tools for Ontology Merging And Mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 6(59):983-1024, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. Raúl Palma, Peter Haase, Oyster: Sharing and re-using ontologies in a peer-to-peer community. In Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, pages 1059-1062, Galway, Ireland, 2005Google Scholar
  21. Erhard Rahm and Philip Bernstein. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal, 10(4):334-350, 2001MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. François Scharffe and Jos de Bruijn: A language to specify mappings between ontologies. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Internet-Based Systems SITIS6, Yaounde, Cameroon, December 2005.Google Scholar
  23. François Scharffe: Dynamerge: A Merging Algorithm for Structured Data Integration on the Web. In Proceeedings of the DASFAA 2007 International Workshop on Scalable Web Information Integration and Service (SWIIS 2007), 2007.Google Scholar
  24. Pavel Shvaiko, Fausto Giunchiglia, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva, and Deborah McGuinness. Web explanations for semantic heterogeneity discovery. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), pages 303-317, Hersounisous, Greece, May 2005Google Scholar
  25. Jie Tang, Juanzi Li, Bangyong Liang, Xiaotong Huang, Yi Li, and Kehong Wang. Using Bayesian decision for ontology mapping. Journal of Web Semantics, 4(1):243-262, 2006Google Scholar
  26. Willem Robert van Hage, Sophia Katrenko, Guus Schreiber. A Method to Combine Linguistic Ontology-Mapping Techniques. In Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2005), pages 732-744, Galway, Ireland, 2005Google Scholar
  27. Holger Wache, Thomas Voegele, Ubbo Visser, Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Gerhard Schuster, Holger Neumann, and Sebastian Hübner. Ontology-based integration of information — a survey of existing approaches. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, pages 108-117, Seattle, USA, 2001Google Scholar
  28. Gio Wiederhold. Mediators in the architecture of future information systems. IEEE Computer, 25(3), 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Euzenat
    • 1
  • Adrian Mocan
    • 2
  • François Scharffe
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA Rhône-Alpes & LIGFrance
  2. 2.University of InnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations