Ontology Learning from Relational Database: How to Label the Relationships Between Concepts?

  • Bouchra El IdrissiEmail author
  • Salah Baïna
  • Karim Baïna
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 521)


Developing ontology for modeling the universe of a Relational Database (RDB) is a key success for many RDB related domains, including semantic-query of RDB, Linked Data and semantic interoperability of information systems. However, the manual development of ontology is a tedious task, error-prone and requires much time. The research field of ontology learning aims to provide (semi-) automatic approaches for building ontology. However, one big challenge in the automatic transformation, is how to label the relationships between concepts. This challenge depends heavily on the correct extraction of the relationship types. In fact, the RDB model does not store the meaning of relationships between entities, it only indicates the existence of a link between them. This paper suggests a solution consisting of a meta-model for the semantic enrichment of the RDB model and of a classification of relationships. A case study shows the effectiveness of our approach.


Ontology Ontology Learning Relational Database Relationships Labeling Relationships classification Semantic Enrichment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alalwan, N., Zedan, H., Siewe, F.: Generating owl ontology for database integration. In: Third International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing, SEMAPRO 2009, pp. 22–31. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Astrova, I., Korda, N., Kalja, A.: Rule-based transformation of sql relational databases to owl ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Metadata & Semantics Research. Citeseer (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    El Idrissi, B., Baïna, S., Baïna, K.: A methodology to prepare real-world and large databases to ontology learning. In: Enterprise Interoperability VI, pp. 175–185. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    El Idrissi, B., Baïna, S., Baïna, K.: Upgrading the semantics of the relational model for rich owl 2 ontology learning. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology 68(1) (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evens, M.W.: Relational models of the lexicon: Representing knowledge in semantic networks. Cambridge University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Manzano-Macho, D., et al.: A survey of ontology learning methods and techniques. OntoWeb Deliverable D 1, 5 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruber, T.R., et al.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ling, H., Zhou, S.: Mapping relational databases into owl ontology. International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET) 5(6), 4735–4740 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Louhdi, M.R.C., Behja, H., El Alaoui, S.O.: Transformation rules for building owl ontologies from relational databases. In: 2nd ICAITA, pp. 271–283 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petasis, G., Karkaletsis, V., Paliouras, G., Krithara, A., Zavitsanos, E.: Ontology population and enrichment: State of the art. In: Paliouras, G., Spyropoulos, C.D., Tsatsaronis, G. (eds.) Multimedia Information Extraction. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6050, pp. 134–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SAP ERP Solutions,
  12. 12.
    Sequeda, J.F., Arenas, M., Miranker, D.P.: On directly mapping relational databases to rdf and owl (extended version). arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.3667 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spanos, D.E., Stavrou, P., Mitrou, N.: Bringing relational databases into the semantic web: A survey. Semantic Web 3(2), 169–209 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Storey, V.C.: Understanding semantic relationships. The VLDB Journal 2(4), 455–488 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teorey, T.J., Lightstone, S.S., Nadeau, T., Jagadish, H.V.: Database modeling and design: logical design. Elsevier (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Apache DB Project DdlUtils,
  17. 17.
    Tirmizi, S.H., Sequeda, J., Miranker, D.P.: Translating SQL applications to the semantic web. In: Bhowmick, S.S., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5181, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ullrich, H., Purao, S., Storey, V.C.: An ontology for classifying the semantics of relationships in database design. In: Bouzeghoub, M., Kedad, Z., Métais, E. (eds.) NLDB 2000. LNCS, vol. 1959, pp. 91–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    W3C: Owl 2 web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax (second edition). (December 2012),

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bouchra El Idrissi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Salah Baïna
    • 1
  • Karim Baïna
    • 1
  1. 1.ENSIAS, University Mohammed V RabatRabatMorocco

Personalised recommendations