An API for Ontology Alignment

  • Jérôme Euzenat
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3298)


Ontologies are seen as the solution to data heterogeneity on the web. However, the available ontologies are themselves source of heterogeneity. This can be overcome by aligning ontologies, or finding the correspondence between their components. These alignments deserve to be treated as objects: they can be referenced on the web as such, be completed by an algorithm that improves a particular alignment, be compared with other alignments and be transformed into a set of axioms or a translation program. We present here a format for expressing alignments in RDF, so that they can be published on the web. Then we propose an implementation of this format as an Alignment API, which can be seen as an extension of the OWL API and shares some design goals with it. We show how this API can be used for effectively aligning ontologies and completing partial alignments, thresholding alignments or generating axioms and transformations.


Alignment Algorithm Alignment Method Relation Holding Partial Alignment Ontology Alignment 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bechhofer, S., Voltz, R., Lord, P.: Cooking the semantic web with the OWL API. In: Proc. 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Sanibel Island (FL US) (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M.: A framework for ontology integration. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Euzenat, J., McGuinness, D. (eds.) The emerging semantic web, pp. 201–214. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Do, H.-H., Melnik, S., Rahm, E.: Comparison of schema matching evaluations. In: Proc. GI-Workshop Web and Databases, Erfurt (DE) (2002),
  4. 4.
    Euzenat, J.: Towards composing and benchmarking ontology alignments. In: ISWC 2003, pp. 165–166 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giunchiglia, F., Shvaiko, P.: Semantic matching. In: Proc. IJCAI 2003 Workshop on ontologies and distributed systems, Acapulco (MX), pp. 139–146 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: a semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML (2003),
  7. 7.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Representing and reasoning about mappings between domain models. In: Proc. 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002), Edmonton (CA), pp. 122–133 (1998),
  8. 8.
    Mädche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: MAFRA – a mapping framework for distributed ontologies. In: Proc. ECAI workshop on Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic web, Lyon (FR), pp. 60–68 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noy, N., Musen, M.: Evaluating ontology-mapping tools: requirements and experience. In: Proc. 1st workshop on Evaluation of Ontology Tools (EON2002), EKAW 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Omelayenko, B.: Integrating vocabularies: discovering and representing vocabulary maps. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 206–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Euzenat
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Rhône-AlpesMontbonnotFrance

Personalised recommendations