Formal and Conceptual Comparison of Ontology Mapping Languages

  • Saartje Brockmans
  • Peter Haase
  • Luciano Serafini
  • Heiner Stuckenschmidt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5445)


The compositional approach where several existing ontologies are connected to form a large modular ontology relies on the representation of mappings between elements in the different participating ontologies. A number of languages have been proposed for this purpose that extend existing logical languages for ontologies in a non-standard way. In this chapter, we compare different proposals for such extensions on a formal level and show that these approaches exhibit fundamental differences with respect to the assumptions underlying their semantics. In order to support application developers to select the right mapping language for a given situation, we propose a mapping metamodel that allows us to encode the formal differences on the conceptual level and facilitates the selection of an appropriate formalism on the basis of a formalism-independent specification of semantic relations between different ontologies by means of a graphical modelling language.


Semantic Relation Description Logic Order Logic Mapping Language Domain Relation 
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.
    Borgida, A.: On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics. Artificial Intelligence 82, 353–367 (1996) (research note)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. Journal of Data Semantics 1, 153–184 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 164–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Contextualizing ontologies. Journal on Web Semantics 1(4), 325–343 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brockmans, S., Haase, P.: A Metamodel and UML Profile for Networked Ontologies – A Complete Reference. Technical report, Universität Karlsruhe (April 2006),
  6. 6.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M.: Description logics for information integration. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS, vol. 2408, pp. 41–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Crubézy, M., Musen, M.A.: Ontologies in support of problem solving. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 321–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franconi, E., Tessaris, S.: Rules and queries with ontologies: a unified logical framework. In: Ohlbach, H.J., Schaffert, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3208, pp. 50–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F.: Local model semantics, or contextual reasoning = locality + compatibility. Artificial Intelligence 127(2), 221–259 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: Distributed first order logics. In: Gabbay, D.M., De Rijke, M. (eds.) Frontiers of Combining Systems 2, pp. 121–139. Research Studies Press Ltd. (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: Distributed first order logic - revised semantics. Technical report, ITC-irst (January 2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grau, B.C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Working with multiple ontologies on the semantic web. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 620–634. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haase, P., Motik, B.: A mapping system for the integration of OWL-DL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the ACM-Workshop: Interoperability of Heterogeneous Information Systems (IHIS 2005) (November 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    IBM, Sandpiper Software. Ontology Definition Metamodel, Fourth Revised Submission to OMG (November 2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kutz, O., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: E-connections of abstract description systems. Artificial Intelligence 156(1), 1–73 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: MAFRA - a mapping framework for distributed ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2473, p. 235. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Omelayenko, B.: RDFT: A mapping meta-ontology for business integration. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web (KTSW 2002) at the 15-th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon, France, pp. 76–83 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H., Wache, H.: A formal investigation of mapping languages for terminological knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - IJCAI 2005, Edinburgh, UK (August 2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Uschold, M.: Representation of semantic mappings. In: Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M., Sheth, A., Staab, S., Uschold, M. (eds.) Semantic Interoperability and Integration. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Germany, vol. 04391. IBFI, Schloss Dagstuhl (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tessaris, S., Franconi, E.: Rules and queries with ontologies: a unifying logical framework. In: Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Wolter, F. (eds.) Description Logics. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 147, (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ullman, J.D.: Information integration using logical views. In: Afrati, F.N., Kolaitis, P.G. (eds.) ICDT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1186, pp. 19–40. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: Object Constraint Language 2.0. MITP Verlag (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saartje Brockmans
    • 1
  • Peter Haase
    • 1
  • Luciano Serafini
    • 2
  • Heiner Stuckenschmidt
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute AIFBUniversity of KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Center for Information Technology Fondazione Bruno KesslerTrentoItaly
  3. 3.Heiner StuckenschmidtComputer Science Institute University of Mannheim, A5MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations