Preserving Semantics in Automatically Created Ontology Alignments



In an open world such as the Internet, one of the most challenging tasks is ontology alignment, which is the process of finding relationships among their elements. Performing this work in an automated fashion is, however, subject to errors, because of the different semantics carried by the same concept in different application domains or because of different ontology design styles which often produce incompatible ontology structures. In this chapter, we relate the most important approaches to ontology mapping revision, proposing a revision technique which aims at preserving the semantics of the original ontologies.


Description Logic Belief Revision Revision Process Ontology Mapping Ontology Match 
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.
    Antoniou, G., Van Harmelen, F.: A Semantic Web Primer. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007) MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodenreider, O.: The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Res. J. 32, 267–270 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: assimilating information from peer sources. J. Data Semant. 1, 153–184 (2003) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borgida, A., Franconi, E., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Explaining ALC subsumption. In: Lambrix, P., Borgida, A., Lenzerini, M., Müller, R., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.) Description Logics, CEUR-WS, Linköping (1999) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calí, A., Lukasiewicz, T., Predoiu, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: A framework for representing ontology mappings under probabilities and inconsistency. In: Bobillo, F., da Costa, P.G., d’Amato, C., Fanizzi, N., Fung, F., Lukasiewicz, T., Martin, T., Nickles, M., Peng, Y., Pool, M., Smrz, P., Vojtás, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd ISWC Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web Busan, Korea (2008) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castano, S., Ferrara, A., Lorusso, D.: Mapping validation by probabilistic reasoning. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference, Tenerife, Greece (2008) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curino, C.A., Orsi, G., Tanca, L.: X-SOM: Ontology mapping and inconsistency resolution. In: European Semantic Web Conference 2007—Poster Session.
  9. 9.
    Curino, C.A., Orsi, G., Tanca, L.: X-SOM: A flexible ontology mapper. In: Proceedings of 1st Intl Workshop on Semantic Web Architectures for Enterprises, Regensburg, Germany, pp. 424–428 (2007) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ding, Z., Peng, Y., Pan, R.: BayesOWL: Uncertainty modeling in semantic web ontologies. Stud. Fuzziness Soft Comput. (2006) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Berlin (2007) MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferrara, A., Lorusso, D., Stamou, G., Stoilos, G., Tzouvaras, V., Venetis, T.: Resolution of conflicts among ontology mappings: a fuzzy approach. In: Sheth, A., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Semantic-Web Conferencem Karlsruhe, Germany (2008) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flouris, G., Huang, Z., Pan, J.Z., Plexousakis, D., Wache, H.: Inconsistencies, negations and changes in ontologies. In: Gil, Y., Mooney, R.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (2006) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flouris, G., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: On applying the AGM theory to DLS and OWL. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, R., Musen, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 216–231 (2005) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forsyth, D.A., Ponce, J.: Computer Vision: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: Reconciling concepts and relations in heterogeneous ontologies. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference, pp. 50–64, Budva, Montenegro (2006) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giunchiglia, F., Maltese, V., Autayeu, A.: Computing minimal mappings. In: DISI Technical Report.
  18. 18.
    Giunchiglia, F., Yatskevich, Y., Shvaiko, P.: Semantic matching: Algorithms and implementation. J. Data Semant. 9, 1–38 (2007) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gruber, T.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In: Guarino, N., Poli, R. (eds.) International Workshop on Formal Ontology, Padova, Italy (1993) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haarslev, V., Pai, H.I., Shiri, N.: A generic framework for description logics with uncertainty. In: Cesar, P., da Costa, G., Laskey, K.B., Laskey, K.J., Pool, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the ISWC Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web, Galway, Ireland (2005) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haase, P., Qi, G.: An analysis of approaches to resolving inconsistencies in dl-based ontologies. In: Proceedings of ESWC Workshop on Ontology Dynamics (2007) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Halpern, J.Y.: Reasoning about Uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003) MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heinsohn, J.: Probabilistic description logics. In: López de Mántaras, R., Poole, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington, USA, pp. 311–318 (1994) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jaeger, M.: Probabilistic reasoning in terminological logics. In: Doyle, J., Sandewall, E., Torasso, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Bonn, Germany, pp. 305–316 (1994) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J.: Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies. J. Web Semant. 3 (2006) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koller, D., Levy, A.Y., Pfeffer, A.: P-classic: A tractable probabilistic description logic. In: Proceedings of the 14th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Providence, Rhode Island, USA (1997) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: Expressive probabilistic description logics. Artif. Intell. (2007) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Manning, C.D., Schutze, H.: Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999) MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H., Tamilin, A.: Repairing Ontology Mappings. In: Holte, R.C., Howe, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1408–1413 (2007) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Orsi, G., Tanca, L.: Ontology driven, context-aware query distribution for on-the-fly data-integration. Technical Report Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32, 57–95 (1987) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico (2003) Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shahaf, D., Amir, E.: Towards a theory of AI completeness. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, Stanford, California, USA (2006) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stamou, G., Stoilos, G., Pan, J.: Handling imprecise knowledge with fuzzy description logics. In: Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Toman, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics, Windermere, Lake District, UK (2006) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Serafini, L., Wache, H.: Reasoning about ontology mappings. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Intl Workshop on Contextual Representation and Reasoning (2006) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang, P., Xu, B.: Debugging ontology mappings: a static approach. Comput. Inform. 22, 1001–1015 (2007) Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wassermann, R.: An algorithm for belief revision. In: Giunchiglia, F., Selman, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Breckenridge, Colorado, USA (2000) Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy Sets. World Scientific, Singapore (1996) MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Dipto. Elettronica e Informazione (DEI)Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations