Algorithms for the Reconciliation of Ontologies in Open Environments

  • Yaqing Liu
  • Rong Chen
  • Hong Yang
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 339)


The dynamic changing feature of Semantic Web determines that the ontology which is a part of Semantic Web needs constantly to be modified in order to adapt outer environment. In this paper we make a careful analysis of the ontology changes’ complexity under open environment. The main contents discussed are as follow. At first we point out all possible relation types between any two ontology change sequences including directly conflict relation, indirectly conflict relation, dependent relation and compatible relation according to ontology change’s definition. And then we propose a new algorithm named Algorithm of Searching Maximum and Sequential Ontology Change Sequence Set(ASMSOCSS) to find all maximum and sequential ontology change sequence subset in the prime ontology change sequence set and prove the independence of the result which may be got after running ASMSOCSS. At last we put forward the algorithm by using these maximum and sequential ontology change sequence sets to create new ontology versions according to the dependence relation between ontology change sequences.


Ontology Changes Sequence Maximum and Sequential Ontology Changes Sequence Ontology Change 


  1. 1.
    Klein, M., Proefschrift, A., Christiaan, M., Klein, A., Akkermans, J.M.: Change management for distributed ontologies. Technical report (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peter, Haase, P., Van Harmelen, F., Huang, Z.: A framework for handling inconsistency in Changing_Ontologies, pp. 353–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Repairing unsatisfiable concepts in owl ontologies. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Plessers, P., De Troyer, O.: Ontology change detection using a version log. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 578–592. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noy, N.F., Chugh, A., Liu, W., Musen, M.A.: A framework for ontology evolution in collaborative environments. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 544–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haase, P., Haase, P., Stojanovic, L.: Consistent evolution of owl ontologies, pp. 182–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang, Z., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Reasoning with multi-version ontologies: A temporal logic approach. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 398–412. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flouris, G., Flouris, G., Plexousakis, D.: On belief change and ontology evolution. Technical report, University of Crete (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noy, N.F., Klein, M.: Ontology evolution: Not the same as schema evolution. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 6(4), 428–440 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaqing Liu
    • 1
  • Rong Chen
    • 1
  • Hong Yang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information Science & TechnologyDalian Maritime UniversityDalianChina

Personalised recommendations