Advertisement

Decomposition and Modular Structure of BioPortal Ontologies

  • Chiara Del Vescovo
  • Damian D. G. Gessler
  • Pavel Klinov
  • Bijan Parsia
  • Ulrike Sattler
  • Thomas Schneider
  • Andrew Winget
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7031)

Abstract

We present the first large scale investigation into the modular structure of a substantial collection of state-of-the-art biomedical ontologies, namely those maintained in the NCBO BioPortal repository. Using the notion of Atomic Decomposition, we partition BioPortal ontologies into logically coherent subsets (atoms), which are related to each other by a notion of dependency. We analyze various aspects of the resulting structures, and discuss their implications on applications of ontologies. In particular, we describe and investigate the usage of these ontology decompositions to extract modules, for instance, to facilitate matchmaking of semantic Web services in SSWAP (Simple Semantic Web Architecture and Protocol). Descriptions of those services use terms from BioPortal so service discovery requires reasoning with respect to relevant fragments of ontologies (i.e., modules). We present a novel algorithm for extracting modules from decomposed BioPortal ontologies which is able to quickly identify atoms that need to be included in a module to ensure logically complete reasoning. Compared to existing module extraction algorithms, it has a number of benefits, including improved performance and the possibility to avoid loading the entire ontology into memory. The algorithm is also evaluated on BioPortal ontologies and the results are presented and discussed.

Keywords

OWL modularity atomic decomposition semantic Web services SSWAP 

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Modular reuse of ontologies: Theory and practice. J. of Artif. Intell. Research 31, 273–318 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Del Vescovo, C., Gessler, D., Klinov, P., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T., Winget, A.: Decomposition and modular structure of bioportal ontologies. Tech. rep. (2011), http://tinyurl.com/modbioportal
  4. 4.
    Del Vescovo, C., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Topicality in logic-based ontologies. In: Proc. of ICCS-2011, pp. 187–200 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Del Vescovo, C., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T.: The modular structure of an ontology: an empirical study. In: Proc. of DL 2010 (2010), http://ceur-ws.org
  6. 6.
    Del Vescovo, C., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T.: The modular structure of an ontology: Atomic decomposition. In: Proc. of IJCAI-2011, pp. 2232–2237 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Del Vescovo, C., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T.: The modular structure of an ontology: atomic decomposition. Tech. rep., University of Manchester (2011), http://bit.ly/i4olY0
  8. 8.
    Gessler, D., Schiltz, G.S., May, G.D., Avraham, S., Town, C.D., Grant, D.M., Nelson, R.T.: SSWAP: A simple semantic web architecture and protocol for semantic web services. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 309 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghilardi, S., Lutz, C., Wolter, F.: Did I damage my ontology? A case for conservative extensions in description logics. In: KR-2006, pp. 187–197 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: The state of bio-medical ontologies. In: Proc. of 2011 ISMB Bio-Ontologies SIG (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T., Berlanga Llavori, R.: Safe and Economic Re-Use of Ontologies: A Logic-Based Methodology and Tool Support. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 185–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konev, B., Lutz, C., Walther, D., Wolter, F.: Formal Properties of Modularisation. In: Stuckenschmidt, H., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.) Modular Ontologies. LNCS, vol. 5445, pp. 25–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spearman, C.: The proof and measurement of association between two things. Amer. J. Psychol. 15, 72–101 (1904)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilkinson, M.D., Vandervalk, B., McCarthy, L.: SADI Semantic Web services – cause you can’t always GET what you want! In: Proc. of APSCC, pp. 13–18 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Del Vescovo
    • 1
  • Damian D. G. Gessler
    • 2
  • Pavel Klinov
    • 2
  • Bijan Parsia
    • 1
  • Ulrike Sattler
    • 1
  • Thomas Schneider
    • 3
  • Andrew Winget
    • 4
  1. 1.University of ManchesterUK
  2. 2.University of ArizonaUSA
  3. 3.Universität BremenGermany
  4. 4.St. John’s CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations