Foundational Ontologies for Semantic Integration in EAI: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Julio Cesar Nardi
  • Ricardo de Almeida Falbo
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 399)


Despite (i) the recognized benefits of using ontologies in semantic EAI initiatives, (ii) the benefits of using foundational ontologies for promoting meaning negotiation and common understanding, and (iii) the importance of the semantic integration issue in EAI area, foundational ontologies have not yet become widely adopted in EAI initiatives for dealing with semantic conflicts. This has led us to investigate, through a systematic review of the literature, the adoption of foundational ontologies in EAI initiatives, with the purpose of understanding the current role of these ontologies in EAI and identifying gaps for future research, in which the potential benefits of such ontologies could be explored. We consider: (i) the role of foundational ontologies as part of the integration approach; (ii) the use of ontologies at development time and/or at run time; and (iii) the adoption of systematic approaches for semantic EAI.


Enterprise Application Integration Foundational Ontologies Semantic Interoperability Semantic Integration Systematic Literature Review 


  1. 1.
    Lee, J., Siau, K., Hong, S.: Enterprise Integration with ERP and EAI. Communications of the ACM 46(2), 54–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alazeib, A., Balogh, A., Bauer, M., Bouras, A., Friesen, A., Gouvas, P., Mentzas, G., Pace, A.: Towards semantically-assisted design of collaborative business processes in EAI scenarios. In: 5th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, Vienna, Austria, pp. 779–784 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Izza, S.: Integration of industrial information systems: from syntactic to semantic integration approaches. Enterprise Information Systems 3, 1–57 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology and Information Systems. Formal Ontology and Information Systems 3 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guizzardi, G.: On Ontology, ontologies, Conceptualizations, Modeling Languages, and (Meta)Models. In: Vasilecas, O., Edler, J., Caplinskas, A. (eds.) Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Databases and Information Systems IV, pp. 18–39. IOS Press, Amsterdã (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L.: Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kitchenham, B., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering (Version 2.3) - EBSE Technical Report. EBSE-2007-01 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scherp, A., Saathoff, C., Franz, T., Staab, S.: Designing core ontologies. Applied Ontology 6, 177–221 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: WonderWeb DeliverableD18. Ontology Library, Padova, Italy (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    SUMO (Suggested Upper Merged Ontology),
  11. 11.
    Mizoguchi, R.: Yet Another Top-level Ontology: YATO. In: Proceedings of the Second Interdisciplinary Ontology Meeting, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 91–101 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bouras, A., Gouvas, P., Kourtesis, D., Mentzas, G.: Semantic integration of business applications across collaborative value networks. International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) 243, 539–546 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martín-Recuerda, F.: Application Integration Using Conceptual Spaces (CSpaces). In: Mizoguchi, R., Shi, Z.-Z., Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) ASWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4185, pp. 234–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Masuya, H., Makita, Y., Kobayashi, N., Al, E.: The RIKEN integrated database of mammals. Nucleic Acids Research 870, D861–D870 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paulheim, H., Probst, F.: Application integration on the user interface level: An ontology-based approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering 69, 1103–1116 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Treiblmayr, M., Scheider, S., Krüger, A., Von der Linden, M.: Integrating GI with non-GI services – showcasing interoperability in a heterogeneous service-oriented architecture. GeoInformatica 16, 207–220 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grüninger, M.: Ontology of the Process Specification Language. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 575–592. Springer, Berlin (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng, J., Law, K.H.: Using Process Specification Language for Project Information Exchange. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Construction, Berkeley, USA, pp. 63–74 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julio Cesar Nardi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ricardo de Almeida Falbo
    • 2
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Group in Applied Informatics, Informatics DepartmentFederal Institute of Espírito SantoColatinaBrazil
  2. 2.Ontology & Conceptual Modeling Research Group (NEMO), Computer Science DepartmentFederal University of Espírito SantoVitóriaBrazil

Personalised recommendations