A Unified Approach for Aligning Taxonomies and Debugging Taxonomies and Their Alignments

  • Valentina Ivanova
  • Patrick Lambrix
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7882)


With the increased use of ontologies in semantically-enabled applications, the issues of debugging and aligning ontologies have become increasingly important. The quality of the results of such applications is directly dependent on the quality of the ontologies and mappings between the ontologies they employ. A key step towards achieving high quality ontologies and mappings is discovering and resolving modeling defects, e.g., wrong or missing relations and mappings. In this paper we present a unified framework for aligning taxonomies, the most used kind of ontologies, and debugging taxonomies and their alignments, where ontology alignment is treated as a special kind of debugging. Our framework supports the detection and repairing of missing and wrong is-a structure in taxonomies, as well as the detection and repairing of missing (alignment) and wrong mappings between ontologies. Further, we implemented a system based on this framework and demonstrate its benefits through experiments with ontologies from the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative.


Domain Expert Wrong Mapping Nasal Bone Ontology Mapping Alignment Component 
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.


  1. 1.
    Cimiano, P., Buitelaar, P., Magnini, B.: Ontology Learning from Text: Methods, Evaluation and Applications. IOS Press (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Conroy, C., Brennan, R., O’Sullivan, D., Lewis, D.: User Evaluation Study of a Tagging Approach to Semantic Mapping. In: Aroyo, L., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 623–637. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corcho, O., Roussey, C., Vilches, L.M., Pérez, I.: Pattern-based OWL ontology debugging guidelines. In: Workshop on Ontology Patterns, pp. 68–82 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Do, H.-H., Rahm, E.: Matching large schemas: approaches and evaluation. Information Systems 32, 857–885 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falconer, S.M., Storey, M.-A.: A cognitive support framework for ontology mapping. In: Aberer, K., et al. (eds.) ISWC/ASWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 114–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flouris, G., Manakanatas, D., Kondylakis, H., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: Ontology change: Classification and survey. Knowledge Engineering Review 23(2), 117–152 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giunchiglia, F., Maltese, V., Autayeu, A.: Computing minimal mappings. In: Ontology Matching Workshop, pp. 37–48 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haase, P., Stojanovic, L.: Consistent Evolution of OWL Ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 182–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hearst, M.: Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In: 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 539–545 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jean-Mary, Y.R., Shironoshita, E.P., Kabuka, M.R.: Ontology matching with semantic verification. Journal of Web Semantics 7(3), 235–251 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ji, Q., Haase, P., Qi, G., Hitzler, P., Stadtmüller, S.: RaDON — repair and diagnosis in ontology networks. In: Aroyo, L., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 863–867. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jimenez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca-Grau, B., Zhou, Y., Horrocks, I.: Large-scale interactive ontology matching: Algorithms and implementation. In: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 444–449 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Berlanga, R.: Ontology integration using mappings: Towards getting the right logical consequences. In: Aroyo, L., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca-Grau, B.: 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
  15. 15.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J.: Debugging Unsatisfiable Classes in OWL Ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics 3(4), 268–293 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lambrix, P., Dragisic, Z., Ivanova, V.: Get my pizza right: Repairing missing is-a relations in ALC ontologies. In: 2nd Joint International Semantic Technology Conference (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lambrix, P., Liu, Q.: Using partial reference alignments to align ontologies. In: Aroyo, L., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lambrix, P., Liu, Q.: Debugging is-a structure in networked taxonomies. In: 4th International Workshop on Semantic Web Applications and Tools for Life Sciences, pp. 58–65 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lambrix, P., Liu, Q., Tan, H.: Repairing the missing is-a structure of ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Yu, Y., Ding, Y. (eds.) ASWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5926, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lambrix, P., Qi, G., Horridge, M.: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Debugging Ontologies and Ontology Mappings. LiU E-Press, LECP 79 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lambrix, P., Tan, H.: SAMBO - a system for aligning and merging biomedical ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics 4(3), 196–206 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H., Tamilin, A.: Repairing Ontology Mappings. In: 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1408–1413 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qi, G., Ji, Q., Haase, P.: A Conflict-Based Operator for Mapping Revision. In: Bernstein, A., Karger, D.R., Heath, T., Feigenbaum, L., Maynard, D., Motta, E., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5823, pp. 521–536. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schlobach, S.: Debugging and Semantic Clarification by Pinpointing. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 226–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 25(1), 158–176 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shchekotykhin, K., Friedrich, G., Fleiss, P., Rodler, P.: Interactive ontology debugging: Two query strategies for efficient fault localization. Journal of Web Semantics 12-13, 88–103 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    UMLS. Unified medical language system,
  28. 28.
    Wang, P., Xu, B.: Debugging ontology mappings: a static approach. Computing and Informatics 27, 21–36 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Ivanova
    • 1
  • Patrick Lambrix
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information Science and the Swedish e-Science Research CentreLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations