Evaluation of Technologies for Mapping Representation in Ontologies

  • Olga Kovalenko
  • Christophe Debruyne
  • Estefanía Serral
  • Stefan Biffl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8185)


Ontology mapping is needed to explicitly represent the relations between several ontologies, which is an essential task for applications such as semantic integration and data transformation. Currently, there is no standard for representing mappings. Instead, there are a number of technologies that support the representation of mappings between the ontologies. In this paper we introduce a set of mapping categories that were identified based on requirements for the data integration projects of an industry partner. An evaluation of available technologies for mapping representation regarding the support for introduced mapping categories has been performed. The results of the evaluation show that the SPARQL Inference Notation would fit the best in the described use case scenario.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Biffl, S., Moser, T., Winkler, D.: Risk assessment in multi-disciplinary (software+) engineering projects. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 21(02), 211–236 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brockmans, S., Haase, P., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Formalism-independent specification of ontology mappings – A metamodeling approach. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 901–908. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehrig, M.: Ontology alignment: bridging the semantic gap, vol. 4. Springer Science+ Business Media (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghidini, C., Serafini, L., Tessaris, S.: On relating heterogeneous elements from different ontologies. In: Kokinov, B., Richardson, D.C., Roth-Berghofer, T.R., Vieu, L. (eds.) CONTEXT 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4635, pp. 234–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haase, P., Motik, B.: A mapping system for the integration of owl-dl ontologies. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Interoperability of Heterogeneous Information Systems, pp. 9–16. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang, S.S., Green, T.J., Loo, B.T.: Datalog and emerging applications: an interactive tutorial. In: Sellis, T.K., Miller, R.J., Kementsietsidis, A., Velegrakis, Y. (eds.) SIGMOD Conference, pp. 1213–1216. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knublauch, H., Handler, J.A., Idehen, K.: SPIN - Overview and Motivation. W3C Member Submission, W3C (February 2011),
  8. 8.
    Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: MAFRA – A MApping FRAmework for distributed ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 235–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noy, N.F.: Semantic integration: a survey of ontology-based approaches. ACM Sigmod Record 33(4), 65–70 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scharffe, F., de Bruijn, J.: A language to specify mappings between ontologies. In: Proc. of the Internet Based Systems IEEE Conference (SITIS 2005). Citeseer (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scharffe, F., Fensel, D.: Correspondence patterns for ontology alignment. In: Gangemi, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) EKAW 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5268, pp. 83–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: Ten challenges for ontology matching. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5332, pp. 1164–1182. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Kovalenko
    • 1
  • Christophe Debruyne
    • 2
  • Estefanía Serral
    • 1
  • Stefan Biffl
    • 1
  1. 1.CDL-FlexVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit Brussel STARLabBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations