IPMOntoShare: Merging of Integrated Pest Management Ontologies

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 507)

Abstract

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a combination of different techniques to increase crop production in eco-friendly manner. Minimizing use of pesticides with IPM will reduce risk of human diseases and will also reduce environmental risks. Various computerized systems are used for IPM, where agricultural experts provide their pest management knowledge as input for decision-making. Integrated pest management knowledge if represented as ontology, it can be shared by heterogeneous agricultural computerized systems. This paper presents a tool to develop IPM ontology using upper IPM ontology and domain specific crop IPM ontology. Tool is named IPMOntoDeveloper. IPM ontologies developed by distinct agricultural experts can be integrated into one to enrich knowledge base of IPM practices for specific crop. This paper presents a system named IPMOntoShare to merge IPM ontologies developed by various agricultural experts. It combines several approaches of ontology matching, including name matching and structure matching.

Keywords

Integrated pest management Knowledge sharing Ontology development Ontology merging 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Shixiang Li, Hong Fan, Yuli Wang, Liang Hong: A Model and Approach for Heterogeneous Ontology Automatic Merging. In: International Joint Conference on Computational Sciences and Optimization. pp. 214–217. (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alma Delia Cuevas Rasgado, Adolfo Guzman Arenas: A language and Algorithm for Automatic Merging of Ontologies. In: 15th International Conference on Computing, CIC’06. pp. 180–185. (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hyunjang Kong, Myunggwon Hwang, Pankoo Kim: A New Methodology for Merging the Heterogeneous Domain Ontologies based on the WordNet. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Next Generation Web Services Practices (NWeSP’05). (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salvatore Raunich, Erhard Rahm: ATOM: Automatic Target-driven Ontology Merging. In: IEEE 27th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2011. pp. 1276–1279. (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartley Richardson, Lawrence J. Mazlack: Approximate Metrics For Autonomous Semantic Web Ontology Merging. In: The 2005 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems. pp. 1014–1019. (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rajesh Kumar Gupta, B. D. Chaudhary: An Instance Based Methodology for Merging Domain Ontology. In: Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology, ICETET-09. pp. 848–855. (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Julia M. Taylor, Daniel Poliakov, Lawrence J. Mazlack: Domain-Specific Ontology Merging for the Semantic Web. In: NAFIPS 2005 - 2005 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society. pp. 418-423. (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guanyu Li, Zhenghai Luo, Jianshuang Shao: Multi-Mapping Based Ontology Merging System Design. In: 2nd International Conference on Advanced Computer Control (ICACC), 2010. pp. 5–11. (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanjay Kumar Malik, Nupur Prakash, S. A. M. Rizvi: Ontology Merging using Prompt plug-in of Protégé in Semantic Web. In: 2010 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks; pp. 476–481. IEEEXplore. (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fabiana Freire de Araújo, Fernanda Lígia R. Lopes, Bernadette Farias Lóscio: MeMO: A Clustering-based Approach for Merging Multiple Ontologies. In: IEEE 2010 Workshops on Database and Expert Systems Applications. pp. 177–180. (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muhammad Fahad, Muhammad Abdul Qadir: Similarity Computation by Ontology Merging System: DKP-OM. In: 2nd International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication, 2009. IC4 2009. pp. 1–6. (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Viviana Mascardi, Angela Locoro, Paolo Rosso: Automatic Ontology Matching via Upper Ontologies: A Systematic Evaluation. In: IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 5. pp. 609–623. (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feng Yang, Lei Liu: A flexible Approach for Ontology Matching. In: International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering, 2009. CiSE 2009; pp. 1–4. (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petr Kremen, Marek Smid, Zdenek Kouba: OWLDiff: A Practical Tool for Comparison and Merge of OWL ontologies. In: 22nd International workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, IEEEXplore. pp. 229–233. (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muhammad Anu Abbas, Giuseppe Berio: Ontology Merging: Compatible and Incompatible Ontology Mapping. In: Ninth International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grids. IEEEXplore. pp. 129–134; (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muhammad Fahad, Nejib Moalla, Abdelaziz Bouras: Disjoint-Knowledge Analysis and Preservation in Ontology Merging Process. In: Fifth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances. IEEEXplore. pp. 422–428.; (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Archana Chougule, Vijay Kumar Jha, Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay: AgroKanti: Location-Aware Decision Support System for Forecasting of Pests and Diseases in Grapes. In: Information Systems Design and Intelligent Applications. Volume 433 of the series Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. pp. 677–685. Springer Link. (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Birla Institute of Technology, MesraRanchiIndia

Personalised recommendations