Historical Ontologies

Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 36)

Static ontologies cannot capture the relevant contextual knowledge required for search and retrieval of historical documents because the entities in the world and the relations among them change over time. This demands that information represented in the ontology is temporally contextualized and that relations among entities that are relevant during different temporal intervals are available to support user queries. Furthermore, it is necessary to account for the fact that the course of the ontology’s evolution and the processes that have effected it are a part of the knowledge that should be brought to bear on the analysis of information at any given time. This chapter outlines a model for historical ontologies that is intended to meet these requirements


Change Point Computational Linguistics Pearl Harbor Event Ontology AAAI Spring Symposium 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Avery, J. and J. Yearwood. 2003. dOWL: A Dynamic Ontology Language. ICWI 2003: 985–988.Google Scholar
  2. Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuiness, D., Patel-Schneider, P. and L.A. Stein. 2004. Owl Web Ontology Language Reference. On-line publication at Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and O. Lassila. 2001. The semantic web. Scientific Amercian 284(5): 34–43.Google Scholar
  4. Bethard, S., Yu, H., Thornton, A., Hativassiloglou V. and D. Jurafsky. 2004. Automatic extraction of option propositions and their holders. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bontcheva, K., Tablan, V., Maynard, D. and H. Cunningham. 2004. Evolving GATE to Meet New Challenges in Language Engineering. Natural Language Engineering 10(3/4): 349–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cunningham, H., Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K. and V. Tablan. 2002. GATE: A Framework and Graphical Development Environment for Robust NLP Tools and Applications. Proceedings of the 40th Anniversary Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’02).Google Scholar
  7. Davies, J., Duke, A. and A. Stonkus. 2002. Ontoshare: Using Ontologies for Knowledge Sharing. Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Semantic Web at the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference.Google Scholar
  8. Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, H. and W. Wahlster. 2003. Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Grenon, P. and B. Smith. 2004. SNAP and SPAN: Towards Dynamic Spatial Ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation 4(1): 69–104.Google Scholar
  10. Heflin, J. and J.A. Hendler. 2000. Dynamic Ontologies on the Web. Proceedings of AAAI/IAAI 2000, 443–449.Google Scholar
  11. Ide, N. 2006. Making Senses: Bootstrapping Sense-Tagged Lists of Semantically Related Words. In Gelbukh, A. (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. Lecture notes in Computer Science 3878, Springer, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar
  12. Kahng, J. and D. McLeod. 2000. Dynamic classification ontologies. In Arbib, M.A. and J. Grethe (eds.), Computing the Brain: A Guide to Neuroinformatics, Academic Press. 241–254.Google Scholar
  13. Kauppinen, T. and E. Hyvönen. 2007. Modeling and Reasoning about Changes in Ontology Time Series. In Kishore, R., Ramesh, R. and R. Sharman (eds.), Ontologies: A Handbook of Principles, Concepts, and Applications in Information Science. Springer, 319–338.Google Scholar
  14. Klein, M. 2002. Supporting Evolving Ontologies on the Web. In Lindner, W. and J. Stuller (eds.), Proceedings of the EDBT 2002 PhD Workshop, 51–58.Google Scholar
  15. Klein, M. and D. Fensel. 2001. Ontology Versioning on the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), 75–91.Google Scholar
  16. McGuinness, D.L. 2003. Ontologies Come of Age. In Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, H. and W. Wahlster (eds.), Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press, 171–94.Google Scholar
  17. Niles, I. and A. Pease. 2001. Towards a Standard Upper Ontology. In Welty, C. and S. Barry (eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems, ACM Press. 2–9. See also http://www.ontologyportal.orgGoogle Scholar
  18. Noy, N. and M. Klein. 2003. Ontology Evolution: Not the Same as Schema Evolution. Knowledge and Information Systems 5.Google Scholar
  19. Pang, B., Lee, L. and S. Vaithyanathan. 2002. Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. Proceedings of EMNLP 2002, 79–86.Google Scholar
  20. Patel-Schneider, P., Hayes, P. and I. Horrocks. 2004. Owl Web Ontology Language Semantic and Abstract Syntax. On-line publication at Scholar
  21. Popov, B., Kiryakov, A., Ognyanoff, D., Manov, D. and A. Kirilov. 2004. KIM – A Semantic Platform for Information Extraction and Retrieval. Journal of Natural Language Engineering 10: 3–4. Cambridge University Press, pp. 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. and C. Johnson. 2005. FrameNet: Theory and Practice. On-line publication at Scholar
  23. Sider, T. 2001. Four-Dimensionalism. An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Stell, J.G. and M. West. 2004. A 4-dimensionalist Mereotopology. In Varzi, A.C. and L. Vieu (eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. IOS Press, 261–272.Google Scholar
  25. Stojanovic, L. and B. Motik. 2002. Ontology Evolution Within Ontology Editors. Proceedings of the Onto Web-SIG3 Workshop at the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW), 53–62.Google Scholar
  26. Turney, P. 2002. Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to Unsupervised Classification Reviews. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2002), 417–424.Google Scholar
  27. Wiebe, J., Wilson, T., Bruce, R., Bell M. and M. Martin. 2004. Learning subjective language. Computational Linguistics 30:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yu, H. and V. Hatzivassiloglou. 2003. Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2003).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceVassar CollegePoughkeepsieUSA
  2. 2.Marist CollegePoughkeepsieUSA

Personalised recommendations