Using Fuzzy Conceptual Graphs to Map Ontologies

  • David Doussot
  • Patrice Buche
  • Juliette Dibie-Barthélemy
  • Ollivier Haemmerlé
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4275)


This paper presents a new ontology mapping method. This method addresses the case in which a non-structured ontology is to be mapped with a structured one. Both ontologies are composed of triplets of the form (object, characteristic, value). Structured means that the values describing the objects according to a given characteristic are hierarchically organized using the a kind of relation. The proposed method uses fuzzy conceptual graphs [8] to represent and map objects from a source ontology to a target one. First, we establish a correspondence between characteristics of the source ontology and characteristics of the target ontology based on the comparison of their associated values. Then, we propose an original way of translating the description of an object of the source ontology using characteristics and values of the target ontology. The description thus translated is represented as a fuzzy conceptual graph. Finally, a new projection operation is used to find mappings between translated objects and actual objects of the target ontology. This method has been implemented and the results of an experimentation concerning the mapping of ontologies in the field of risk in food are presented.


Relevance Score Conceptual Graph Concept Type Projection Operation Milk Cheese 
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. 1.
    Aumueller, D., Do, H., Massmann, S., Rahm, E.: Schema and ontology matching with coma++. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 906–908 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.Y.: Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web. In: WWW 2002, pp. 662–673 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dragut, E., Lawrence, R.: Domain independent learning of ontology mappings. In: International Conference on Ontologies, pp. 783–800 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: The three semantics of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90, 141–150 (1997)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Egghe, L., Michel, C.: Strong similarity measures for ordered sets of documents in information retrieval. Information Processing and Management 38, 823–848 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ireland, J.D., Moller, A.: Review of international food classification and description. Journal of food composition and analysis 13, 529–538 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, W.M.: Ontology mapping: The state of the art, Semantic Interoperability and Integration (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sowa, J.F.: Conceptual structures: information processing in mind and machine. Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1984)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomopoulos, R., Buche, P., Haemmerlé, O.: Different kinds of comparisons between fuzzy conceptual graphs. In: Ganter, B., de Moor, A., Lex, W. (eds.) ICCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2746, pp. 54–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiesman, F., Roos, N.: Domain independent learning of ontology mappings. In: AAMAS, pp. 844–849 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ming, G., Yang, Y., Shanping, L., Sailong, H.: A comparative study on three ontology mapping methods in the integration of product knowledge. In: WCICA, pp. 3093–3097 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zadeh, L.: Fuzzy sets. Information and control 8, 338–353 (1965)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zadeh, L.: Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1, 3–28 (1978)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Doussot
    • 1
  • Patrice Buche
    • 1
  • Juliette Dibie-Barthélemy
    • 1
  • Ollivier Haemmerlé
    • 2
  1. 1.UMR MIA INA P-G/INRA, Mét@risk MIA INRAParis Cedex 05
  2. 2.Département de Mathématiques-InformatiqueUniversité Toulouse le MirailToulouse Cedex 1

Personalised recommendations