Integrating Ontologies and Thesauri to Build RDF Schemas

  • Bernd Amann
  • Irini Fundulaki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1696)


In this paper we present a new approach for building RDF schemas by integrating existing ontologies and structured vocabularies (thesauri). We will present a simple mechanism based on the specification of inclusion relationships between thesaurus terms and ontology concepts and show how these relationships can be exploited to create application-specific RDF schemas incorporating the structural views of ontologies and deep classification schemes provided by thesauri.


Resource Description Framework Ontology Concept Connection Relation Source Description Thesaurus Term 
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.
    The Art & Architecture Thesaurus.
  2. 2.
    ACM Computing Classification System.
  3. 3.
    B. Amann, V. Christophides, I. Fundulaki, M. Scholl, and A.M. Vercoustre. Intelligent Mediation of Cultural Information Sources. ERCIM News, (35), October 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Ordille A.Y. Levy, A. Rajaraman. Querying heterogeneous information sources using source descriptions. pages 251–262, Bombay, India, September 1996. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. B. Navathe. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4):323–364, December 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Bray. RDF and Metadata, June 1998.
  7. 7.
    D. Brickley and R.V. Guha. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification. Technical Report REC-rdf-model-19990303, W3C, March 1999. W3C Proposed Recommendation.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, and Riccardo Rosati. Description logic framework for information integration. To appear in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’98).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Y. Chee, Y. Arens, C. A. Knoblock, and C. N. Hsu. Retrieving and Integrating Data from Multiple Information Sources. International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(2):127–158, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Les dossiers de l’inventaire général.
  11. 11.
    C. Collet, M. Huhns, and W. Shem. Resource Integration Using a Large Knowledge Base in Carnot. IEEE Computer, pages 55–62, December 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
  13. 13.
    M. Doerr and I. Fundulaki. A proposal on extended interthesaurus links semantics. Technical Report TR-215, Institute of Computer Science-FORTH, March 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D.J. Foskett. Readings in Information Retrieval, chapter Thesaurus. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomas. R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Technical Report KSL 92-71, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, April 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Guarino. Understanding, Building, and Using Ontologies. A commentary to ”Using Explicit Ontologies in KBS Developemtn”, by Heijst, Schreiber, and Wielinga.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. Guarino. Information Extraction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to an Emerging Information Technology, chapter Semantic Matching: Formal Ontological Distinctions for Information Organization, Extraction, and Integration, pages 139–170. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. Guarino, C. Masolo, and G. Vetere. OntoSeek: Using Large Linguistic Ontologies for Gathering Information Resources from the Web. Techical report, LADSEB, March 1998. Submitted for Publication.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Guidelines for Museum Object Information: The CIDOC Information Categories.
  20. 20.
    Documentation–Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri. International Organization for Standardization, 11 1986. Ref. No ISO 2788-1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Documentation–Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri. International Organization for Standardization, 2 1985. Ref. No. ISO 5964-1985.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Jeffery. Metadata: An Overview and some Issues. ERCIM NEWS, (35), October 1998.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF).
  24. 24.
    K. Knight and S. Luk. Building a Large-Scale Knowedge Base for Machine Translation. In Proc. of the American Association of Artificial Intelligence AAAI-94, Seattle, WA, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Lagoze. The Warwick Framework: A Container Architecture for Diverse Sets of Metadata. D-Lib Magazine, July/August 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O. Lassila and R. Swick. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. Technical Report REC-rdf-syntax-19990202, W3C, February 1999. W3C Proposed Recommendation.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Library of Congress Subject Headings.
  28. 28.
    D. B. Lenat. CYC: A Large-Scale Investment in Knowledge Infrastructure. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):33–38, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Martin. The WebKB set of tools. Technical report, Griffith University, School of Information Technology, Australia, October 1997. available at: Scholar
  30. 30.
    R.S. Michalski. Categories and Concepts, Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis, chapter Beyond Prototypes and Frames: The Two-Tiered Concept Representation. Academic Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Michard, V. Christophides, M. Scholl, M. Stapleton, D. Sutcliffe, and A-M. Vercoustre. The Aquarelle Resource Discovery System. Journal of Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(13):1185–1200, August 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    G. A. Miller. WordNet: A Lexical Database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39–41, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. Neches, R. Fikes, T. Finin, T. Gruber, R. Patil, T. Senator, and W. Swartout. Enabling Technology for Knowledge Sharing. AI Magazine, Fall 1991.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    W3C Technology and Society Domain: Resource Description Framework (RDF).
  35. 35.
    A. Sheth. Interoperating Geographic Information Systems, chapter Changing Focus on Interoperability in Information Systems: From System, Syntax, Structure to Semantics. Kluwer, 1999.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Sintichakis and P. Constantopoulos. A Method for Monolingual Thesauri Merging. In Proc. 20th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, ACM SIGIR, Philadeplphia PA, USA, July 1997.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    SiRPAC–Simple RDF Parser & Compiler.
  38. 38.
    D. Soergel. The Art and Architecture Thesaurus, AAT. A critical appraisal. Technical report, College of Library and Information Sciences, University of Maryland, 1995.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Unified Medical Language System.
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    Stuart Weibel. Metadata: The Foundations of Resource Description. D-Lib Magazine, July 1995.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    W3C Technology and Society Domain: Extensible Markup Language (XML).

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Amann
    • 1
  • Irini Fundulaki
    • 2
  1. 1.Cedric CNAMParis Cedex 03France
  2. 2.NRIA RocquencourtLe Chesnay CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations