Ontology basic concepts

  • Javier Lacasta
  • Javier Nogueras-Iso
  • Francisco Javier Zarazaga-Soria
Part of the Semantic Web and Beyond book series (ADSW, volume 9)


According to Gruber [69], an ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization. A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold between them. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly.


Semantic Network Ontology Model Ontology Mapping Semantic Interoperability Ontology Alignment 
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. 5.
    Aleksovski, Z., Klein, M., ten Kate1, W., and van Harmelen, F. (2006). Match- ing unstructured vocabularies using a background ontology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4248:182-197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 9.
    ANSI/NISO (2005). Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Thesauri. ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005, American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Revision of Z39.19-1983.Google Scholar
  3. 16.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D. L., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and Stein, L. A. (2004). OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/.
  4. 20.
    Borgida, A., Brachman, R. J., McGuinness, D. L., and Resnick, L. A. (1989). CLASSIC: A Structural Data Model for Objects. In Proceeedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 59-67.Google Scholar
  5. 23.
    Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Zanobini, S., and Sceffer, S. (2006). Bootstrapping semantics on the web: meaning elicitation from schemas. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web table of contents, pages 505 - 512, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  6. 24.
    Brachman, R. J. (1983). What IS-A Is and Isn’t: An Analysis of Taxonomic Links in Semantic Networks. Computer, 16(10): 30-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 25.
    British Standards Institute (1985). Guide to establishment and development of multilingual thesauri. BS 6723, British Standards Institute (BSI).Google Scholar
  8. 26.
    British Standards Institute (1987). Guide to establishment and development of monolingual thesauri. BS 5723, British Standards Institute (BSI).Google Scholar
  9. 28.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G. D., and Lenzerini, M. (2001). A framework for ontology integration. In Proceedings of the 1st Internationally Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  10. 29.
    Chaudhri, V. K., Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., Karp, P. D., and Rice, J. P. (1998). Open Knowledge Base Connectivity 2.0. Technical Report KSL-98-06, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  11. 32.
    Cohen, W. W., Ravikumar, P., and Fienberg, S. E. (2003). A comparison of string metrics for matching names and records. In Proceedings of the KKD Work- shop on Data cleaning and Object Consolidation, pages 73 - 78, Washington (DC US).Google Scholar
  12. 33.
    Compatangelo, E. and Meisel, H. (2002). Intelligent support to knowledge sharing through the articulation of class schemas. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information & Engi- neering Systems, Crema, Itally.Google Scholar
  13. 37.
    Davis, R., Shrobe, H., and Szolovits, P. (1993). What is a knowledge repre- sentation? AI Magazine, Spring:17 33.Google Scholar
  14. 42.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Domingos, P., and Halevy, A. (2002). Learning to Map between Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In The Eleventh International WWW Conference, Hawaii, US.Google Scholar
  15. 43.
    Doerr, M. (2001). Semantic Problems of Thesaurus Mapping. Journal of Digital Information, 1, Issue 8(52):1-25.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 45.
    Ehrig, M. (2007). Ontology Aligment: Bridging the Semantic Gap. Semantic Web and Beyond: Computing for Human Experience. Springer, 1 edition.Google Scholar
  17. 47.
    Euzenat, J., Bach, T. L., Barrasa, J., Bouquet, P., Bo, J. D., Dieng, R., Ehrig, M., Hauswirth, M., Jarrar, M., Lara, R., Maynard, D., Napoli, A., Stamou, G., Stuckenschmidt, H., Shvaiko, P., Tessaris, S., Acker, S. V., and Zaihrayeu, I. (2004). State of the art on ontology alignment. Technical Report D2.2.3, Knowledge Web.Google Scholar
  18. 48.
    Euzenat, J. and Shvaiko, P. (2007). Ontology Matching. Springer Berlin Hei- delberg New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 49.
    Faro, S., Francesconi, E., and Sandrucci, V. (2007). Thesauri kos analysis and selected thesaurus mapping methodology on the project case-study. TENDER N 10118- EUROVOC Studies LOT2 1.5, ITTIG-CNR Institute of Legal Informa- tion Theory and Techniques.Google Scholar
  20. 50.
    Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., and Rice, J. (1996). The Ontolingua Server: A Tool for Collaborative Ontology Construction. Technical Report KSL 96-26, Stanford University, Knowledge Systems Laboratory.Google Scholar
  21. 52.
    Fellbaum, C., editor (1998). WordNet. An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. 53.
    Fern ández-Breis, J. T. and Martínez-B éjar, R. (2002). A cooperative frame- work for integrating ontologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Stud- ies, 56(6):665-720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 54.
    Fikes, R. and Kehler, T. (1985). The role of frame based representation in reasoning. Communications of ACM, 28(9):904-920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 57.
    Foskett, D. J. (1997). Readings in Information Retrieval, chapter Thesaurus, pages 111-134. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  25. 58.
    Friedman-Hill, E. (2003). Jess in Action: Rule-Based Systems in Java. Manning Publication Co.Google Scholar
  26. 59.
    Garshol, L. M. (2004). Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps!. Mak- ing sense of it all. Technical report, Ontopia.Google Scholar
  27. 61.
    Genesereth, M. R. and Fikes, R. E. (1992). Knowledge Interchange Format, Version 3.0 Reference Manual. Technical Report Logic-92-1, Computer Science Department, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  28. 62.
    Giarratano, J. and Riley, G. (1998). Expert Systems: Principles and Program- ming. PWS-Kent, Boston, MA., 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  29. 64.
    Giunchiglia, F. and Shvaiko, P. (2003). Semantic matching. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(3):265-280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 69.
    Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. ACM Knowledge Acquisition, Special issue: Current issues in knowledge model- ing, 5, Issue 2(KSL 92-71):199-220.Google Scholar
  31. 70.
    Gruber, T. R. (1992). Ontolingua: A mechanism to support portable ontolo- gies. Technical Report KSL-91-66, Stanford University, Knowledge Systems Laboratory,. Revision.Google Scholar
  32. 71.
    Guarino, N. (1998). Formal Ontologies and Information Systems. In Amster- dam, I. P., editor, Proceedings of FOIS’98, pages 3-15, Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
  33. 72.
    Guarino, N. and Boldrin, L. (1993). Ontological requirements for knowledge sharing. In Paper presented at the IJCAI workshop for knowledge sharing and information interchange, Chambery, France.Google Scholar
  34. 73.
    Guarino, N., Masolo, C., and Vetere, G. (1999). OntoSeek: Content-Based Access to the Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(3):70-80.Google Scholar
  35. 77.
    Hodge, G. (2000). Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files. The Digital Library Federation, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  36. 78.
    Horrocks, I. and Patel-Schneider, P. (2003). Foundations of the semantic web: Three theses of representation in the semantic web. Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference, 1:39-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 79.
    International Council on Archives (2004). International Standard Archival Au- thority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families. Technical Report ISAAR (CPF), International Council on Archives (ICA).Google Scholar
  38. 81.
    International Organization for Standardization (1986). Guidelines for the es- tablishment and development of monolingual thesauri. ISO 2788, International Organization for Standardization (ISO).Google Scholar
  39. 86.
    International Organization for Standardization (2003d). Information technol- ogy - SGML applications - Topic Maps. ISO/IEC 13250, International Organi- zation for Standardization (ISO).Google Scholar
  40. 89.
    International Organization for Standardization (2007b). Information technol- ogy - Common Logic (CL): a framework for a family of logic-based languages. Technical report, International Organization for Standardization (ISO).Google Scholar
  41. 92.
    International Organization for Standardization (2010). Thesauri and Interop- erability with other Vocabularies. Technical report, International Organization for Standardization (ISO).Google Scholar
  42. 94.
    Isaac, A. and Summers, E., editors (2009). SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Primer. W3C Candidate Recommendation. W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/.
  43. 101.
    Kalfoglou, Y. and Hu, B. (2005). CROSI Mapping System (CMS) Results of the 2005 Ontology Alignment Contest. In Integrating Ontologies workshop at the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Capture, Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  44. 102.
    Kalfoglou, Y. and Schorlemmer, M. (2002). Information Flow based Ontol- ogy Mapping. In 1st International Conference on Ontologies, Databases and Application of Semantics (ODBASE’02), Irvine, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  45. 103.
    Kalfoglou, Y. and Schorlemmer, M. (2003a). If-map: an ontology mapping method based on information flow theory. Journal on Data Semantics, 1:98127.Google Scholar
  46. 104.
    Kalfoglou, Y. and Schorlemmer, M. (2003b). Ontology Mapping: The state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(1):1-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 111.
    Klein, M. and Fensel, D. (2001). Ontology versioning for the Semantic Web. In International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS).Google Scholar
  48. 112.
    Koch, T., Neuroth, H., and Day, M. (2001). Subject Retrieval in a Networked Environment: Papers Presented at an IFLA Satellite Meeting, chapter Renardus: cross-browsing european subject gateways via a common classification system (DDC), pages 1-8. IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing & IFLA Section on Information Technology.Google Scholar
  49. 113.
    Kotis, K. and Vouros, G. (2004). The HCONE Approach to Ontology Merg- ing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3053:137-151.Google Scholar
  50. 122.
    Lacher, M. S. and Groh, G. (2001). Facilitating the exchange of explicit knowledge through ontology mappings. In Proceedings of the 14th International FLAIRS Conference, Key West FL, USA.Google Scholar
  51. 123.
    Lassila, O. and MacGuinness, D. (2001). The Role of Frame-Based Rep- resentations on the Semantic Web. Technical Report KSL-01-02, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Standford University, Standford, California.Google Scholar
  52. 126.
    Lauser, B., Sini, M., Salokhe, G., Keizer, J., and Katz, S. (2006). Agrovoc Web Services: Improved, real-time access to an agricultural thesaurus. Quarterly Bulletin of the International Association of Agricultural Information Specialists (IAALD), 1019-9926(2):79-81.Google Scholar
  53. 127.
    Lenat, D. B. (1995). CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastruc- ture. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):33-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 128.
    Lenat, D. B. and Guha, R. V. (1991). The evolution of CycL, the Cyc repre- sentation language. ACM SIGART Bulletin, Special issue on implemented knowl- edge representation and reasoning systems, 2(3):84-87.Google Scholar
  55. 129.
    Lesk, M. (1997). Practical Digital Libraries. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fran- cisco.Google Scholar
  56. 131.
    Lim, E.-P., Srivastava, J., Prabhakar, S., and Richardson, J. (1993). Entity identification in database integration. In Procceedings of the 9th International Conference on DAta Engineering (ICDE).Google Scholar
  57. 132.
    Lindberg, D., Humphreys, B., and McCray, A. (1998). The unified medi- cal language system. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 32 (4):281-291.Google Scholar
  58. 133.
    Maedche, A. and Staab, S. (2002). Measuring similarity between ontologies. Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2473:251-263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 134.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A., and Schnei- der, L. (2003). Wonderweb deliverable d17: The wonderweb library of founda- tional ontologies. Technical report, ISTC-CNR.Google Scholar
  60. 136.
    McGuinness, D. L., Fikes, R., Rice, J., and Wilder, S. (2000). An environ- ment for merging and testing large ontologies. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Rea- soning (KR2000), pages 12 - 15, Breckenridge, Colorado.Google Scholar
  61. 139.
    Miles, A. and Bechhofer, S., editors (2009). SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference. W3C Candidate Recommendation. W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/.
  62. 143.
    Minsky, M. (1981). Mind design. Philosophy, Psychology, and Artificial In- telligence, chapter A framework for representing knowledge, pages 95-128. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  63. 145.
    Mizoguchi, R., Vanwelkenhuysen, J., and Ikeda, M. (1995). Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases: Knowledge Building & Knowledge Sharing, chapter Task Ontology for Reuse of Problem Solving Knowledge, pages 46-59. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  64. 148.
    Network development and Marc Standard Office (2006a). Marc 21 Concise format for Authority Data. MARC 21, Library of Congress.Google Scholar
  65. 150.
    Niles, I. and Pease, A. (2001). Towards a standard upper ontology. In Pro- ceedings of the international conference on Formal Ontology in Information Sys- tems, pages 2 - 9, Ogunquit, Maine, USA.Google Scholar
  66. 153.
    Nogueras-Iso, J., L ópez-Pellicer, F. J., Lacasta, J., Zarazaga-Soria, F. J., and Muro-Medrano, P. R. (2007). Ontologies for Urban Development: Interfacing Urban Information Systems, volume 61 of Studies in Computational Intelligence, chapter Building an Address Gazetteer on top of an Urban Network Ontology, pages 157-167. Springer.Google Scholar
  67. 158.
    Noy, N. F., Fergerson, R. W., and Musen, M. A. (2000). Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Manage- ment, volume 1937 of Lecture Notes In Computer Science, chapter The knowl- edge model of Prot ég é -2000: Combining interoperability and flexibility, pages 17-32. Springer-Verlag, Juan-les-Pins, France.Google Scholar
  68. 159.
    Noy, N. F. and Musen, M. A. (1999). SMART: Automated Support for On- tology Merging and Alignment. In Twelth Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling, and Management, Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  69. 160.
    Noy, N. F. and Musen, M. A. (2000). PROMPT: Algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. In Proceedings of the 17th NAtional Conference on Artificial Inteligence, pages 450-455.Google Scholar
  70. 163.
    Pepper, S., Moore, G. (eds.) (2001). XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0. Technical report, http://www.topicmaps.org.
  71. 165.
    Prasad, S., Peng, Y., and Finin, T. (2002). Using explicit information to map between two ontologies. In Proceedings of the AAMAS Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems, Bologne, Italy.Google Scholar
  72. 166.
    Rahm, E. and Bernstein, P. A. (2001). A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases archive, 10(4):334-350.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 167.
    Rahm, E., Do, H.-H., and Maßmann, S. (2004). Matching large xml schemas. ACM SIGMOD Record archive, 33(4):26-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 168.
    Ranganathan, S. R. (1962). Elements of library classification. Asia Publish- ing House, Bombay.Google Scholar
  75. 172.
    Schaerf, A. (1994). Query answering in Concept-Based Knowledge Rep- resentation Systems: Algorithms, Complexity and Semantic Issues. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica. Universit à di Roma ’La Sapienza’.Google Scholar
  76. 175.
    Sigel, A. (2006). From traditional Knowledge Organization Systems (author- ity files, classifications, thesauri) towards ontologies on the web. In Workshop Introducing Terminology-based Ontologies at the 9th International Conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), pages 3-53, Vienna, Austria. Published electronically on E-LIS (E-prints in Library and In- formation Science, http://eprints.rclis.org), 2006-07-14.
  77. 178.
    Sowa, J. F. (1996). Ontologies for Knowledge Sharing. In Manuscript of the invited talk at Terminology and Knowledge Engineering Congress (TKE ’96), Vienna.Google Scholar
  78. 182.
    Stumme, G. and Maedche, A. (2001). Ontology Merging for Federated On- tologies on the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the International Workshop for Foundations of Models for Information Integration (FMII-2001), Viterbo, Italy.Google Scholar
  79. 183.
    Sure, Y., Angele, J., and Staab, S. (2002). On the Move to Meaningful Inter- net Systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE, volume 2519/2002 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, chapter OntoEdit: Guiding Ontology Development by Methodology and Inferencing, pages 1205-1222. Springer Berlin / Heidel- berg.Google Scholar
  80. 185.
    Tennis, J. T. (2005). SKOS and the Ontogenesis of Vocabularies. In Dublin Core Conferece: Vocabularies in Practice.Google Scholar
  81. 193.
    Tudhope, D., Koch, T., and Heery, R. (2006b). Terminology services and technology. jisc state of the art review. Technical report, UKOLN.Google Scholar
  82. 194.
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1995). UNESCO Thesaurus: A Structured List of Descriptors for Indexing and Retrieving Literature in the Fields of Education, Science, Social and Human Sci- ence, Culture, Communication and Information. UNESCO Publishing, Paris. http://www.ulcc.ac.uk/unesco/.
  83. 197.
    van Assem, M., Malaisé, V., Miles, A., and Schreiber, G. (2006). A Method to Convert Thesauri to SKOS. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC-06), pages 95-109, Budva, Montenegro.Google Scholar
  84. 198.
    van Assem, M., Menken, M. R., Schreiber, G., Wielemaker, J., and Wielinga, B. (2004). A method for converting thesauri to RDF/OWL. In McIlraith, S. A., Plexousakis, D., and van Harmelen, F., editors, Proceedings of the Third Interna- tional Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), Hiroshima, Japan. Springer.Google Scholar
  85. 199.
    van Heijst, G., Schreiber, A. T., and Wielinga, B. J. (1997). Using explicit on- tologies in KBS development. International Journal of Human-Computer Stud- ies, 46(2-3):183-292.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 203.
    Vossen, P. (1998). Introduction to EuroWordNet. Computers and the Hu- manities (Special Issue on EuroWordNet), 32(2-3):73-89.Google Scholar
  87. 211.
    Zeng, M. and Chan, L. (2004). Trends and issues in establishing interoper- ability among knowledge organization systems. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(5):377-395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Lacasta
    • 1
  • Javier Nogueras-Iso
    • 1
  • Francisco Javier Zarazaga-Soria
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations