Towards an Adaptive Tool and Method for Collaborative Ontology Mapping
Linked Data makes available a vast amount of data on the Semantic Web for agents, both human and software, to consume. Linked Data datasets are made available with different ontologies, even when their domains overlap. The interoperability problem that rises when one needs to consume and combine two or more of such datasets to develop a Linked Data application or mashup is still an important challenge. Ontology-matching techniques help overcome this problem. The process, however, often relies on knowledge engineers to carry out the tasks as they have expertise in ontologies and semantic technologies. It is reasonable to assume that knowledge engineers should require help from the domain experts, end users, etc. to contribute in the validation of the results and help distilling ontology mappings from these correspondences. However, the current design for the ontology-mapping tools does not take into consideration the different types of users expected to be involved in the creation of Linked Data applications or mashups. In this paper, we identify the different users and their roles in the mapping involved in the context of developing Linked Data mashups and propose a collaborative mapping method in which we prescribe where collaboration between the different stakeholders could, and should, take place. In addition, we propose a tool architecture based on bringing together an adaptive interface, mapping services, workflow services and agreement services that will ease the collaboration between the different stakeholders. This output will be used in an ongoing study to constructing a collaborative mapping platform.
KeywordsSemantic Web-Based Knowledge Management Semantic mashups Ontology mapping Ontology Mapping Engineering Collaborative mapping
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bizer, C., Heath, T., Berners-Lee, T.: Linked data-the story so far. Semantic Services, Interoperability and Web Applications: Emerging Concepts, 205–227 (2009)Google Scholar
- 5.Bernstein, P.A., Madhavan, J., Rahm, E.: Generic schema matching, ten years later. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 4, 695–701 (2011)Google Scholar
- 7.Falconer, S.M.: Cognitive support for semi-automatic ontology mapping. Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria (2009)Google Scholar
- 10.Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J.: Issues as elements of information systems. University of California Berkeley, California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development (1970)Google Scholar
- 11.van der Meij, L., Isaac, A., Zinn, C.: A web-based repository service for vocabularies and alignments in the cultural heritage domain. In: Aroyo, L., Antoniou, G., Hyvönen, E., ten Teije, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Cabral, L., Tudorache, T. (eds.) ESWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6088, pp. 394–409. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Mochol, M.: The methodology for finding suitable ontology matching approaches. Doctoral dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
- 15.Euzenat, J., Le Duc, C.: Methodological guidelines for matching ontologies. In: Ontology Engineering In A Networked World, pp. 257–278. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
- 17.Conroy, C., O’sullivan, D., Lewis, D.: Ontology mapping through tagging. In: International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems, CISIS 2008, pp. 886–891. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
- 19.Conroy, C., Brennan, R., Sullivan, D.O., Lewis, D.: User evaluation study of a tagging approach to semantic mapping. In: Aroyo, L., Traverso, P., Ciravegna, F., Cimiano, P., Heath, T., Hyvönen, E., Mizoguchi, R., Oren, E., Sabou, M., Simperl, E. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 623–637. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar