Categorization Power of Ontologies with Respect to Focus Classes

  • Vojtěch Svátek
  • Ondřej Zamazal
  • Miroslav Vacura
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10024)

Abstract

When reusing existing ontologies, preference might be given to those providing extensive subcategorization for the classes deemed important in the new ontology (focus classes). The reused set of categories may not only consist of named classes but also of some compound concept expressions that could be viewed as meaningful categories by human ontologist. We define the general notion of focused ontologistic categorization power; for the sake of tractable experiments we then choose a restricted concept expression language and map it to syntactic axiom patterns. The occurrence of the patterns has been verified in two ontology collections, and for a sample of pattern instances their ontologistic status has been assessed by different groups of users.

References

  1. 1.
    Dudáš, M., Hanzal, T., Svátek, V., Zamazal, O.: OBOWLMorph: starting ontology development from PURO background models. In: Tamma, V., Dragoni, M., Gonçalves, R., Ławrynowicz, A. (eds.) OWLED 2015. LNCS, vol. 9557, pp. 14–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33245-1_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    García-Santa, N., Atemezing, G.A., Villazón-Terrazas, B.: The ProtégéLOV plugin: ontology access and reuse for everyone. In: Gandon, F., Guéret, C., Villata, S., Breslin, J., Faron-Zucker, C., Zimmermann, A. (eds.) ESWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9341, pp. 41–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25639-9_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giunchiglia, F., Zaihrayeu, I.: Lightweight ontologies. In: Liu, L., Tamer Özsu, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 1613–1619. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krisnadhi, A.A., Hitzler, P., Janowicz, K.: On the capabilities and limitations of OWL regarding typecasting and ontology design pattern views. In: Tamma, V., Dragoni, M., Gonçalves, R., Ławrynowicz, A. (eds.) OWLED 2015. LNCS, vol. 9557, pp. 105–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33245-1_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matentzoglu, N., Bail, S., Parsia, B.: A snapshot of the OWL Web. In: Alani, H., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8218, pp. 331–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41335-3_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schaible, J., Gottron, T., Scherp, A.: Survey on common strategies of vocabulary reuse in linked open data modeling. In: Presutti, V., d’Amato, C., Gandon, F., d’Aquin, M., Staab, S., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8465, pp. 457–472. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07443-6_31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Svátek, V., Homola, M., Kluka, J., Vacura, M.: Metamodeling-based coherence checking of OWL vocabulary background models. In: OWLED 2013, Montpellier (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tempich, C., Volz, R.: Towards a benchmark for semantic Web reasoners - an analysis of the DAML ontology library. In: EON-2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vandenbussche, P.-Y., Vatant, B.: Linked open vocabularies. ERCIM News, 21–22 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zamazal, O., Svátek, V.: Ontology search by categorization power. In: Workshop SumPre 2016 at ESWC (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vojtěch Svátek
    • 1
  • Ondřej Zamazal
    • 1
  • Miroslav Vacura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Knowledge EngineeringUniversity of EconomicsPrague 3Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations