An Approach to Comparing Different Ontologies in the Context of Hydrographical Information

  • L. M. Vilches-BlázquezEmail author
  • J. A. Ramos
  • F. J. López-Pellicer
  • O. Corcho
  • J. Nogueras-Iso
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Geographical Information is increasingly captured, managed, and updated by different cartographic agencies. This information presents different structures and variable levels of granularity and quality. In practice, such heterogeneity causes the building up of multiple sets of geodata with different underlying models and schemas that have different structures and semantics.Ontologies are a proposal widely used for solving heterogeneity and a way of achieving the data harmonization and integration that Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Special Data Infrastructures (SDI) need.This paper presents three hydrographical ontologies (which are built using top-down and bottom-up approaches) and an approach for comparing them; the goal of this approach is to prove which ontologies have a better coverage of the domain. In order to compare the resultant ontologies, six qualitative facets have been studied: sources used (amount, richness, and consensus), reliability of building approaches (community extending use, recommenddations), ontology richness (number and types of components), formalization (language), granularity (scale factor), and the design criteria followed.


Geographical information Heterogeneity Data harmonization and integration Top-down and bottom-up approach Hydrographical ontologies Comparison 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arpírez JC, Corcho O, Fernández-López M, Gómez-Pérez A (2003) WebODE in a nutshell. J AI MagazineGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arpírez JC, Gómez-Pérez A, Lozano A, Pinto HS (1998) (ONTO) 2Agent: An ontology-based WWW broker to select ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez A, Benjamins RV (eds) ECAI’98 Workshop on Applications of Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods. Brighton, United Kingdom, pp 16–24Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    . Chaudhri VK, Farquhar A, Fikes R, Karp PD, Rice JP (1998) Open Knowledge Base Connectivity 2.0.3. Technical Report KSL-98-06, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford, CA, okbc/okbc-2-0-3.pdf
  4. 4.
    . De Diego R (2001) Método de mezcla de catálogos electrónicos. Grade thesis, Facultad de Informática, Universidad Politécnica de MadridGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    . Euzenat J (2004) An API for ontology alignment, in: Proceedings of the third International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farquhar A, Fikes R, Rice J (1997) The Ontolingua Server: A Tool for Collaborative Ontology Construction. J International Journal of Human Computer Studies 46 (6): 707–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganter B, Wille R (1997) Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA Translator-C. FranzkeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gessler DD, Joslyn CA, Verspoor KM, Schmidt SE (2006) Deconstruction, re-construction, and ontogenesis for large, monolithic, legacy ontologies in semantic web service applications. Technical Report 06-5859, Los AlamosGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    . Giménez-Lugo GA, Amandi A, Sichman JS, Godoy D (2002) Enriching Information Agents’ Knowledge by Ontology Comparison: a Case Study. In: Proceedings of 8th Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA’02), Seville, SpainGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gómez-Pérez A, Fernández-López M, Corcho O (2003) Ontological Engineering. Springer-Verlag, London (United Kingdom)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    . Gómez-Pérez A, Juristo N, Pazos J (1995) Evaluation and assessment of knowledge sharing technology. In: Mars NJ (ed) Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases. Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing, pp 289-296, IOS PressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gómez-Pérez A (2003) Ontology Evaluation. In: Staab S, Studer R (eds) Handbook on Ontologies, Springer-Verlag, pp 251–274Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruber TR (1993) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In: International Workshop on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. Padova, Italy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. J International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43 (5–6)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. J Knowledge Acquisition 5: 199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    . Guarino N, Welty C (2000) A Formal Ontology of Properties. In: Dieng R and Corby O (eds), Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Methods, Models and Tools. 12th Intnal. Conference, EKAW2000. Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    . Hyung Hwang S, Kim HG, Yang HS (2005) A FCA-based ontology construction for the design of class hierarchy. In: ICCSA (3), pp 827-835Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    . IEEE 1996. IEEE Standard for Developing Software Life Cycle Processes. IEEE Std 1074-1995. IEEE Computer Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    . Kim IC (2004) FCA-based ontology augmentation in a medical domain. In: PAKMGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    . Lopez-Pellicer F, Vilches-Blázquez LM, Nogueras-Iso J, Corcho O, Bernabé MA, Rodríguez AF (2007) Using a hybrid approach for the development of an ontology in the hydrographical domain. In: Proceedings of 2nd Workshop of COST Action C21 -Towntology Ontologies for urban development: conceptual models for practitionersGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maedche A, Staab S (2001) Comparing Ontologies- Similarity Measures and a Comparison Study, Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, Internal ReportGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    . Mizoguchi R, Vanwelkenhuysen J, Ikeda M (1995) Task ontology of reuse of problem solving knowledge. Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases: Knowledge Building & Knowledge Sharing, pp 46-59Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    . Noy NF, Musen MA (2004) Using prompt ontology—comparison tools in the EON ontology alignment contest, in: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools (EON)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    . Noy NF, Fergerson RW, Musen MA (2000) The knowledge model of Protege-2000: Combining interoperability and flexibility. In: Dieng R, Corby O (eds) 12th International Conference in Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW’00). Juan-Les-Pins, France. (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence LNAI 1937) Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 17-32Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    . Rodríguez Pascual AF, García Asensio L (2005) A fully integrated information system to manage cartographic and geographic data at a 1:25,000 scale. XXII International Cartographic Conference (ICC2005), A Coruña, SpainGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Studer R, Benjamins VR, Fensel D (1998) Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods. IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering 25(1–2):161–197Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uschold M, Grüninger M (1996) Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. J Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2): 93–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Heijst G, Schreiber A, Wielinga B (1997) Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. J International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(2/3):183–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    . Vilches-Blázquez LM, Bernabé-Poveda MA, Suárez-Figueroa MC, Gómez-Pérez A, Rodríguez-Pascual AF (2007) Towntology & hydrOntology: Relationship between Urban and Hydrographic Features in the Geographic Information Domain. In: Ontologies for Urban Development. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 61, pp 73-84Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    . Wang JZ, Ali F, Appaneravanda R (2005) A Web Service for Efficient Ontology Comparison. ICWS 2005, pp 843-844Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    . Wang JZ, Ali F (2005) An Efficient Ontology Comparison Tool for Semantic Web Applications. In: Proceedings Web Intelligence 2005, pp 372-378Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    . Weinstein P, Birmingham W (1999) Comparing concepts in differentiated ontologies. In: Proceedings of KAW-99Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    . Zimmermann K (2004) Ontology Comparison D19 v0.1. SW-Portal Working Draft. Available in
  34. 34.
    . Dean M, Schreiber G (2003) OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Working Draft.
  35. 35.
    . McGuinness DL, van Harmelen F (2004) OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation.
  36. 36.
    Fonseca FT, Egenhofer MJ, Davis CA, Câmara G (2002) Semantic Granularity in Ontology-Driven Geographic Information Systems. J AMAI Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 36 (1–2): 121 – 151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. M. Vilches-Blázquez
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. A. Ramos
    • 1
  • F. J. López-Pellicer
    • 1
  • O. Corcho
    • 1
  • J. Nogueras-Iso
    • 1
  1. 1.Ontology Engineering GroupUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations