The NeOn Ontology Models



Interoperability on multiple levels, concerning both the ontologies themselves and their engineering activities, is a key requirement for ontology networks to be efficient, with minimal redundancy and high reuse. This requirement has a strict binding for software tools that can support some interoperability levels, yet they can be hindered by a lack of shared models and vocabularies describing the resources to be handled, as well as the ways of handling them. Here, three examples of metalevel vocabularies are proposed, each covering at least one peculiar interoperability aspect: OMV for modeling the artifacts themselves, LIR for managing a multilingual layer on top of them, and C-ODO Light for modeling collaboration-supportive life cycle management tasks and processes. All of these models lend themselves to handling by dedicated software tools and are all being employed within NeOn products.


Lexical Entry Linguistic Description Metadata Information Descriptive Metadata Ontology Design 
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.


  1. Arpírez J, Gómez-Pérez A, Lozano-Tello A, Pinto HS (2000) Reference ontology and (ONTO)2 agent: the ontology yellow pages. Knowl Inf Syst 2:387–412zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buitelaar P, Declerck T, Frank A, Racioppa S, Kiesel M, Sintek M, Engel R, Romanelli M, Sonntag D, Loos B, Micelli V, Porzel R, Cimiano P (2006) Linginfo: design and applications of a model for the integration of linguistic information in ontologies. In: Proceedings of the OntoLex 2006 workshop: interfacing ontologies and lexical resources for semantic web technologies, GenoaGoogle Scholar
  3. Buitelaar P, Cimiano P, Haase P, Sintek M (2009) Towards linguistically grounded ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 6th annual European semantic web conference (ESWC2009), Heraklion, pp 111–125Google Scholar
  4. Cimiano P, Haase P, Herold M, Mantel M, Buitelaar P (2007) LexOnto: a model for ontology lexicons for ontology-based nlp. In: Proceedings of the OntoLex07 workshop at the ISWC07, BusanGoogle Scholar
  5. d’Aquin M, Haase P, Rudolph S, Euzenat J, Zimmermann A, Dzbor M, Iglesias M, Jacques Y, Caracciolo C, Buil-Aranda C, Gómez-Pérez J (2008) NeOn formalisms for modularization: syntax, semantics, algebra. Technical report D1.1.3, Open UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Espinoza M, Gómez-Pérez A, Mena E (2008) Enriching an ontology with multilingual information. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual of the European semantic web conference (ESWC 2008), Tenerife, pp 333–347Google Scholar
  7. Fridman Noy N, Guha RV, Musen MA (2005) User ratings of ontologies: who will rate the raters? In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2005 spring symposium on knowledge collection from volunteer contributors, Stanford, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Fridman Noy N, Griffith N, Musen MA (2008) Collecting community-based mappings in an ontology repository. In: Proceedings of 7th international semantic web conference´08. Springer, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  9. Gangemi A, Pisanelli DM, Steve G (1999) An overview of the ONIONS project: applying ontologies to the integration of medical terminologies. Data Knowl Eng 31(2):183–220zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gangemi A, Lehmann J, Presutti V, Nissim M, Catenacci C (2007) C-ODO: an OWL meta-model for collaborative ontology design. In: Fridman Noy N, Alani H, Stumme G, Mika P, Sure Y, Vrandecic D (eds) CKC, CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardiner T, Horrocks I, Tsarkov D (2006) Automated Benchmarking of Description Logic Reasoners. In Parsia B, Sattler U, Toman D (eds) Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Description Logics (DL’06), Windermere Lake District, UK. Volume 189 of CEUR., Lake District, UK 167–174Google Scholar
  12. ISO 16642 (2003) Terminological markup framework in computer applications in terminology. Technical report, International Organization for Standardization (ISO). URL
  13. ISO 24613 (2006) Lexical markup framework in language resource management. Technical report, International Organization for Standardization (ISO). URL
  14. Jarrar M (2005) Towards methodological principles for ontology engineering. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Lozano-Tello A, Gómez-Pérez A (2004) ONTOMETRIC: a method to choose the appropriate ontology. J Database Manag 15(2)Google Scholar
  16. Miles A, Matthews B, Beckett D, Brickley D, Wilson M, Rogers N (2005) SKOS: a language to describe simple knowledge structures for the web. In: Proceedings of the XTech conference 2005, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Montiel-Ponsoda E (2011) Multilingualism in ontologies: multilingual lexico-syntactic patterns for ontology modeling and linguistic information repository for ontology localization. PhD thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, MadridGoogle Scholar
  18. Montiel-Ponsoda E, Aguado de Cea G, Suárez-Figueroa MC, Palma R, Peters W, Gómez-Pérez A (2007) LexOMV: an OMV extension to capture multilinguality. In: 6th international semantic web conference. In Workshop Ontolex07, BusanGoogle Scholar
  19. Montiel-Ponsoda E, Peters W, Aguado de Cea G, Espinoza M, Gómez-Pérez A, Sini M (2008) Multilingual and localization support for ontologies. Technical report, D2.4.2 NeOn project deliverableGoogle Scholar
  20. Montiel-Ponsoda E, Aguado de Cea G, Gómez-Pérez A, Peters W (2010) Enriching ontologies with multilingual information. J Nat Lang Eng 17(3):283–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. NISO (2004) Understanding metadata. NISO Press, National Information Standards Organization. Available at
  22. Palma R (2009) Ontology metadata management in distributed environments. PhD thesis, Universidad Politécnica de MadridGoogle Scholar
  23. Palma R, Haase P (2005) Oyster – sharing and re-using ontologies in a peer-to-peer community. In: International semantic web conference, Galway, pp 1059–1062Google Scholar
  24. Palma R, Hartmann J, Haase P (2008) OMV – ontology metadata vocabulary for the semantic web. Technical report, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, University of Karlsruhe. Version 2.4. Available at
  25. Paslaru Bontas E, Mochol M, Tolksdorf R (2005) Case studies on ontology reuse. In: Proceedings of the IKNOW05 international conference on knowledge management, GrazGoogle Scholar
  26. Peters W, Gangemi A, Villazón-Terrazas B (2010) Modelling and re-engineering linguistic/terminological resources. Technical report, D2.4.4 NeOn project deliverableGoogle Scholar
  27. Pinto HS, Martins JP (2001) A methodology for ontology integration. In: Proceedings of the international conference on knowledge capture K-CAP01, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  28. Presutti V, Gangemi A (2008) Content ontology design patterns as practical building blocks for web ontologies. In: ER ‘08: proceedings of the 27th international conference on conceptual modeling. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 128–141Google Scholar
  29. Russ T, Valente A, Macgregor R (1999) Practical experiences in trading off ontology usability and reusability. In: Proceedings of the 12th workshop on knowledge acquisition, modeling and management (EKAW’99), Banff, pp 16–21Google Scholar
  30. Tappolet J, Kiefer C, Bernstein A (2010) Semantic web enabled software analysis. J Web Semant 8(2–3):225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ungrangsi R, Simperl E (2008) OMEGA: an automatic ontology metadata generation algorithm. In: 16th international conference on knowledge engineering, knowledge management and knowledge patterns. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Uschold M, Healy M, Williamson K, Clark P, Woods S (1998) Ontology reuse and application. In: Proceedings of the international conference on formal ontology and information systems FOIS98, TrentoGoogle Scholar
  33. Vossen P (1998) Introduction to EuroWordNet. In Ide N, Greenstein D, Vossen P (eds) Special issue on EuroWordNet, vol 32(2–3), pp 73–89Google Scholar
  34. Wang Y, Haase P, Palma R (2007) D1.4.1: Prototypes for managing networked ontologies. Technical report D1.4.1, University of Karlsruhe; NeOn deliverable. URL

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Semantic Technologies LabInstitute of Cognitive Sciences, and Technologies (National Research Council – CNR)RomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, Alma Mater Studiorum Universitá di BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Poznan Supercomputing and Networking CenterPoznanPoland
  4. 4.fluid Operations AGWalldorfGermany
  5. 5.Ontology Engineering Group, Facultad de InformáticaUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  6. 6.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations