Advertisement

Ontology Development by Reuse

  • Mariano Fernández-López
  • Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa
  • Asunción Gómez-Pérez
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents methodological guidelines that allow engineers to reuse generic ontologies. This kind of ontologies represents notions generic across many fields, (is part of, temporal interval, etc.). The guidelines helps the developer (a) to identify the type of generic ontology to be reused, (b) to find out the axioms and definitions that should be reused and (c) to adapt and integrate the generic ontology selected in the domain ontology to be developed. For each task of the methodology, a set of heuristics with examples are presented. We hope that after reading this chapter, you would have acquired some basic ideas on how to take advantage of the great deal of well-founded explicit knowledge that formalizes generic notions such as time concepts and the part of relation.

Keywords

Generic Ontology Development Team Domain Ontology Ontology Development Implementation Language 
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.

References

  1. Borst WN (1997) Construction of engineering ontologies. Centre for Telematica and Information Technology, University of Tweenty, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  2. d’Aquin M, Lewen H (2009) Cupboard – a place to expose your ontologies to applications and the community. Demo at European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2009, Heraklion, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  3. d’Aquin M, Motta E (2011) Watson, more than a semantic web search engine, Semant Web J 2, IOS PressGoogle Scholar
  4. d’Aquin M, Sabou M, Dzbor M, Baldassarre C, Gridinoc L, Angeletou S, Motta E (2007a) Watson: a gateway for the semantic web. Poster session of the European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2007, BusanGoogle Scholar
  5. d’Aquin M, Schlicht A, Stuckenschmidt H, Sabou M (2007b) Ontology modularization for knowledge selection: experiments and evaluations. In: 18th international conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA 2007, Regensburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  6. d’Aquin M, Sabou M, Motta E (2008) Reusing knowledge from the semantic web with the Watson Plugin. Demo at International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernández López M, Gómez-Pérez A, Suárez-Figueroa MC (2008) Selecting and customizing a mereology ontology for its reuse in a pharmaceutical product ontology. In: Grüninger M, Eschenbach C (eds) Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Fifth international conference (FOIS-2008), Saarbrücken, Germany. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 181–194Google Scholar
  8. Golbeck J, Fragoso G, Hartel F, Hendler J, Parsia B, Oberthaler J (2003) The national cancer institute’s thesaurus and ontology. J Web Semant1(1):75–80Google Scholar
  9. Gómez-Pérez A, Lozano-Tello A (2005) Applying ONTOMETRIC method to measure the suitability of ontologies. In: Green P, Rosemann M (eds) Business systems analysis with ontologies. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 249–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gómez-Pérez A, Rojas MD (1999) Ontological reengineering and reuse. In: Fensel D, Studer R (eds) 11th European workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management (EKAW 1999), Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence LNAI 1621 Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp 139–156Google Scholar
  11. Jiménez A, Ríos-Insua S, Mateos A (2003) A decision support system for multiattribute utility evaluation based on imprecise assignments. Decis Support Syst 36:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lozano-Tello A (2002) Métrica de idoneidad de ontologías. PhD Thesis, Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain 2002Google Scholar
  13. Peroni S, Motta E, d’Aquin M (2008) Identifying key concepts in an ontology through the integration of cognitive principles with statistical and topological measures. In: Third Asian semantic web conference, Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  14. Pinto HS, Martins JP (2001) A methodology for ontology integration. In: Gil Y, Musen M, Shavlik J (eds) First international conference on Knowledge Capture (KCAP 2001), Victoria, Canada. ACM Press, New York, pp 131–138Google Scholar
  15. Schneider L (2003) How to build a foundational ontology: the object-centered high-level reference ontology OCHRE. In: Günter A, Kruse R, Neumann B (eds) Proceedings of the 26th annual German conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI-2003), Hamburg, Germany. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI-2821), Berlin, Germany, pp 120–134. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=12B7EC62C9601245457C735C07AA07A0?doi=10.1.1.1.3440&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
  16. Suárez-Figueroa, MC (coordinator) (2008) D5.4.1. NeOn Methodology for building contextualized ontology networks. NeOn projectGoogle Scholar
  17. Suárez-Figueroa, MC (2010) NeOn Methodology for building ontology networks: specification, scheduling and reuse. PhD Thesis, Facultad de Informática, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  18. van Heijst G, Schreiber ATh, Wielinga BJ (1997) Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 45:183–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Varzi A (2007) In: Aiello M, Pratt-Hartmann I, van Benthem J (eds) Spatial reasoning and ontology: parts, wholes, and locations. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 945–1038Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariano Fernández-López
    • 1
  • Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa
    • 2
  • Asunción Gómez-Pérez
    • 2
  1. 1.Escuela Politécnica SuperiorUniversidad San Pablo CEUMadridSpain
  2. 2.Ontology Engineering Group, Facultad de InformáticaUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations