Organization and Management of Large Categorical Systems

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter surveys approaches to handling categorical systems of extensive size, spanning from semi-formal systems in terminology and classification sciences to formal logical approaches. In particular, we briefly review the transition from terminologies to ontologies that are formalized in logics, exemplified in the medical domain. The main part presents the state of the art of the modularization of logical theories with an ontology-related background. Since the field is still very young and active, an evaluation of these approaches results in a heterogeneous landscape of proposals and leaves perspectives for future research.

Keywords

Description Logic Basic Module Concept System Compatibility Constraint Atomic Concept 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Heinrich Herre, Frank Wolter, Denis Ponomaryov, Alexander Heußner, and Roberto Poli for valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, and we gratefully acknowledge the members of the research group Onto-Med at the University of Leipzig for maintaining a lively and inspiring atmosphere.

References

  1. Adámek, J., H. Herrlich, and G.E. Strecker. 1990. Abstract and concrete categories: The joy of cats. Vol. in Pure and applied mathematics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Improved online edition (2004): http://katmat.math.uni-bremen.de/acc
  2. Amir, E., and S. McIlraith. 2000. Partition-based logical reasoning. In Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference (KR 2000), Breckenridge, CO, 11–15 Apr 2000, eds. A.G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman, 389–400. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  3. Amir, E., and S. McIlraith. 2005. Partition-based logical reasoning for first-order and propositional theories. Artificial Intelligence 162(1–2):49–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashburner, M., C.A. Ball, J.A. Blake, D. Botstein, H. Butler, J.M. Cherry, A.P. Davis, K. Dolinski, S.S. Dwight, and J.T. Eppig, et al. 2000. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics 25(1):25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baader, F. 2003. Terminological cycles in a description logic with existential restrictions. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), Acapulco, Mexico, 9–15 Aug 2003, 325–330. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. Baader, F., D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. Patel-Schneider eds. 2003. The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baader, F., S. Brandt, and C. Lutz. 2005. Pushing the EL envelope. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), Edinburgh, Scotland, 30 Jul–5 Aug 2005, 364–369. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. Baader, F., C. Lutz, and B. Suntisrivaraporn. 2006. Efficient reasoning in EL+. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2006), Lake District, UK, 30 May–1 Jun 2006, CEUR 189, 15–26.Google Scholar
  9. Bao, J., D. Caragea, and V.G. Honavar. 2006a. Modular ontologies – A formal investigation of semantics and expressivity. In The semantic web – ASWC 2006, Proceedings of the First Asian Semantic Web Conference, Beijing, China, 3–7 Sept 2006, LNCS 4185, eds. R. Mizoguchi, Z. Shi, and F. Giunchiglia, 616–631. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Bao, J., D. Caragea, and V.G. Honavar. 2006b. On the semantics of linking and importing in modular ontologies. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, GA, 5–9 Nov 2006, LNCS 4273, eds. I. Cruz, S. Decker, D. Allemang, C. Preist, D. Schwabe, P. Mika, M. Uschold, and L. Aroyo, 72–86. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Bao, J., D. Caragea, and V.G. Honavar. 2006c. On the semantics of linking and importing in modular ontologies. Computer Science Technical Reports Nr. 465, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  12. Bao, J., D. Caragea, and V.G. Honavar. 2006d. Towards collaborative environments for ontology construction and sharing. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (CTS 2006), Las Vegas, NV, 14–17 May 2006, 99–108. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  13. Barwise, J., and S. Feferman eds. 1985. Model-theoretic logics. Vol. in Perspectives in mathematical logic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Bergstra, J.A., J. Heering, and P. Klint. 1990. Module algebra. Journal of the ACM 37(2):335–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berners-Lee, T., J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. 2001. The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5):34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borgida, A., and L. Serafini. 2003. Distributed description logics: assimilating information from peer sources. Journal on Data Semantics 1:153–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bouquet, P., F. Giunchiglia, F. van Harmelen, L. Serafini, and H. Stuckenschmidt. 2003. C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. In The semantic web – ISWC 2003, Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference, Sanibel Island, FL, 20–23 Oct. LNCS 2870, eds. D. Fensel, K. Sycara, and J. Mylopoulos, 164–179. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Brandt, S. 2004. Polynomial time reasoning in a description logic with existential restrictions, GCI axioms, and – What else? In Frontiers in artificial intelligence and engineering, Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), Valencia, Spain, 22–27 Aug 2004, eds. R.L. de Mántaras, and L. Saitta, Vol. 110 in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Engineering, 298–302. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  19. Caleiro, C., A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas. 2005. Fibring logics: Past, present and future. In We will show them: Essays in honour of Dov Gabbay, eds. S. Artemov, H. Barringer, A.S. d’Avila Garcez, L.C. Lamb, and J. Woods, Vol. 1, 363–388. London: King’s College Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Chang, C.C., and H.J. Keisler. 1990. Model theory. Vol. 73 in Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  21. Cimino, J.J. 1998. Desiderata for controlled medical vocabularies in the twenty-first century. Methods of Information in Medicine 37(4/5):394–403.Google Scholar
  22. Craig, W. 1957. Three uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 22(3):269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cruz, I., S. Decker, D. Allemang, C. Preist, D. Schwabe, P. Mika, M. Uschold, and L. Aroyo eds. 2006. The semantic web – ISWC 2006, Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, GA, 5–9 Nov 2006, LNCS 4273. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Cuenca Grau, B., B. Parsia, and E. Sirin. 2004. Working with multiple ontologies on the semantic web. In Proceedings of the Third International Semantic Web Conference, Hiroshima, Japan, 7–11 Nov 2004, LNCS 3298, eds. S.A. McIlraith, D. Plexousakis, and F. van Harmelen 620–634. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Cuenca Grau, B. 2005. Combination and integration of semantic web ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Informatics, Valencia University, Valencia, Spain.Google Scholar
  26. Cuenca Grau, B., I. Horrocks, O. Kutz, and U. Sattler. 2006. Will my ontologies fit together? In Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2006), Lake District, UK, 30 May–1 Jun 2006, CEUR 189, eds. B. Parsia, U. Sattler, and D. Toman 175–182. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  27. Cuenca Grau, B., B. Parsia, and E. Sirin. 2006. Combining OWL ontologies using ɛ-Connections. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 4(1):40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cuenca Grau, B., B. Parsia, E. Sirin, and A. Kalyanpur. 2006. Modularity and web ontologies. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference (KR 2006), Lake District, UK, 2–5 Jun, 2006, 198–209.Google Scholar
  29. Cuenca Grau, B., I. Horrocks, Y. Kazakov, and U. Sattler. 2007. A logical framework for modularity of ontologies. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), Hyderabad, India, 6–12 Jan, 2007, 298–303. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  30. Cuenca Grau, B., O. Kutz, and V. Honavar. 2007. Modular ontology languages revisited. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Web for Collaborative Knowledge Acquisition (SWeCKa) held at IJCAI 2007, Hyderabad, India, 7 Jan, eds. T. Finin, D. Caragea, D. Mladenic, and Y. Sure.Google Scholar
  31. Cuenca Grau, B., V. Honavar, A. Schlicht, and F. Wolter eds. 2008a. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WoMO 2007), Whistler, Canada, 28 Oct 2008, CEUR 315. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
  32. Cuenca Grau, B., I. Horrocks, Y. Kazakov, and U. Sattler. 2008b. Modular reuse of ontologies: Theory and practice. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 31:273–318.Google Scholar
  33. Diaconescu, R., J. Goguen, and P. Stefaneas. 1993. Logical support for modularisation. In Logical Environments, eds. G. Huet, and G. Plotkin, ch. 4, 83–130. New York: Cambridge University Press. Proceedings of the Second Annual Workshop on Logical Environments, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  34. Doherty, P., J. Mylopoulos, and C.A. Welty eds. 2006. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference (KR 2006), Lake District, UK, 2–5 Jun, 2006. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  35. Dzbor, M., and E. Motta. 2008. Engineering and customizing ontologies: the human-computer challenge in ontology engineering. In Ontology Management: Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services, and Business Applications, Vol. 7 in Semantic Web and Beyond: Computing for Human Experience, eds. M. Hepp, P. De Leenheer, A. de Moor, and Y. Sure, 25–57. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Ebbinghaus, HD., J. Flum, and W. Thomas. 1994. Mathematical logic. Vol. in Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Euzenat, J., and P. Shvaiko. 2007. Handbook of ontology matching. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Forrey, A.W., C.J. McDonald, G. DeMoor, S.M. Huff, D. Leavelle, D. Leland, T. Fiers, L. Charles, B. Griffin, F. Stalling, A. Tullis, K. Hutchins, and J. Baenzinger. 1996. Logical observation identifier names and codes (LOINC) database: a public use set of codes and names for electronic reporting of clinical laboratory test results. Clinical Chemistry 42(1):81–90.Google Scholar
  39. Gangemi, A., D.M. Pisanelli, and G. Steve. 1999. An overview of the ONIONS project: Applying ontologies to the integration of medical terminologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering 31(2):183–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Garson, J. 1989. Modularity and relevant logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30(2):207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ghidini, C., and L. Serafini. 2000. Distributed first order logic. In Frontiers of Combining Systems 2, eds. D. Gabbay, and M. de Rijke, 121–139. No. 7 in Studies in Logic and Computation. Papers presented at FroCoS’98, Amsterdam, 1998, Baldock (UK): Research Studies Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  42. Ghidini, C., and F. Giunchiglia. 2001. Local models semantics, or contextual reasoning = locality + compatibility. Artificial Intelligence 127(2):221–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ghilardi, S., C. Lutz, and F. Wolter. 2006. Did I damage my ontology: A case for conservative extensions of description logics. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference (KR 2006), Lake District, UK, 2–5 Jun, 2006, eds. P. Doherty, J. Mylopoulos, and C.A. Welty, 187–197. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  44. Ghilardi, S., C. Lutz, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev. 2006. Conservative extensions in modal logic. In Advances in Modal Logic, Volume 6 (AiML-2006), Noosa, Queensland, Australia, 25–28 Sep, 2006, eds. G. Governatori, I.M. Hodkinson, and Y. Venema, 187–207. College Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Gnoli, C., and R. Poli. 2004. Levels of reality and levels of representation. Knowledge Organization 31(3):151–160.Google Scholar
  46. Goguen, J., and R. Burstall. 1992. Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the ACM 39(1):95–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gómez-Pérez, A., M. Fernández-López, and O. Corcho. 2004. Ontological engineering: with examples from the areas of knowledge management, e-commerce and the semantic web. Vol. in Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Gottlob, G., and T. Walsh. eds. 2003. Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), Acapulco, Mexico, 9–15 Aug 2003. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  49. Guha, R.V. 1991. Contexts: A formalization and some applications. Ph.D Thesis/Technical Report STAN-CS-91-1399, Computer Science Department, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  50. Haase, P., V.G. Honavar, O. Kutz, Y. Sure, and A. Tamilin eds. 2006. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, (WoMO 2006), Athens, GA, 5 Nov 2006, CEUR 232. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
  51. Healy, M. 2010. Ontology and category theory. In TAO – Theory and Applications of Ontology, eds. M. Healy, A. Kameas, and R. Poli, Vol. 2: The information science stance. Part 3, ch. 3.Google Scholar
  52. Hearst, M.A. 2006. Design recommendations for hierarchical faceted search interfaces. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Faceted Search held at SIGIR 2006, Seattle, WA, Aug 10. eds. A.Z. Broder, and Y.S. Maarek, [Paper available from:] http://flamenco.berkeley.edu/papers/faceted-workshop06.pdf
  53. Hendler, J., and F. van Harmelen. 2007. The semantic web: webizing knowledge representation. In Handbook of Knowledge Representation, Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, eds. F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, and B. Porter, ch. 21, 821–839. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  54. Herre, H. 1995. Generalized compactness of nonmonotonic inference operations. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 5(1):121–135.Google Scholar
  55. Herre, H., B. Heller, P. Burek, R. Hoehndorf, F. Loebe, and H. Michalek. 2006. General Formal Ontology (GFO) – A foundational ontology integrating objects and processes [Version 1.0]. Onto-Med Report 8, Research Group Ontologies in Medicine, Institute of Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
  56. Herre, H. 2010a. General Formal Ontology: A foundational ontology for conceptual modeling. In TAO – Theory and Applications of Ontology, eds. M. Healy, A. Kameas, and R. Poli, Vol. 2: The information science stance. Part 2, ch. 4.Google Scholar
  57. Herre, H. 2010b. The ontology of medical terminological systems: Towards the next generation of biomedical ontologies. In TAO – Theory and Applications of Ontology, eds. M. Healy, A. Kameas, and R. Poli, Vol. 2: The information science stance. Part 3, ch. 1.Google Scholar
  58. Hildebrand, M., J. van Ossenbruggen, and L. Hardman. 2006. /facet: A browser for heterogeneous semantic web repositories. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, GA, 5–9 Nov 2006, LNCS 4273, eds. I. Cruz, S. Decker, D. Allemang, C. Preist, D. Schwabe, P. Mika, M. Uschold, and L. Aroyo, 272–285.Google Scholar
  59. Iggulden, P., and C. Price. 2001. SNOMED clinical terms – Looking forward to the next phase. British Journal of Healthcare Computing and Information Management 18(10):20–22.Google Scholar
  60. Kalfoglou, Y., and M. Schorlemmer. 2003. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1):1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kalfoglou, Y., and M. Schorlemmer. 2010. Ontology alignment. In TAO – Theory and Applications of Ontology, eds. M. Healy, A. Kameas, and R. Poli, Vol. 2: The information science stance. Part 1, ch. 6.Google Scholar
  62. de Keizer, N.F., and A. Abu-Hanna. 2000. Understanding terminological systems II: Experience with conceptual and formal representation of structure. Methods of Information in Medicine 39(1):22–29.Google Scholar
  63. de Keizer, N.F., A. Abu-Hanna, and J.H.M. Zwetsloot-Schonk. 2000. Understanding terminological systems I: Terminology and typology. Methods of Information in Medicine 39(1):16–21.Google Scholar
  64. Kelso, J., K. Prüfer, and R. Hoehndorf. 2010. Ontologies in biology. In TAO – Theory and Applications of Ontology, eds. M. Healy, A. Kameas, and R. Poli, Vol. 2: The information science stance. Part 3, ch. 2.Google Scholar
  65. Kent, R.E. 2005. Semantic integration in the Information Flow Framework. In Semantic Interoperability and Integration, eds. Y. Kalfoglou, W.M. Schorlemmer, A.P. Sheth, S. Staab, and M. Uschold, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 04391. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany.Google Scholar
  66. Kontchakov, R., F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev. 2007. Modularity in DL-Lite. In Proceedings of the 20th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-2007), Brixen-Bressanone, Italy, 8–10 Jun. CEUR 250, eds. D. Calvanese, E. Franconi, V. Haarslev, D. Lembo, B. Motik, A. Turhan, and S. Tessaris, 76–87. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
  67. Kontchakov, R., F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev. 2008. Can you tell the difference between DL-Lite ontologies? In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, eds. G. Brewka, and J. Lang, 285–295. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (KR 2008), Sydney, Australia, 16–19 Sept. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Presss.Google Scholar
  68. Krisnadhi, A., and C. Lutz. 2007. Data complexity in the EL family of description logics. In Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, eds. N. Dershowitz, and A. Voronkov, 333–347. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference (LPAR 2007), Yerevan, Armenia, 15–19 Oct 2007. LNCS 4790. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kutz, O., C. Lutz, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev. 2004. ɛ-Connections of abstract description systems. Artificial Intelligence 156(1):1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kutz, O., and T. Mossakowski. 2008. Modules in transition: conservativity, composition, and colimits. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WoMO 2007), Whistler, Canada, 28 Oct 2008.Google Scholar
  71. Lenat, D.B., and R.V. Guha. 1990. Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems: Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  72. Loebe, F. 2006. Requirements for logical modules. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, (WoMO 2006), Athens, GA, 5 Nov 2006, CEUR 232, eds. Haase, P., V.G. Honavar, O. Kutz, Y. Sure, and A. Tamilin. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  73. Lüttich, K., C. Masolo, and S. Borgo. 2006. Development of modular ontologies in CASL. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, (WoMO 2006), Athens, GA, 5 Nov 2006, CEUR 232, eds. Haase, P., V.G. Honavar, O. Kutz, Y. Sure, and A. Tamilin. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  74. Lutz, C., D. Walther, and F. Wolter. 2007. Conservative extensions in expressive description logics. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), Hyderabad, India, 6–12 Jan, 2007, 453–458.Google Scholar
  75. Lutz, C., and F. Wolter. 2007. Conservative extensions in the lightweight description logic EL. In Automated Deduction – CADE-21, ed. F. Pfenning, 84–99. Berlin: Springer. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Automated Deduction, Bremen, Germany, 17–20 Jul. LNCS 4603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. MacCartney, B., S.A. McIlraith, E. Amir, and T.E. Uribe. 2003. Practical partition-based theorem proving for large knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), Acapulco, Mexico, 9–15 Aug 2003, 89–98.Google Scholar
  77. McCarthy, J., and S. Buvač. 1998. Formalizing context (expanded notes). In Computing Natural Language, Vol. 81 of CSLI Lecture Notes, eds. A. Aliseda, R.J. van Glabbeek, and D. Westerståhl, 13–50. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University.Google Scholar
  78. McDonald, C.J., S.M. Huff, J.G. Suico, G. Hill, D. Leavelle, R. Aller, A. Forrey, K. Mercer, G. DeMoor, J. Hook, W. Williams, J. Case, and P. Maloney. 2003. LOINC, a universal standard for identifying laboratory observations: A 5-year update. Clinical Chemistry 49(4):624–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. McIlraith, S.A., D. Plexousakis, and F. van Harmelen eds. 2004. The semantic web – ISWC 2004: Proceedings of the Third International Semantic Web Conference, Hiroshima, Japan, 7–11 Nov 2004, LNCS 3298. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Mosses, P.D. ed. 2004. CASL reference manual: The complete documentation of the common algebraic specification language. LNCS 2960. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  81. Mossakowski, T. 2005. Heterogeneous specification and the heterogeneous tool set. Habilitation Thesis. University of Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
  82. Noy, N.F. 2004. Semantic integration: a survey of ontology-based approaches. SIGMOD Record 33(4):65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Obrst, L. 2010. Ontological architectures In TAO – Theory and applications of ontology, eds. M. Healy, A. Kameas, and R. Poli, Vol. 2: The information science stance. Part 1, ch. 2. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  84. Pack Kaelbling, L., and A. Saffiotti eds. 2005. Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), Edinburgh, Scotland, 30 Jul–5 Aug 2005. Denver, CO: Professional Book Center.Google Scholar
  85. Pan, Z., A. Qasem, and J. Heflin. 2006. An investigation into the feasibility of the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2006) and the 18th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (IAAI 2006), Boston, MA, 16–20 July 2006, 1394–1399. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  86. Parsia, B., U. Sattler, and D. Toman eds. 2006. Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2006), Lake District, UK, 30 May–1 Jun 2006, CEUR 189. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
  87. Ponomaryov, D. 2006. Formal knowledge representation and the decomposability problem. Technical Report 135 (translated version), Institute of Informatics Systems, Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia.Google Scholar
  88. Ponomaryov, D. 2006. Semantic web basics in logical consideration. In eds. P. Hitzler, and Y. Sure, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Applications of Semantic Technologies (AST 2006), Dresden, Germany, 6 Oct 2006.Google Scholar
  89. Ponomaryov, D. 2007. Generalized decomposability notions for first-order theories. Bulletin of the Novosibirsk Computing Center 26:103–110.Google Scholar
  90. Ponomaryov, D. 2008. A decomposability criterion for elementary theories. Siberian Mathematical Journal 49(1):152–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Priss, U. 2000. Faceted knowledge representation. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 4(Section C):21–33.Google Scholar
  92. Ranganathan, S.R. 1962. Elements of library classification. 3rd ed. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.Google Scholar
  93. Ranganathan, S.R. 1967. Prolegomena of library classification. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.Google Scholar
  94. Rector, A.L., S. Bechhofer, C.A. Goble, I. Horrocks, W.A. Nowlan, and W.D. Solomon. 1996. The GRAIL concept modelling language for medical terminology. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 9(2):139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rector, A.L. 1999. Clinical terminology: why is it so hard? Methods of Information in Medicine 38(4/5):239–252.Google Scholar
  96. Rector, A.L. 2003. Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including OWL. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2003), Sanibel Island, FL, 23–25 Oct 2003, eds. J. Gennari, B. Porter, and Y. Gil, 121–128. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  97. Rector, A.L., and J. Rogers. 2005. Ontological & practical issues in using a description logic to represent medical concepts: experience from GALEN. Preprint Series CSPP-35, School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  98. Rogers, J., A. Roberts, D. Solomon, E. van der Haring, C. Wroe, P. Zanstra, and A.L. Rector. 2001. GALEN ten years on: Tasks and supporting tools. In MedInfo 2001: Towards Global Health: The Informatics Route to Knowledge. Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress on Health and Medical Informatics of the International Medical Informatics Association, London, 2–5 Sep 2001. Vol. 84 of Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, eds. V. Patel, R. Rogers, and R. Haux, 256–260. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  99. Rossi Mori, A. 1997. A second generation of terminological systems is coming. In Proceedings of the 13th Medical Informatics Europe (MIE 1997), Porto Carras, Greece, 25–29 May 1997. Vol. 43 of Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, ed. C. Pappas, 436–440. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  100. Sacco, G.M. 2000. Dynamic taxonomies: A model for large information bases. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 12(3):468–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sacco, G.M. 2006. Some research results in dynamic taxonomy and faceted search systems. In eds. A.Z. Broder, and Y.S. Maarek, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Faceted Search held at SIGIR 2006, Seattle, WA, 10 Aug.Google Scholar
  102. Sattler, U. and A. Tamilin eds. 2008. Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontologies: Reasoning and Modularity (WORM 2008), Tenerife, Spain, 2 Jun. CEUR 348. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
  103. Seidenberg, J., and A. Rector. 2006. Web ontology segmentation: Analysis, classification and use. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2006), Edinburgh, Scotland, 23–26 May 2006, eds. L. Carr, D. De Roure, A. Iyengar, C. Goble, and M. Dahlin, 13–22. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  104. Serafini, L., and P. Bouquet. 2004. Comparing formal theories of context in AI. Artificial Intelligence 155(1–2):41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Serafini, L., A. Borgida, and A. Tamilin. 2005. Aspects of Distributed and Modular Ontology Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), Edinburgh, 570–575.Google Scholar
  106. Sowa, J.F. 2000. Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical and computational foundations. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  107. Spackman, K.A., and K.E. Campbell. 1998. Compositional concept representation using SNOMED: Towards further convergence of clinical terminologies. In A paradigm shift in health care information systems: Clinical infrastructures for the 21st century, Proceedings of the 1998 AMIA Annual Symposium, Orlando, FL, 7–11 Nov 1998, ed. C.G. Chute, 740–744. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley and Belfus.Google Scholar
  108. Spackman, K.A. 2001. Normal forms for description logic expressions of clinical concepts in SNOMED RT. In A medical informatics odyssey: Visions of the future and lessons from the past, Proceedings of the 25th AMIA Annual Symposium 2001, Washington, DC, 3–7 Nov 2001, ed. S. Bakken, 627–631. Bethesda, MD: American Medical Informatics Association.Google Scholar
  109. Specia, L., and E. Motta. 2007. Integrating folksonomies with the semantic web. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2007), Innsbruck, Austria, 3–7 Jun 2007, LNCS 4519, eds. E. Franconi, M. Kifer, and W. May, 624–639. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  110. Spiteri, L. 1998. A simplified model for facet analysis: Ranganathan 101. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 23(1–2):1–30.Google Scholar
  111. Straub, H.R. 2002. Four different types of classification models. In Knowledge media in healthcare: Opportunities and challenges, ed. R. Grütter, 57–82. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  112. Stuckenschmidt, H., and M. Klein. 2003. Modularization of ontologies. Deliverable D21, IST Project 2001–33052 Wonderweb, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  113. Stuckenschmidt, H., and M. Klein. 2004. Structure-based partitioning of large concept hierarchies. In Proceedings of the Third International Semantic Web Conference, Hiroshima, Japan, 7–11 Nov 2004, LNCS 3298, 289–303. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  114. Symons, J. 2010. Levels of reality In TAO – Theory and applications of ontology, eds. R. Poli, J. Seibt, and J. Symons, Vol. 1: The philosophical stance. Part 1, ch. 6.Google Scholar
  115. Veloso, M.M. ed. 2007. Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), Hyderabad, India, 6–12 Jan, 2007. Menlo Park, CA: IJCAI.Google Scholar
  116. W3C. 2004a. Resource description framework (RDF) and RDF schema (RDFS) specifications. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). http://www.w3.org/RDF/
  117. W3C. 2004b. Web ontology language (OWL) specifications. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/
  118. Wang, Y., J. Bao, P. Haase, and G. Qi. 2007. Evaluating formalisms for modular ontologies in distributed information systems. In Web reasoning and rule systems, Proceedings of the First International Conference (RR 2007), Innsbruck, Austria, 7–8 Jun 2007, LNCS 4524, eds. M. Marchiori, J.Z. Pan, C. de Sainte Marie, 178–193. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  119. WHO. 2004. History of the development of the ICD. World Health Organization (WHO). http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/HistoryOfICD.pdf
  120. Wright, S.E., G. Budin eds. 1997. Handbook of terminology management. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations