Advertisement

Lightweight Ontologies

  • John Davies
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the notion of lightweight ontologies. First defining what we mean by ontology in our sense, we proceed to relate ontology to other related knowledge organisation structures, formal and less formal. We then consider the notion of lightweight ontology, principally based on the expressivity of the ontology description, rather than other possible aspects such as scope, depth or computational tractability, though as we discuss, these other aspects are not entirely unrelated. We then look at ontologies and the semantic web, the emergence of which over the past 10–15 years has seen increased interest in ontologies and associated topics. We proceed to examine 3 key areas where ontologies are being used in IT systems today and briefly discuss the centrality of ontologies and semantic technology to computer science in the future.

Keywords

Description Logic Service Orient Architecture Business Process Execution Language Semantic Technology Enterprise Application Integration 
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

Acknowledgments

Céline van Damme is thanked for insightful discussions about folksonomies and informal ontolgoies in the enterprise. Section 9.4 is based partly on Warren and Davies (2007), while Section 9.6 is based partly on Davies et al. (2006).

References

  1. Alonso, O. 2006. Building semantic-based applications using Oracle. Developer’s Track at WWW2006, Edinburgh. http://www2006.org/programme/item.php?id=d16. Accessed May 2006.
  2. Assem, M., V. Malaise, A. Miles, and G. Schreiber. 2006. A method to convert thesauri to SKOS. In Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference 2006 (ESWC 2006), Budva, Montenegro. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Baader, F., D. Calvanese, D. McGuiness, D. Nardi, and P. Patel-Schneider. 2003. The description logic handbook. Cambridge, UK: Camridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beckett, D. 2004. RDF/XML syntax specification (revised). http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/.
  5. Berners-Lee, T. 1999. Weaving the web. London: Orion Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bontcheva, K., J. Davies, A. Duke, T. Glover, N. Kings, and I. Thurlow. 2006. Semantic information access. In Semantic web technologies: Trends and research in ontology-based systems, eds. J. Davies, R. Studer, and P. Warren, Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Brickley, D., and Guha, R.V, eds. 2000. Resource description framework (RDF) schemas, W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/.
  8. Bernstein, A., E. Kaufmann, A. Goehring, and C. Kiefer. 2005. Querying ontologies: A controlled english interface for end-users, Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC2005, Galway, Ireland, November 2005. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Borst, P., and H. Akkermans. 1997. Engineering ontologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46:365–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chinchor, N., and P. Robinson. 1998. MUC-7 named entity task definition (version 3.5). In Proceedings of the 7th Message Understanding Conference (MUC-7), Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
  11. Cunningham, H. 2000. Software architecture for language engineering. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  12. Cunningham, H. 1999. Information extraction: A user guide (revised version). Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, May 1999.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, J., D. Fensel, and F. van Harmelen. 2003. Towards the semantic web. Chicester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Davies, J., R. Weeks, and U. Krohn. 2003. QuizRDF: Search technology for the semantic web. In Towards the semantic web, eds. J. Davies, D. Fensel, and F. van Harmelen. Chicester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, J., R. Studer, Y. Sure, and P. Warren. 2005. Next generation knowledge management. BT Technology Journal 23(3):175–190, July 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies, J., R. Studer, and P. Warren. 2006. Semantic web technology: Trends & research. Chicester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies, J., et al. 2007. NESSI semantic technologies working group research roadmap 2007–2010 Version 1.2. http://www.nessi-europe.com/Nessi/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Ja5zTnzK4%2fM%3d&tabid=241&mid=694. Accessed 10th June 2007.
  18. DCMI Usage Board. 2005. DCMI metadata terms. http://dublincore.org/documents/2005/06/13/dcmi-terms/.
  19. Dean, M., and G. Schreiber, eds.; Bechhofer, S., F. van Harmelen, J. Hendler, I. Horrocks, D.L. McGuinness, P.F. Patel-Schneider, and L.A. Stein, 2004. OWL web ontology language reference. W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/. Accessed 10 February 2004.
  20. Domingue, J., M. Dzbor, and E. Motta. 2004. Collaborative semantic web browsing with magpie. In The semantic web: Research and applications, Proceedings of ESWS, 2004, LNCS 3053, eds. J. Davies, C. Bussler, D. Fensel, and R. Studer, 388–401. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Dumais, S., E. Cutrell, J. Cadiz, G. Jancke, R. Sarin, and D. Robbins. 2003. Stuff I’ve Seen: A system for personal information retrieval and re-use. In Proceedings of SIGIR’03, Toronto. New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dill, S., N. Eiron, D. Gibson, D. Gruhl, R. Guha, A. Jhingran, T. Kanungo, K.S. McCurley, S. Rajagopalan, A. Tomkins, J.A. Tomlin, and J.Y. Zienberer. 2003. A case for automated large scale semantic annotation. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1):115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ding, L., T. Finin, A. Joshi, R. Pan, R.S. Cost, Y. Peng, P. Reddivari, V. Doshi, and J. Sachs. 2004. Swoogle: A search and metadata engine for the semantic web, Conference on Information and Knowledge Management CIKM04, Washington, DC, November 2004.Google Scholar
  24. Ehrig, M., P. Haase, M. Hefke, and N. Stojanovic. 2005. Similarity for ontologies – A comprehensive framework. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, May 2005.Google Scholar
  25. Fensel, D., and F. van Harmelen. 2007. Unifying reasoning and search to web scale. IEEE Internet Computing 11(2):94–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fensel, D., and M. Musen. 2001. The semantic web: A brain for humankind. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2):24–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giunchiglia, F., M. Marchese, and I. Zaihrayeu. 2005. Encoding classification into lightweight ontologies. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference ESWC05, Heraklion, Crete, May 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Glaser, H., H. Alani, L. Carr, S. Chapman, F. Ciravegna, A. Dingli, N. Gibbins, S. Harris, M.C. Schraefel, and N. Shadbolt. 2004. CS AKTiveSpace: Building a semantic web application. In The semantic web: Research and applications, Proceedings of ESWS, 2004, LNCS 3053, eds. J. Davies, C. Bussler, D. Fensel, and R. Studer, 388–401. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Grishman, R. 1997. TIPSTER architecture design document version 2.3. Technical report, DARPA. http://www.itl.nist.gov/iaui/894.02/related_projects/tipster/.
  30. Gruber, T.R. 1992. A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2):199–220. http://ksl-web.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-92-71.html. Accessed 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gruber, T.R. 1993. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In International Workshop on Formal Ontology, Padova, Italy, eds. N. Guarino and R. Poli. http://ksl-web.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-93-04.html.Google Scholar
  32. Guarino, N., and P. Giaretta. 1995. Ontologies and knowledge bases: Towards a terminological clarification. In Towards very large knowledge bases: Knowledge building and knowledge sharing, ed. N. Mars, 25–32. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  33. Guarino, N. 1998. Formal ontology in information systems. In Proceedings of FOIS’98, Trento, Italy, 6–8 June 1998, ed. N. Guarino, 3–15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  34. Guha, R., and R. McCool. 2003. Tap: A semantic web platform. Computer Networks 42:557–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guha, R., R. McCool, and E. Miller. 2003. Semantic search. In WWW2003, Budapest, Hungary, 20–24 May 2003.Google Scholar
  36. Iosif, V., P. Mika, R. Larsson, and H. Akkermans. 2003. Field experimenting with semantic web tools in a virtual organisation. In Towards the semantic web, eds. J. Davies, D. Fensel, and F. van Harmelen. Chicester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Jansen, B.J., A. Spink, and T. Saracevic. 2000. Real life, real users, and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the web. Information Processing and Management 36(2):207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiryakov, A. 2006. Ontologies for knowledge management. In Semantic web technologies: Trends and research in ontology-based systems, Chapter 7, eds. J. Davies, R. Studer, and P. Warren. Chicester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Kiryakov A., and K.Iv. Simov. 1999. Ontologically supported semantic matching. In Proceedings of the “NODALIDA’99: Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics”, Trondheim, 9–10 Dec 1999.Google Scholar
  40. Kiryakov, A., B. Popov, D. Ognyanov, D. Manov, A. Kirilov, and M. Goranov. 2004. Semantic annotation, indexing, and retrieval. Elsevier’s Journal of Web Semantics 1, ISWC2003 special issue (2). http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/.
  41. Kiryakov, A., D. Ognyanov, and D. Manov. 2005. OWLIM – A pragmatic semantic repository for OWL. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems (SSWS 2005), WISE, 20 Nov 2005, New York City.Google Scholar
  42. Klyne, G., and J.J. Carroll. 2004. Resource description framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax. W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/. Accessed 10 Feb 2004.
  43. Landauer T., and S. Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104(2):211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCarthy, J. 1980. Circumscription – A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13:27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mahesh, K., J. Kud, and P. Dixon. 1999. Oracle at TREC8: A lexical approach. In Proceedings of the 8th Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-8) Gaithersburg, Maryland.Google Scholar
  46. Mangold, C. 2007. A survey and classification of semantic search approaches. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 2(1):23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McDermott, D. (1978). Tarskian semantics, or no notation without denotation! Cognitive Science 2:277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miles, A., and D. Brickley, eds. 2005. SKOS core guide. WorldWideWeb consortium. Latest version. http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide.
  49. Pollock, J., and R. Hodgson. 2004. Adaptive information: Improving business through semantic interoperability, grid computing, and enterprise integration. Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  50. Popov, B., A. Kiryakov, A. Kirilov, D. Manov, D. Ognyanoff, and M. Goranov. 2003. KIM – Semantic annotation platform. In Proceedings of 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003), Florida, 20–23 Oct 2003, LNAI Vol. 2870, 834–849. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Rocha, C., D. Schwabe, M.P., and de Aragao. 2004. A hybrid approach for searching in the semantic web. WWW 2004, New York, 17–22 May 2004.Google Scholar
  52. Salton, G., A. Wong, and C.S. Yang. 1997. A vector space model for automatic indexing. In Readings in information retrieval, eds. K. Sparck-Jones, and P. Willett. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan-Kaufman.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, B. 2003. Ontology. In Blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing and information, ed. L. Floridi, 155–166. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, B., and C. Welty. 2001. Ontology: Towards a new synthesis. In Proceedings of the FOIS’01, Ogunquit, ME.Google Scholar
  55. Sparck-Jones, K., and P. Willett. 1997. Readings in information retrieval. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan-Kaufman.Google Scholar
  56. Spark Jones, K. 2004. What’s new about the semantic web? Some questions. SIGIR Forum 38(2). http://www.sigir.org/forum/2004D-TOC.html. Accessed Dec 2004.
  57. Specia, L., and E. Motta. 2007. Integrating folksonomies with the semantic web. In Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference 2007 (ESWC 2007), Innsbruck, Austria. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Terziev, I., A. Kiryakov, and D. Manov. 2004. D1.8.1. Base upper-level ontology (BULO) guidance, report EU-IST integrated project (IP) IST-2003-506826 (SEKT). http://proton.semanticweb.org/D1_8_1.pdf.
  59. Vallet, D., M. Fernandez, and P. Castells. 2005. An ontology-based information retrieval model. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC2005, Heraklion, Crete, May/June 2005, LNCS 3532/2005, eds. A. Gómez-Pérez, and J. Euzenat. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. van Damme, C., M. Hepp, and K. Siorpaes. 2007. FolksOntology: An integrated approach for turning folksonomies into ontologies. Bridging the Gap Between Semantic Web and Web 2.0 Workshop, 4th European Semantic Web Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, June 2007.Google Scholar
  61. van Damme, C., T. Cornen, and E. Vandijck. 2008. Turning a corporate folksonomy into a lightweight corporate ontology. 11th International Business Information Systems Conference, BIS 2008, Innsbruck, Austria, May 2008. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. van Ossenbruggen, J., L. Hardman, and L. Rutledge. 2002. Hypermedia and the semantic web: A research agenda. Journal of Digital Information 3(1), May 2002.Google Scholar
  63. Vitvar, T., M. Zaremba, M. Moran, and D. Fensel. 2007. SESA: Emerging technology for service-centric environments. IEEE Software 24(6):56–67, Nov/Dec 2007.Google Scholar
  64. Voorhees, E. 1998. Using WordNet for text retrieval. In WordNet: An electronic lexical database, ed. C. Fellbaum. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Warren, P., and J. Davies. 2007. Managing the risks from information through semantic information management. BT Technology Journal 25(1):178–191, Jan 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. W3C Member Submission. 2004. OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/.

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BT Innovate, British Telecommunications plcLondonUK

Personalised recommendations