Skip to main content

Formal and Conceptual Comparison of Ontology Mapping Languages

  • Chapter
Modular Ontologies

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 5445))

Summary

The compositional approach where several existing ontologies are connected to form a large modular ontology relies on the representation of mappings between elements in the different participating ontologies. A number of languages have been proposed for this purpose that extend existing logical languages for ontologies in a non-standard way. In this chapter, we compare different proposals for such extensions on a formal level and show that these approaches exhibit fundamental differences with respect to the assumptions underlying their semantics. In order to support application developers to select the right mapping language for a given situation, we propose a mapping metamodel that allows us to encode the formal differences on the conceptual level and facilitates the selection of an appropriate formalism on the basis of a formalism-independent specification of semantic relations between different ontologies by means of a graphical modelling language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Borgida, A.: On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics. Artificial Intelligence 82, 353–367 (1996) (research note)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. Journal of Data Semantics 1, 153–184 (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 164–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Contextualizing ontologies. Journal on Web Semantics 1(4), 325–343 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brockmans, S., Haase, P.: A Metamodel and UML Profile for Networked Ontologies – A Complete Reference. Technical report, Universität Karlsruhe (April 2006), http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/sbr/publications/ontology-metamodeling.pdf

  6. Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M.: Description logics for information integration. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS, vol. 2408, pp. 41–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M.: A framework for ontology integration. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Euzenat, J., McGuinness, D. (eds.) The Emerging Semantic Web, pp. 201–214. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Crubézy, M., Musen, M.A.: Ontologies in support of problem solving. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 321–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Franconi, E., Tessaris, S.: Rules and queries with ontologies: a unified logical framework. In: Ohlbach, H.J., Schaffert, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3208, pp. 50–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F.: Local model semantics, or contextual reasoning = locality + compatibility. Artificial Intelligence 127(2), 221–259 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: Distributed first order logics. In: Gabbay, D.M., De Rijke, M. (eds.) Frontiers of Combining Systems 2, pp. 121–139. Research Studies Press Ltd. (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: Distributed first order logic - revised semantics. Technical report, ITC-irst (January 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grau, B.C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Working with multiple ontologies on the semantic web. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 620–634. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Haase, P., Motik, B.: A mapping system for the integration of OWL-DL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the ACM-Workshop: Interoperability of Heterogeneous Information Systems (IHIS 2005) (November 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  15. IBM, Sandpiper Software. Ontology Definition Metamodel, Fourth Revised Submission to OMG (November 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kutz, O., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: E-connections of abstract description systems. Artificial Intelligence 156(1), 1–73 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: MAFRA - a mapping framework for distributed ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2473, p. 235. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Omelayenko, B.: RDFT: A mapping meta-ontology for business integration. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web (KTSW 2002) at the 15-th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon, France, pp. 76–83 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H., Wache, H.: A formal investigation of mapping languages for terminological knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - IJCAI 2005, Edinburgh, UK (August 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stuckenschmidt, H., Uschold, M.: Representation of semantic mappings. In: Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M., Sheth, A., Staab, S., Uschold, M. (eds.) Semantic Interoperability and Integration. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Germany, vol. 04391. IBFI, Schloss Dagstuhl (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tessaris, S., Franconi, E.: Rules and queries with ontologies: a unifying logical framework. In: Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Wolter, F. (eds.) Description Logics. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 147, CEUR-WS.org. (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ullman, J.D.: Information integration using logical views. In: Afrati, F.N., Kolaitis, P.G. (eds.) ICDT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1186, pp. 19–40. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: Object Constraint Language 2.0. MITP Verlag (2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brockmans, S., Haase, P., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H. (2009). Formal and Conceptual Comparison of Ontology Mapping Languages. In: Stuckenschmidt, H., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S. (eds) Modular Ontologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5445. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01907-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01907-4_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01906-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01907-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics