Reasoning and change management in modular ontologies

Stuckenschmidt, Heiner; Klein, Michel

doi:10.1016/j.datak.2007.02.001

Cited by 56 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They tackle inconsistency detection caused by already identified changes and in case of an inconsistency, additional changes are generated to result again in a consistent ontology. In [9] and [21], OWL reasoning on modular ontologies is considered in order to tackle the problem of consistency on mappings between ontologies. While the focus in [21] is on reasoning for consistency of ontology mappings and different from our work, in [9] the problem of consistency management for ontology modules is considered.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [9] and [21], OWL reasoning on modular ontologies is considered in order to tackle the problem of consistency on mappings between ontologies. While the focus in [21] is on reasoning for consistency of ontology mappings and different from our work, in [9] the problem of consistency management for ontology modules is considered. The ontology modules are connected by conjunctive queries instead of merging based on syntactic matching as in our work.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A structural comparison using matching algorithms is considered in [7]. More related to our research is the work on version reasoning for ontologies in [8,9]. However, their focus is on integrity checking, entailment propagation between versions and consistency checking of ontology mappings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Semantic Recognition of Ontology Refactoring

Gröner¹,

Parreiras²,

Staab³

2010

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Ontologies are used for sharing information and are often collaboratively developed. They are adapted for different applications and domains resulting in multiple versions of an ontology that are caused by changes and refactorings. Quite often, ontology versions (or parts of them) are syntactical very different but semantically equivalent. While there is existing work on detecting syntactical and structural changes in ontologies, there is still a need in analyzing and recognizing ontology changes and refactorings by a semantically comparison of ontology versions. In our approach, we start with a classification of model refactorings found in software engineering for identifying such refactorings in OWL ontologies using DL reasoning to recognize these refactorings.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semantic Recognition of Ontology Refactoring

Gröner¹,

Parreiras²,

Staab³

2010

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, as more ontologies become available, the advantages of reusing existing ontologies become more apparent. In order to make reuse and sharing easier, ontologies should be designed as mostly independent and self-contained modules (6) (7). Intuitively, a module should contain information about a selfcontained subtopic, i.e., an application domain that can largely stand for itself.…”

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining OWL ontologies usingE-Connections

Grau

Parsia

Sirin

2006

Journal of Web Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standardization of the Web Ontology Language, OWL, leaves (at least) two crucial issues for Web-based ontologies unsatisfactorily resolved, namely how to represent and reason with multiple distinct, but linked ontologies, and how to enable effective knowledge reuse and sharing on the Semantic Web.In this paper, we present a solution for these fundamental problems based on EConnections. We aim to use E-Connections to provide modelers with suitable means for developing Web ontologies in a modular way and to provide an alternative to the owl:imports construct.With such motivation, we present in this paper a syntactic and semantic extension of the Web Ontology language that covers E-Connections of OWL-DL ontologies. We show how to use such an extension as an alternative to the owl:imports construct in many modeling situations. We investigate different combinations of the logics SHIN (D), SHON (D) and SHIO(D) for which it is possible to design and implement reasoning algorithms, well-suited for optimization.Finally, we provide support for E-Connections in both an ontology editor, SWOOP, and an OWL reasoner, Pellet. Key words: Web Ontology Language, Integration and Combination of Ontologies, Combination of Knowledge Representation Formalisms, Description Logics reasoningEmail addresses: bernardo@mindlab.umd.edu (Bernardo Cuenca Grau), bparsia@isr.umd.edu (Bijan Parsia), evren@cs.umd.edu (Evren Sirin). Preprint submitted to Elsevier Science 22 August 2005 MotivationThe Semantic Web architecture has been envisioned as a set of new languages that are being standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Among these languages, the Web Ontology Language (OWL) plays a prominent role, and Description Logics have deeply influenced its design and standardization (1)(2). Two of the three variants, or dialects, of OWL, namely OWL-Lite and OWL-DL, correspond to the logics SHIF(D) and SHOIN (D), respectively (2) (3) (4).The acceptance of OWL as a Web standard will yield to the rapid proliferation of DL ontologies on the Web and it is envisioned that, in the near future, the Semantic Web will contain a large number of independently developed ontologies.However, the standardization of OWL also leaves (at least) two crucial issues for Web-based ontologies unsatisfactorily resolved, namely how to represent and reason with multiple distinct, but linked ontologies, and how to enable effective knowledge reuse and sharing on the Semantic Web.First, in order to provide support for integrating Web ontologies, OWL defines the owl:imports construct, which allows to include by reference in a knowledge base the axioms contained in another ontology, published somewhere on the Web and identified by a global name (a URI). However, the functionality provided by this construct is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons (5):• The only way that the owl:imports construct provides for using concepts from a different ontology is to bring into the original ontology all the axioms of the imported one. Therefore, the only difference between ...

show abstract

“…, , Noy et al (2006), Oliver et al (1999), Stojanovic (2004), , , Stuckenschmidt and Klein (2003) Generic…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey

Zablith

Antoniou

d’Aquin

et al. 2013

The Knowledge Engineering Review

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ontology evolution aims at maintaining an ontology up to date with respect to changes in the domain that it models or novel requirements of information systems that it enables. The recent industrial adoption of Semantic Web techniques, which rely on ontologies, has led to the increased importance of the ontology evolution research. Typical approaches to ontology evolution are designed as multiple-stage processes combining techniques from a variety of fields (e.g., natural language processing and reasoning). However, the few existing surveys on this topic lack an in-depth analysis of the various stages of the ontology evolution process. This survey extends the literature by adopting a process-centric view of ontology evolution. Accordingly, we first provide an overall process model synthesized from an overview of the existing models in the literature. Then we survey the major approaches to each of the steps in this process and conclude on future challenges for techniques aiming to solve that particular stage.

show abstract

Reasoning and change management in modular ontologies

Cited by 56 publications

References 28 publications

Semantic Recognition of Ontology Refactoring

Semantic Recognition of Ontology Refactoring

Combining OWL ontologies usingE-Connections

Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About