scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Proceedings Article

Ontology Mapping: The State of the Art

TL;DR: This article comprehensively reviews and provides insights on the pragmatics of ontology mapping and elaborate on a theoretical approach for defining ontology mapped.
Abstract: Ontology mapping is seen as a solution provider in today's landscape of ontology research. As the number of ontologies that are made publicly available and accessible on the Web increases steadily, so does the need for applications to use them. A single ontology is no longer enough to support the tasks envisaged by a distributed environment like the Semantic Web. Multiple ontologies need to be accessed from several applications. Mapping could provide a common layer from which several ontologies could be accessed and hence could exchange information in semantically sound manners. Developing such mapping has beeb the focus of a variety of works originating from diverse communities over a number of years. In this article we comprehensively review and present these works. We also provide insights on the pragmatics of ontology mapping and elaborate on a theoretical approach for defining ontology mapping.
Citations
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: This paper presents a new classification of schema-based matching techniques that builds on the top of state of the art in both schema and ontology matching and distinguishes between approximate and exact techniques at schema-level; and syntactic, semantic, and external techniques at element- and structure-level.
Abstract: Schema and ontology matching is a critical problem in many application domains, such as semantic web, schema/ontology integration, data warehouses, e-commerce, etc. Many different matching solutions have been proposed so far. In this paper we present a new classification of schema-based matching techniques that builds on the top of state of the art in both schema and ontology matching. Some innovations are in introducing new criteria which are based on (i) general properties of matching techniques, (ii) interpretation of input information, and (iii) the kind of input information. In particular, we distinguish between approximate and exact techniques at schema-level; and syntactic, semantic, and external techniques at element- and structure-level. Based on the classification proposed we overview some of the recent schema/ontology matching systems pointing which part of the solution space they cover. The proposed classification provides a common conceptual basis, and, hence, can be used for comparing different existing schema/ontology matching techniques and systems as well as for designing new ones, taking advantages of state of the art solutions.

1,285 citations


Cites background from "Ontology Mapping: The State of the ..."

  • ...The survey of [39] focuses on current state of the art in ontology matching....

    [...]

  • ...Good surveys through the recent years are provided in [39, 62, 75]; while the major contributions of the last decades are presented in [3, 41, 42, 66]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is conjecture that significant improvements can be obtained only by addressing important challenges for ontology matching and presents such challenges with insights on how to approach them, thereby aiming to direct research into the most promising tracks and to facilitate the progress of the field.
Abstract: After years of research on ontology matching, it is reasonable to consider several questions: is the field of ontology matching still making progress? Is this progress significant enough to pursue further research? If so, what are the particularly promising directions? To answer these questions, we review the state of the art of ontology matching and analyze the results of recent ontology matching evaluations. These results show a measurable improvement in the field, the speed of which is albeit slowing down. We conjecture that significant improvements can be obtained only by addressing important challenges for ontology matching. We present such challenges with insights on how to approach them, thereby aiming to direct research into the most promising tracks and to facilitate the progress of the field.

1,215 citations


Cites methods from "Ontology Mapping: The State of the ..."

  • ...In order to illustrate the matching problem let us use the two simple ontologies, O1 and O2, of Figure 1....

    [...]

  • ...F...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Dec 2004
TL;DR: The goal of the paper is to provide a reader who may not be very familiar with ontology research with introduction to major themes in this research and with pointers to different research projects.
Abstract: Semantic integration is an active area of research in several disciplines, such as databases, information-integration, and ontologies. This paper provides a brief survey of the approaches to semantic integration developed by researchers in the ontology community. We focus on the approaches that differentiate the ontology research from other related areas. The goal of the paper is to provide a reader who may not be very familiar with ontology research with introduction to major themes in this research and with pointers to different research projects. We discuss techniques for finding correspondences between ontologies, declarative ways of representing these correspondences, and use of these correspondences in various semantic-integration tasks

1,142 citations


Cites background or methods from "Ontology Mapping: The State of the ..."

  • ...[14] Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer....

    [...]

  • ...Please see a paper by Kalfoglou and Schorlem­mer [15] for a comprehensive review....

    [...]

  • ...The normalization process therefore often precedes ontology-matching [15] and translates source ontologies to the same language, resolving these differences....

    [...]

  • ...Hence, the task of finding mappings (semi-) automatically has been an active area of research in both database and ontology communities [22, 15]....

    [...]

  • ...[15] Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer....

    [...]

Proceedings ArticleDOI
14 Jun 2005
TL;DR: Different match strategies can be applied including various forms of reusing previously determined match results and a so-called fragment-based match approach which decomposes a large match problem into smaller problems.
Abstract: We demonstrate the schema and ontology matching tool COMA++. It extends our previous prototype COMA utilizing a composite approach to combine different match algorithms [3]. COMA++ implements significant improvements and offers a comprehensive infrastructure to solve large real-world match problems. It comes with a graphical interface enabling a variety of user interactions. Using a generic data representation, COMA++ uniformly supports schemas and ontologies, e.g. the powerful standard languages W3C XML Schema and OWL. COMA++ includes new approaches for ontology matching, in particular the utilization of shared taxonomies. Furthermore, different match strategies can be applied including various forms of reusing previously determined match results and a so-called fragment-based match approach which decomposes a large match problem into smaller problems. Finally, COMA++ cannot only be used to solve match problems but also to comparatively evaluate the effectiveness of different match algorithms and strategies.

683 citations


Cites methods from "Ontology Mapping: The State of the ..."

  • ...To reduce the manual effort required, many techniques and prototypes have been developed to semi-automatically solve the match problem [6], [11]....

    [...]

01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: The Web Service Semantics technical note defines a mechanism to associate semantic annotations with Web services that are described using Web Service Description Language (WSDL), and externalizes the semantic domain models to take an agnostic approach to ontology representation languages.
Abstract: The current WSDL standard operates at the syntactic level and lacks the semantic expressivity needed to represent the requirements and capabilities of Web Services. Semantics can improve software reuse and discovery, significantly facilitate composition of Web services and enable integrating legacy applications as part of business process integration. The Web Service Semantics technical note defines a mechanism to associate semantic annotations with Web services that are described using Web Service Description Language (WSDL). It is conceptually based on, but a significant refinement in details of, the original WSDL-S proposal [WSDL-S] from the LSDIS laboratory at the University of Georgia. In this proposal, we assume that formal semantic models relevant to the services already exist. In our approach, these models are maintained outside of WSDL documents and are referenced from the WSDL document via WSDL extensibility elements. The type of semantic information that would be useful in describing a Web Service encompass the concepts defined by the semantic Web community in OWL-S [OWL-S] and other efforts [METEOR-S, WSMO]. The semantic information specified in this document includes definitions of the precondition, input, output and effects of Web service operations. This approach offers multiple advantages over OWL-S. First, users can describe, in an upwardly compatible way, both the semantics and operation level details in WSDLa language that the developer community is familiar with. Secondly, by externalizing the semantic domain models, we take an agnostic approach to ontology representation languages. This allows Web service developers to annotate their Web services with their choice of ontology language (such as UML or OWL) unlike in OWL-S. This is significant because the ability to reuse existing domain models expressed in modeling languages like UML can greatly alleviate the need to separately model semantics. Finally, it is relatively easy to update the existing tooling around WSDL specification to accommodate our incremental approach. Status This is a technical note provided for discussion purposes and to elicit feedback on approaches to adding semantics to Web services descriptions. Table of

609 citations

References
More filters
Book
04 Dec 1998
TL;DR: This is the first textbook on formal concept analysis that gives a systematic presentation of the mathematical foundations and their relation to applications in computer science, especially in data analysis and knowledge processing.
Abstract: From the Publisher: This is the first textbook on formal concept analysis. It gives a systematic presentation of the mathematical foundations and their relation to applications in computer science, especially in data analysis and knowledge processing. Above all, it presents graphical methods for representing conceptual systems that have proved themselves in communicating knowledge. Theory and graphical representation are thus closely coupled together. The mathematical foundations are treated thoroughly and illuminated by means of numerous examples.

4,757 citations


"Ontology Mapping: The State of the ..." refers background or methods in this paper

  • ...It is based on Ganter and Wille’s work on formal concept analysis (Ganter & Wille, 1999) and lattice exploration....

    [...]

  • ...…Stumme and Maedche’s ontology merging methodology FCA-Merge (see Section 3.2) is not exactly an “IF-based” approach, it is nevertheless closely related to these approaches by virtue that formal concept analysis (Ganter & Wille, 1999) shares with channel theory the same mathematical foundations....

    [...]

  • ...This task cannot be automated, and hence we may need to depend on heuristics to identify a small number of attribute pairs that may be potentially related by a relationship other than is_disjoint_with....

    [...]

  • ...It is also difficult to decouple the heterogeneity due to differences in DBMSs from those resulting from semantic heterogeneity....

    [...]

  • ...Priss suggests that techniques from formal concept analysis (Ganter & Wille, 1999) could be used to provide formal representations of context and concepts of a consensual sign triad....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Dec 2001
TL;DR: A taxonomy is presented that distinguishes between schema-level and instance-level, element- level and structure- level, and language-based and constraint-based matchers and is intended to be useful when comparing different approaches to schema matching, when developing a new match algorithm, and when implementing a schema matching component.
Abstract: Schema matching is a basic problem in many database application domains, such as data integration, E-business, data warehousing, and semantic query processing. In current implementations, schema matching is typically performed manually, which has significant limitations. On the other hand, previous research papers have proposed many techniques to achieve a partial automation of the match operation for specific application domains. We present a taxonomy that covers many of these existing approaches, and we describe the approaches in some detail. In particular, we distinguish between schema-level and instance-level, element-level and structure-level, and language-based and constraint-based matchers. Based on our classification we review some previous match implementations thereby indicating which part of the solution space they cover. We intend our taxonomy and review of past work to be useful when comparing different approaches to schema matching, when developing a new match algorithm, and when implementing a schema matching component.

3,693 citations


"Ontology Mapping: The State of the ..." refers background or methods in this paper

  • ... Rahm and Bernstein (2001) present a survey on approaches to automatic database schema matching....

    [...]

  • ...In Section 3.8 we reported on the work of Rahm and Bernstein (2001) on database schema matching, and the survey of Sheth and Larson (1990) on federated databases....

    [...]

  • ...…a number of different communities: Pinto et al. (1999) elaborate and compare issues for ontology integration, Visser et al. (1998) identify a typology of ontology mismatches, Rahm and Bernstein (2001) report on database schema matching, and Sheth and Larson (1990) survey federated database systems....

    [...]

  • ...The following surveys originate from a number of different communities: Pinto et al. (1999) elaborate and compare issues for ontology integration, Visser et al. (1998) identify a typology of ontology mismatches, Rahm and Bernstein (2001) report on database schema matching, and Sheth and...

    [...]

  • ...Rahm and Bernstein (2001) present a survey on approaches to automatic database schema matching....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
Amit P. Sheth, James A. Larson1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors define a reference architecture for distributed database management systems from system and schema viewpoints and show how various FDBS architectures can be developed, and define a methodology for developing one of the popular architectures of an FDBS.
Abstract: A federated database system (FDBS) is a collection of cooperating database systems that are autonomous and possibly heterogeneous. In this paper, we define a reference architecture for distributed database management systems from system and schema viewpoints and show how various FDBS architectures can be developed. We then define a methodology for developing one of the popular architectures of an FDBS. Finally, we discuss critical issues related to developing and operating an FDBS.

2,376 citations

Book
01 Jan 1972
TL;DR: A comparison of first- and second-order logic in the case of SETs shows that the former is more likely to be correct and the latter is less likely.
Abstract: USEFUL FACTS ABOUT SETS. SENTENTIAL LOGIC. FIRST-ORDER LOGIC. UNDECIDABILITY. SECOND-ORDER LOGIC.

2,216 citations


"Ontology Mapping: The State of the ..." refers background or methods in this paper

  • ...In an experiment of ontology reuse (Uschold et al., 1998), researchers working at Boeing were investigating the potential of using an existing ontology for the purpose of specifying and formally developing software for aircraft design....

    [...]

  • ...If this is not the case, one may still establish weak translation, where a partial (or strong) translation can be defined after one foundational theory is interpreted into the other (in the usual sense of a theory interpretation; see, for instance, Enderton (2001))....

    [...]

  • ...There could be simple semantic bridges, like attribute bridges which are one-to-one correspondences of attributes, like the o1:Individual:name and o2:Individual:name, as well as complex bridges which take into account structural information....

    [...]

  • ...…ontology is specified as a logical theory and that the several participating community ontologies extend the common generic ontology according to theory interpretations (in its traditional sense as consequence-preserving mappings; see Enderton (2001)), and consists of the following steps: 1....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: FCA explicitly formalises extension and intension of a concept, their mutual relationships, and the fact that increasing intent implies decreasing extent and vice versa, and allows to derive a concept hierarchy from a given dataset.

2,029 citations