Towards a Formalization of Ontology Relations in the Context of Ontology Repositories

Allocca, Carlo; d’Aquin, Mathieu; Motta, Enrico

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19032-2_12

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent work, Zablith et al (2015) have given an excellent literature review on the "ontology evolution" topic in the broad sense of this term: from ontology change/adaptation/evolution (e.g., (Noy & Musen, 2002;Klein, 2004;Plessers et al, 2007;Papavassiliou et al, 2013)) to ontology versioning (e.g., (Heflin & Hendler, 2000a;Klein & Fensel, 2001;Klein et al, 2002;Redmond et al, 2008;Allocca et al, 2009a;Grandi, 2009)).…”

Section: Related Work Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontology Versioning Driven by Instance Evolution in the τOWL Framework

Brahmia

Grandi

Zekri

et al. 2021

J. Info. Know. Mgmt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like other components of Semantic Web-based applications, ontologies are evolving over time to reflect changes in the real world. Several of these applications require keeping a full-fledged history of ontology changes so that both ontology instance versions and their corresponding ontology schema versions are maintained. Updates to an ontology instance could be non-conservative that is leading to a new ontology instance version no longer conforming to the current ontology schema version. If, for some reasons, a non-conservative update has to be executed, in spite of its consequence, it requires the production of a new ontology schema version to which the new ontology instance version is conformant so that the new ontology version produced by the update is globally consistent. In this paper, we first propose an approach that supports ontology schema changes which are triggered by non-conservative updates to ontology instances and, thus, gives rise to an ontology schema versioning driven by instance updates. Note that in an engineering perspective, such an approach can be used as an incremental ontology construction method driven by the modification of instance data, whose exact structure may not be completely known at the initial design time. After that, we apply our proposal to the already established [Formula: see text]OWL (Temporal OWL 2) framework, which allows defining and evolving temporal OWL 2 ontologies in an environment that supports temporal versioning of both ontology instances and ontology schemas, by extending it to also support the management of non-conservative updates to ontology instance versions. Last, we show the feasibility of our approach by dealing with its implementation within a new release of the [Formula: see text] OWL-Manager tool.

show abstract

Section: Related Work Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontology Versioning Driven by Instance Evolution in the τOWL Framework

Brahmia

Grandi

Zekri

et al. 2021

J. Info. Know. Mgmt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Allocca et al . (2009) present an approach for automatically detecting version relations between different ontologies, using heuristics based on the ontologies’ URIs and identifiers.…”

Section: Managing Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey

Zablith

Antoniou

d’Aquin

et al. 2013

The Knowledge Engineering Review

Self Cite

119

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

“…Capturing the metadata about 'electronic objects' has been the original motivation of the DCMI [14]. [1] has been published but never really used outside of the NeON project. It was a very formal vocabulary that described precisely and in a logical manner 32 relations between ontologies organized in a formal hierarchy.…”

Section: Analysis Of Existing Metadata Vocabularies To Describe Ontolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, section 5 concludes and discusses our proposition for community involvement. 1 In this paper, we will use the word ontology to identify the subject that is described by metadata (e.g., Movie Ontology, Human Disease Ontology, MeSH thesaurus, etc.) and the word vocabulary to identify the objects used to described ontologies (e.g., OMV, DC, DCAT, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…etc. To describe the ontologies, ontology developers use a variety of metadata vocabularies 1 ranging from general purpose metadata (e.g., DC, DCT, PROV) to dataset specific metadata (e.g., VOID, DCAT, SCHEMA). 2 However, until recently the only ontology specific metadata vocabulary was OMV [4], first published in 2005, which is found to be hardly used by the community.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New Generation Metadata Vocabulary for Ontology Description and Publication

Dutta

Toulet

Emonet

et al. 2017

Metadata and Semantic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Scientific communities are using an increasing number of ontologies and vocabularies. Currently, the problem lies in the difficulty to find and select them for a specific knowledge engineering task. Thus, there is a real need to precisely describe these ontologies with adapted metadata, but none of the existing metadata vocabularies can completely meet this need if taken independently. In this paper, we present a new version of Metadata vocabulary for Ontology Description and publication, referred as MOD 1.2 which succeeds previous work published in 2015. It has been designed by reviewing in total 23 standard existing metadata vocabularies (e.g., Dublin Core, OMV, DCAT, VoID) and selecting relevant properties for describing ontologies. Then, we studied metadata usage analytics within ontologies and ontology repositories. MOD 1.2 proposes in total 88 properties to serve both as (i) a vocabulary to be used by ontology developers to annotate and describe their ontologies, or (ii) an explicit OWL vocabulary to be used by ontology libraries to offer semantic descriptions of ontologies as linked data. The experimental results show that MOD 1.2 supports a new set of queries for ontology libraries. Because MOD is still in early stage, we also pitch the plan for a collaborative design and adoption of future versions within an international working group.

show abstract

Towards a Formalization of Ontology Relations in the Context of Ontology Repositories

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Ontology Versioning Driven by Instance Evolution in the τOWL Framework

Ontology Versioning Driven by Instance Evolution in the τOWL Framework

Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey

New Generation Metadata Vocabulary for Ontology Description and Publication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About