PosterPDF Available

Paving a Research Roadmap on Network of Ontologies

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Paper from the published poster at OM 2017.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paving a Research Roadmap on Network of Ontologies1

 !
{fabiomarcos.santos,katerevoredo,fernanda.baiao}@uniriotec.br
Abstract. "#$%#%# &
'''' &
'()#%$#'&
 % %'( * %
 %   #$ %
+,%%%%(-'#
%#%%./0(
Keywords:1%1%%"#$1%
2%'(
1 Introducing research challenges on Network of Ontologies
   #$  1%   %  &
%'#      
,%(*#'%
'1%%##%
%%%   # (*   1% 2% 
%3%%%./0(
-    % 4'  #$ '' ' 
   %   %( *
#$%#$####%
#%%(,#$%'
'#% #
%'   %# ' # % &
./0(*''.50(
"#$1%6"(1(7    %#  %  &
#.80 $ $ .90(  
   $ %#$   #$
#'%(
-%'% %'4': How
similar is the N.O. alignment task when compared to the ontology matching: ; -
 ' %< #$  #$
#$  % &#$ %( *  #
8*'=">4=>?!%%'@A85A5B9A8@&C
9
###"(1( &
(
%' et al..@0 % '%   &
%()#  &
"(1( '%'% % &
#$ '%      #$ ( *
#./0( #$#./0
 ' D#E % # '    %  ' 
%'8#%(
Fig. 1.1%2%"(1(%&
2 Final Considerations
*#$"#$1%  &
%%''%'%'(
%   %   ' 1% 2%
%./0%%(2#
% '   '  # %   '' 
%(
References
8( ?'! (:"#$%%(:-F1G'"69A887
9( ?'! (:#$%:%99+8H5&98C69A857
/( $>(?'! (:1%%<  ''%(:???
*$#%%%95(8(85+&8IC69A8/7
@( '!&%'2(=(JK!&>L!(2?(MJ%(D1%%&
%#$#E(%M'269A897
5( ((("#$1%N2%'
=%=*(&B"1*&AAA5B9A8I9A8I(
<BB###(('(B,(B%%BB#BC+//
... However, to extend it for network of ontologies one should deal with computational issues due to the large number of possible correspondences to be considered between two or more networks. Hence, we may address this task as a different one, in which one should overcome the exhaustive computations by taking advantage of underlying structural properties held by the networks of ontologies [10], [39]- [41]. ...
... However, despite the evolution in the field, to the extent of our knowledge, matchers still work pairwise, i.e., computing the alignments for each pair of ontology. Thus, there are few studies dealing with the area of ontology networks and, consequently, the problem of ontology network matching, although there are open challenges to deal with [39]. ...
Article
Full-text available
A System of Systems (SoS) is a complex set of IS (Information Systems) created by the aggregation and interconnection of ISs. SoS brings unexpected behavior and functionality during its construction to the benefit of its users and the SoS itself. The integration of SoSs is a matter of time. However, as SoSs can behave as an organization, it may be inappropriate to try to integrate individual IS members separately. On the other hand, manually integrating the SoS as a whole can be unfeasible due to its complexity. If an SoS has ontologies modeling the knowledge, the integration of SoSs can be translated into a problem of a network of ontologies alignment. However, it creates another challenge: computing each possible pair of entities inside each network’s ontology can have unfeasible execution time, even using the best matchers available. In this article, we propose to mine the data from the networks using random walks and frequent item sets algorithm and discover relevant nodes elected as candidate entities. Next, the networks are pruned by an algebraic method eliminating identical entities. The relevant nodes are reinserted in the network to avoid losing essential correspondences. After the pre-processing step, data is sent to two matchers to obtain metrics and compare the results with the pairwise brute force approach and previous work. We identified relevant nodes with recall up to 0.75. The results are promising since precision and recall are closer to the force brute, and execution time is shorter, even more, when the size of the networks and the number of ontologies to be compared increases. We validate our approach using ontologies created from the OAEI (Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative).
... However, to our knowledge, the matching of Network of Ontologies has not received the same attention. Although there are few studies dealing with networks of ontologies and, consequently, matching networks, there are still open challenges [1]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
System of systems (SoS) are interconnected systems that bring value to different domains like health, emergency, and crisis management systems. The integration of these SoS creates opportunities to change, validate the information, and add more value to information systems. SoS may have ontologies in their background to support knowledge description and semantic integration. Consequently, the integration of SoSs may benefit from the integration of the network of ontologies behind. However, integrating networks of ontologies, especially the ones describing real-world SoS, can be infeasible due to the size of the networks. In this work, we propose an approach, SubInterNM, based on algebraic operations that reduce the number of comparisons needed to match the networks behind the SoSs. We validated our approach using networks of ontologies created from the OAEI ontologies. The SubInterNM, combined with Alin and LogMap, can overcome these matchers when running alone in some cases.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Background: Network of ontologies is the pairwise match of a set of ontolo-gies, which became recently relevant due to its applicability in different domains, such as cultural evolution. However, the challenges faced in this area are not completely known and understood, neither are their relations to ontology matching counterpart problems. Aims: The goal of this paper is to identify challenges and applications of a network of ontologies and compare them to the 8 existing challenges of ontology matching (SHVAIKO and EUZENAT, 2013). Research questions are: (i) Which are the challenges for a Network of Ontologies? (ii) What are the applications of a Network of Ontologies? Method: We defined and executed a systematic mapping review protocol. A specialist on systematic mapping review and ontology research evaluated protocol and results. Results: Out of the 67 relevant studies, 10 addressed the research questions. All of them presented challenges, but only four presented applications. Conclusions: We identified four new challenges and related them with the eight challenges presented in (SHVAIKO and EUZENAT, 2013).
Book
The Semantic Web is characterized by the existence of a very large number of distributed semantic resources, which together define a network of ontologies. These ontologies in turn are interlinked through a variety of different meta-relationships such as versioning, inclusion, and many more. This scenario is radically different from the relatively narrow contexts in which ontologies have been traditionally developed and applied, and thus calls for new methods and tools to effectively support the development of novel network-oriented semantic applications. This book by Suárez-Figueroa et al. provides the necessary methodological and technological support for the development and use of ontology networks, which ontology developers need in this distributed environment. After an introduction, in its second part the authors describe the NeOn Methodology framework. The book’s third part details the key activities relevant to the ontology engineering life cycle. For each activity, a general introduction, methodological guidelines, and practical examples are provided. The fourth part then presents a detailed overview of the NeOn Toolkit and its plug-ins. Lastly, case studies from the pharmaceutical and the fishery domain round out the work. The book primarily addresses two main audiences: students (and their lecturers) who need a textbook for advanced undergraduate or graduate courses on ontology engineering, and practitioners who need to develop ontologies in particular or Semantic Web-based applications in general. Its educational value is maximized by its structured approach to explaining guidelines and combining them with case studies and numerous examples. The description of the open source NeOn Toolkit provides an additional asset, as it allows readers to easily evaluate and apply the ideas presented.
Article
Networks of ontologies are made of a collection of logic theories, called ontologies, related by alignments. They arise naturally in distributed contexts in which theories are developed and maintained independently, such as the semantic web. In networks of ontologies, inconsistency can come from two different sources: local inconsistency in a particular ontology or alignment, and global inconsistency between them. Belief revision is well-defined for dealing with ontologies; we investigate how it can apply to networks of ontologies. We formulate revision postulates for alignments and networks of ontologies based on an abstraction of existing semantics of networks of ontologies. We show that revision operators cannot be simply based on local revision operators on both ontologies and alignments. We adapt the partial meet revision framework to networks of ontologies and show that it indeed satisfies the revision postulates. Finally, we consider strategies based on network characteristics for designing concrete revision operators.
Article
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.
Networks of ontologies and alignments
  • J Euzenat
Euzenat, J. "Networks of ontologies and alignments." SWXO Lecture Notes (2011)