International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science (IJITCS)
IJITCS Vol. 8, No. 7, 8 Jul. 2016
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 655KB)
Conservativity Principle Violations for Ontology Alignment: Survey and Trends
Full Text (PDF, 655KB), PP.61-71
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Yahia Atig
1,*
Ahmed Zahaf
2
Djelloul Bouchiha
1
Index Terms
Conservativity Principle Violations, Ontology Alignment, Ontology Matching, Semantic Web
Abstract
Ontology matching techniques are a solution to overcome the problem of interoperability between ontologies. However, the generated mappings suffer from logical defects that influence their usefulness. In this paper we present a detailed analysis of the problem so-called conservativity principle; alignment between ontologies should never generate new knowledge compared to those generated by reasoning solely on ontologies. We also study the sub-problems; Ontology change and Satisfiability preservation problems and compare the related works and their way to detect and repair conservativity principle. At the end we present a set of open research issues.
Cite This Paper
Yahia Atig, Ahmed Zahaf, Djelloul Bouchiha, "Conservativity Principle Violations for Ontology Alignment: Survey and Trends", International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science(IJITCS), Vol.8, No.7, pp.61-71, 2016. DOI:10.5815/ijitcs.2016.07.09
Reference
[1]Beisswanger, E., Hahn, U., et al.: Towards valid and reusable reference alignments-ten basic quality checks for ontology alignments and their application to three different reference data sets. J. Biomed. Semant. 3(suppl. 1), S4 (2012).
[2]Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. Journal on Data Semantics, (2003).
[3]DENNAI, A., BENSLIMANE, S.M.: A New Measure of the Calculation of Semantic Distance between Ontology Concepts. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science (IJITCS). pp. 48-56, (2015).
[4]Dos Reis J.C., Pruski C., Reynaud-Delaître C.: State-of-the-art on mapping maintenance and challenges towards a fully automatic approach. Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015), Elsevier, pp. 1465–1478, (2015).
[5]Dowling,W.F., Gallier, J.H.: Linear-Time Algorithms for Testing the Satisfiability of Propositional Horn Formulae. J. Log. Prog. 1(3), 267–284 (1984).
[6]Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer Verlag, (2007).
[7]Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer Heidelberg, (2013).
[8]Ferré, S., Rudolph, S.: Advocatus Diaboli - Exploratory Enrichment of Ontologies with Negative Constraints. In: ten Teije, A., Völker, J., Handschuh, S., Stuckenschmidt, H., d’Acquin, M., Nikolov, A., Aussenac-Gilles, N., Hernandez, N. (eds.) EKAW 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7603, pp. 42–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).
[9]Good, I.J.: The Estimation of Probabilities: an Essay on Modern Bayesian Methods. MIT Press, Cambridge, (1965).
[10]Jean-Mary, Y.R., Shironoshita, E.P., Kabuka, M.R.: Ontology Matching With Semantic Verification. J. Web Sem. 7(3), 235–251 (2009).
[11]Jiménez Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Berlanga, R.: Ontology integration using mappings: towards getting the right logical consequences. In: Proc. 6th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), Hersounisous, Greece. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5554, pp. 173–188, (2009).
[12]Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B.: LogMap: Logic-based and Scalable Ontology Matching. In: Int’l Sem. Web Conf. (ISWC). pp. 273–288 (2011).
[13]Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Berlanga, R.: Logic-based Assessment of the Compatibility of UMLS Ontology Sources. J. Biomed. Semant. 2(Suppl 1), S2 (2011).
[14]Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1), 1–31, (2003).
[15]Meilicke, C., Völker, J., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Learning Disjointness for Debugging Mappings between Lightweight Ontologies. In: Int’l Conf. on Knowl. Eng. (EKAW). pp. 93–108 (2008).
[16]Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H.: An Efficient Method for Computing Alignment Diagnoses. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR-09), Chantilly, Virginia, USA, (2009).
[17]Meilicke, C.: Alignments Incoherency in Ontology Matching. Ph.D. thesis, University of Mannheim (2011).
[18]Melnik, S., Garcia-Molina, H., Rahm, E.: Similarity Flooding: A Versatile Graph Matching Algorithm and Its Application to Schema Matching. In: IEEE Int’l Conf. on Data Eng. (2002).
[19]Ngo, D., Bellahsene, Z.: YAM++: A Multi-strategy Based Approach for Ontology Matching Task. In: ten Teije, A., Völker, J., Handschuh, S., Stuckenschmidt, H., d’Acquin, M., Nikolov, A., Aussenac-Gilles, N., Hernandez, N. (eds.) EKAW 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7603, pp. 421–425. Springer, Heidelberg, (2012).
[20]Otero-Cerdeira L., Rodríguez-Martínez F.J., Gómez-Rodríguez A.: Ontology matching: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015), Elsevier, pp. 949–971 (2015).
[21]Santos, E., Faria, D., Pesquita, C., Couto, F.: Ontology Alignment Repair Through Modularization and Confidence-based Heuristics. arXiv: 1307.5322 preprint, (2013).
[22]Schlobach, S.: Debugging and Semantic Clarification by Pinpointing. In: Eur. Sem. Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 226–240. Springer, (2005).
[23]Solimando, A., Jiménez-Ruiz E., and Guerrini G.: A Multi-strategy Approach for Detecting and Correcting Conservativity Principle Violations in Ontology Alignments, In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2014), pp. 13-24, (2014).
[24]Solimando, A.: Detecting and Correcting Conservativity Principle Violations in Ontology Mappings.In: P. Mika et al. (Eds.) ISWC 2014, Part II, LNCS 8797, pp. 545–552, (2014).
[25]Stuckenschmidt, H .Serafini, L .Wache, H.: Reasoning about Ontology Mappings, In ECAI2006 Workshop on Context Representation and Reasoning, Ria del Garda, Italy, (2006).
[26]Tordai, A.: On combining alignment techniques. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 65-193, (2012).
[27]Wang, P., Xu, B.: Debugging Ontology Mappings: A Static Approach. Computing and Informatics. 27(1), pp 21–36, (2012).
[28]Zahaf, A.: Alignment between versions of the same ontology Proc. 4th International Conference on Web and Information Technologies, Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria, (2012).
[29]Zimmermann, A., Le Duc, C.: Reasoning with a network of aligned ontologies. Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule systems (RR2008), (2008).
[30]Zurawski, M., Smaill, A., Robertson, D.: Bounded ontological consistency for scalable dynamic knowledge infrastructures. In: Proc. 3rd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC), Bangkok, Thailand. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5367, pp. 212–226, (2008).