Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Detection and resolution of semantic inconsistency and redundancy in an automatic ontology merging system

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, researchers have been developing algorithms for the automatic mapping and merging of ontologies to meet the demands of interoperability between heterogeneous and distributed information systems. But, still state-of-the-art ontology mapping and merging systems is semi-automatic that reduces the burden of manual creation and maintenance of mappings, and need human intervention for their validation. The contribution presented in this paper makes human intervention one step more down by automatically identifying semantic inconsistencies in the early stages of ontology merging. We are detecting semantic heterogeneities that occur due to conflicts among the set of Generalized Concept Inclusions, Property Subsumption Criteria, and Constraint Satisfaction Mechanism in local heterogeneous ontologies, which become obstacles for the generation of semantically consistent global merged ontology. We present several algorithms to detect such semantic inconsistencies based on subsumption analysis of concepts and properties in local ontologies from the list of initial mappings. We provide ontological patterns for resolving these inconsistencies automatically. This results global merged ontology free from ‘circulatory error in class/property hierarchy’, ‘common class between disjoint classes/properties’, ‘redundancy of subclass/subproperty of relations’ and other types of ‘semantic inconsistency’ errors. Experiments on the real ontologies show that our algorithms save time and cost of traversing local ontologies, improve system’s performance by producing only consistent accurate mappings, and reduce the users’ dependability for ensuring the satisfiability of merged ontology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Zanobini, S., & Sceffer, S. (2006). Bootstrapping semantics on the web: Meaning elicitation from schemas. In Proc. of 15th international world wide web conference(pp. 505–512).

  • Bruijn, J.d., Ehrig, M., Feier, C., Martín-Recuerda, F., Scharffe, F., & Weiten, M. (2006). Ontology mediation, merging and aligning. In Semantic web technologies. Wiley.

  • Chalupsky, H. (2000). OntoMorph: A translation system for symbolic knowledge. In A. G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, & B. Selman (Eds.), 7th international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’00). Breckenridge, Colorado (pp. 471–482). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doan, A., Madhaven, J., Domingos, P., & Halevy, A. (2004). Ontology matching: A machine learning approach. Handbook on ontologies in info. systems (pp. 397–416). Springer.

  • Ehrig, M., & Staab, S. (2004). QOM—Quick Ontology Mapping. In Proc. of the third international semantic web conference, LNCS 3298 (pp. 683–696). Springer.

  • Euzenat, J., & Shvaiko, P. (2007). Ontology matching. Berlin: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Euzenat, J., & Valtchev, P. (2004). Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-Lite. In Proc. of 16th ECAI-04, Valencia, Spain (pp. 333–337).

  • Fahad, M., Moalla, N., & Bouras, A. (2011). Towards ensuring satisfiability of merged ontology. In Proceedings of 10th int’l conference on computation science, Singapore. ICCS 2011, Procedia Computer Science (Vol. 4, pp. 2216–2225).

  • Fahad, M., Moalla, N., Bouras, A., Qadir, M. A., & Farukh, M. (2010). Disjoint-knowledge analysis and preservation in ontology merging process. In ICSEA, fifth international conference on software engineering advances (pp. 422–428).

  • Fahad, M., & Qadir, M. A. (2008). A framework for ontology evaluation. In Proceedings of 16th int’l conference on conceptual structures, France. ICCS Supplement, Ceur-ws (Vol. 354, pp. 149–158).

  • Fahad, M., & Qadir, M. A. (2009). Similarity computation by ontology merging system: DKP-OM. In Proc. of 2nd international conference on computer, control and communication, Karachi, Pakistan (pp. 1–6). IEEE Press.

  • Fahad, M., Qadir, M. A., Noshairwan, M. W., & Iftakhir, N. (2007). DKP-OM: A semantic based ontology merger. In Proceedings of 3rd international conference I-Semantics 2007, Graz, Austria (pp. 313–322). J.UCS.

  • Giunchiglia, F., Shvaiko, P., & Yatskevich, M. (2004). S-Match: An algorithm and implementation of semantic matching. In Proc. of 1st European semantic web symposium, LNCS 3053 (pp. 61–75). Springer.

  • Jean-Marya, Y. R., Shironoshitaa, E. P., & Kabuka, M. R. (2009). Ontology matching with semantic verification. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the WWW, 7(1), 235–251 (Elsevier).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalfoglou, Y., & Schorlemmer, M. (2003). If-map: An ontology mapping method based on information flow theory. In Journal of Data Semantics, LNCS, 2800 (pp. 98–127). Springer.

  • Klein, M. (2001). Combining and relating ontologies: An analysis of problems and solution. In Proc. of workshop on ontologies and information sharing, Seattle, USA (pp. 53–62).

  • Kotis, K., Vouros, G. A., & Stergiou, K. (2006). Towards automatic merging of domain ontologies: The HCONE-merge approach. In Web semantics: Science, services and agents on the world wide web (Vol. 4(1), pp. 60–79). Elsevier.

  • Mascardi, V., Locoro, A., & Rosso, P. (2010). Automatic ontology matching via upper ontologies: A systematic evaluation. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2(5), 609–623 (IEEE Press).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, D. L., Fikes, R., Rice, J., & Wilder, S. (2000). An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In Proc. of the 7th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Colorado, USA (pp. 483–493).

  • Mitra, P., & Wiederhold, G. (2002). Resolving terminological heterogeneity in ontologies. In Proc. of workshop on ontologies and semantic interoperability at the 15th ECAI, Lyon, France (pp. 45–50).

  • Noy, N. F., & Musen, M. A. (2003). The PROMPT suite: Interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6), 983–1024 (Elsevier).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stumme, G., & Mädche, A. (2001). FCA-merge: Bottom-up merging of ontologies. In Proc. of 7th int’l. joint conference on artificial intelligence, Seattle, USA (pp. 225–230).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decision & Information Sciences for Production Systems (DISP), CERRAL CENTER, University of Lyon2, Bron, 69676, France

    Muhammad Fahad, Nejib Moalla & Abdelaziz Bouras

Authors
  1. Muhammad Fahad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nejib Moalla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdelaziz Bouras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Fahad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fahad, M., Moalla, N. & Bouras, A. Detection and resolution of semantic inconsistency and redundancy in an automatic ontology merging system. J Intell Inf Syst 39, 535–557 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-012-0202-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-012-0202-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation