Skip to main content

Historical Ontologies

  • Chapter
Words and Intelligence II

Part of the book series: Text, Speech and Language Technology ((TLTB,volume 36))

Static ontologies cannot capture the relevant contextual knowledge required for search and retrieval of historical documents because the entities in the world and the relations among them change over time. This demands that information represented in the ontology is temporally contextualized and that relations among entities that are relevant during different temporal intervals are available to support user queries. Furthermore, it is necessary to account for the fact that the course of the ontology’s evolution and the processes that have effected it are a part of the knowledge that should be brought to bear on the analysis of information at any given time. This chapter outlines a model for historical ontologies that is intended to meet these requirements

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Avery, J. and J. Yearwood. 2003. dOWL: A Dynamic Ontology Language. ICWI 2003: 985–988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuiness, D., Patel-Schneider, P. and L.A. Stein. 2004. Owl Web Ontology Language Reference. On-line publication at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/

    Google Scholar 

  • Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and O. Lassila. 2001. The semantic web. Scientific Amercian 284(5): 34–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethard, S., Yu, H., Thornton, A., Hativassiloglou V. and D. Jurafsky. 2004. Automatic extraction of option propositions and their holders. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text. AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontcheva, K., Tablan, V., Maynard, D. and H. Cunningham. 2004. Evolving GATE to Meet New Challenges in Language Engineering. Natural Language Engineering 10(3/4): 349–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, H., Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K. and V. Tablan. 2002. GATE: A Framework and Graphical Development Environment for Robust NLP Tools and Applications. Proceedings of the 40th Anniversary Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’02).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J., Duke, A. and A. Stonkus. 2002. Ontoshare: Using Ontologies for Knowledge Sharing. Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Semantic Web at the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, H. and W. Wahlster. 2003. Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenon, P. and B. Smith. 2004. SNAP and SPAN: Towards Dynamic Spatial Ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation 4(1): 69–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heflin, J. and J.A. Hendler. 2000. Dynamic Ontologies on the Web. Proceedings of AAAI/IAAI 2000, 443–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ide, N. 2006. Making Senses: Bootstrapping Sense-Tagged Lists of Semantically Related Words. In Gelbukh, A. (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. Lecture notes in Computer Science 3878, Springer, pp. 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahng, J. and D. McLeod. 2000. Dynamic classification ontologies. In Arbib, M.A. and J. Grethe (eds.), Computing the Brain: A Guide to Neuroinformatics, Academic Press. 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauppinen, T. and E. Hyvönen. 2007. Modeling and Reasoning about Changes in Ontology Time Series. In Kishore, R., Ramesh, R. and R. Sharman (eds.), Ontologies: A Handbook of Principles, Concepts, and Applications in Information Science. Springer, 319–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M. 2002. Supporting Evolving Ontologies on the Web. In Lindner, W. and J. Stuller (eds.), Proceedings of the EDBT 2002 PhD Workshop, 51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M. and D. Fensel. 2001. Ontology Versioning on the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, D.L. 2003. Ontologies Come of Age. In Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, H. and W. Wahlster (eds.), Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press, 171–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niles, I. and A. Pease. 2001. Towards a Standard Upper Ontology. In Welty, C. and S. Barry (eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems, ACM Press. 2–9. See also http://www.ontologyportal.org

    Google Scholar 

  • Noy, N. and M. Klein. 2003. Ontology Evolution: Not the Same as Schema Evolution. Knowledge and Information Systems 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pang, B., Lee, L. and S. Vaithyanathan. 2002. Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. Proceedings of EMNLP 2002, 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel-Schneider, P., Hayes, P. and I. Horrocks. 2004. Owl Web Ontology Language Semantic and Abstract Syntax. On-line publication at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/

    Google Scholar 

  • Popov, B., Kiryakov, A., Ognyanoff, D., Manov, D. and A. Kirilov. 2004. KIM – A Semantic Platform for Information Extraction and Retrieval. Journal of Natural Language Engineering 10: 3–4. Cambridge University Press, pp. 375–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. and C. Johnson. 2005. FrameNet: Theory and Practice. On-line publication at http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/

    Google Scholar 

  • Sider, T. 2001. Four-Dimensionalism. An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stell, J.G. and M. West. 2004. A 4-dimensionalist Mereotopology. In Varzi, A.C. and L. Vieu (eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. IOS Press, 261–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stojanovic, L. and B. Motik. 2002. Ontology Evolution Within Ontology Editors. Proceedings of the Onto Web-SIG3 Workshop at the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW), 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turney, P. 2002. Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to Unsupervised Classification Reviews. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2002), 417–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe, J., Wilson, T., Bruce, R., Bell M. and M. Martin. 2004. Learning subjective language. Computational Linguistics 30:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H. and V. Hatzivassiloglou. 2003. Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2003).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ide, N., Woolner, D. (2007). Historical Ontologies. In: Ahmad, K., Brewster, C., Stevenson, M. (eds) Words and Intelligence II. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 36. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5833-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics