Advertisement

Ontology Alignment in the Urban Domain

  • Sylvie Calabretto
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP, volume 1)

Abstract

Concepts in the domain of Urban Civil Engineering are often categorized and described using ontologies. Such ontologies may be designed independently by domain experts who have a minimal communication or no communication between them. As a result, similar concepts may be described differently and their categorization may result in heterogeneous ontologies.

Keywords

Logical Formula Formal Concept Analysis Ontology Match Ontology Alignment Source Ontology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. An, Y., Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Inferring complex semantic mappings between relational tables and ontologies from simple correspondences. In: OTM Confederated International Conferences (Part II). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3761, pp. 1152–1169. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  2. Aumueller, D., Do, H.H., Massmann, S., Rahm, E.: Schema and ontology matching with COMA++. In: ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 906–908. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bénel, A., Egyed-Zsigmond, E., Prié, Y., Calabretto, S., Mille, A.: Truth in the digital library: from ontological to hermeneutical systems. In: Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, Darmstadt, September 4–9, 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 2163, pp. 366–377. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  4. Bénel, A., Calabretto, S., Iacovella, A., Pinon, J.M.: Porphyry 2001: semantics for scholarly publications retrieval. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Lyon, June 26–29, 2002. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol, 2366, pp. 351–361. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  5. Bénel, A., Iacovella, A., Calabretto, S.: Porphyry and Steatite: software layers for sense makers in humantities. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Indexing and Knowledge in Human Sciences, Nantes, June 26–28, 2006, pp. 72–75 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. Benerecetti, P., et al.: On the dimensions of context dependence: partially, approximation and perspective. In Proc. 3rd International and Interdisciplinarity Conference on Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT), vol 2116 of LNCS, pp. 59–72, Dundee (UK) (2001)Google Scholar
  7. Berdier, C., Calabretto, S., Caplat, G., Gesche, S.: Managing heterogeneity in urban ontologies. In: 3rd Workshop of COST Action C21: Construction of Multilingual Ontologies for Urban Civil Engineering Projects, Octobre 2008, Zaragoza, Espagne (2008)Google Scholar
  8. Berners-Lee, T., Connolly, D., Prud’homeaux, E., Scharf, Y.: Experience with N3 rules. In: W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability, Washington, D.C (2005)Google Scholar
  9. Bouquet, P. et al.: D2.2.1 Specification of a common framework for characterizing alignment, knowledge Web (FP6-507482), http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/semanticportal/deliverablesD2.2.1v1.pdf (2004)
  10. Cruz, I.F., Rajendran, A., Sunna, W., Wiegand, N.: Handling semantic heterogeneities agreements. In: Tenth International ACM GIS Symposium, pp. 168–174. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  11. Cruz, I.F., Sunna, W., Makar, N., Bathala, S.: A visual tool for ontology alignment to enable geospatial interoperability. J. Vis. Lang.Comput. 18(3), 230–254 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Euzenat, J.: Towards a principled approach to semantic interoperability. In: Proc. IJCAI Workshop Ontologies and Information Sharing, Seatle (WA US), pp. 19–25, (2001)Google Scholar
  13. Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Fonseca, F.T., Egenhofer, M.J., Davis, C.A., Câmara, G.: Semantic granularity in ontology-driven geographic information systems. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 36(1–2), 121–151 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gennari, J.H., Musen, M.A., Fergerson, R.W., Grosso, W.E., Crubézy, M., Eriksson, H., Noy, N.F., Tu, S.W.: The evolution of protégé: an environment for knowledge-based systems development. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58(1), 89–123 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gesche, S.: Exploitation de l’hétérogénéité entre points de vue-opinion. In: Actes du XXVème congrès INFORSID, INFORSID’2008, Fontainebleau, France, 27–30 mai 2008, pp. 101–116 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. Gesche, S., Calabretto, S., Caplat, G.: Un modèle pour la Confrontation d’opinions numérisées sous Porphyry. In: Colloque International sur le Document Electronique, CIDE’2006, Fribourg, Suisse, 18–22 septembre 2006, pp. 253–267 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. Gesche, S., Caplat, G., Calabretto, S.: Managing difference of opinion in semantic structures. In: International Workshop On Semantically Aware Document Processing and Indexing held in cooperation with ACM SIGWEB, SADPI’07, Montpellier, France, may 21–22, 2007, pp. 79–86 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. Hernández, M.A., Miller, R.J., Haas, L.M.: Clio: a semi-automatic tool for schema mapping. In: ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, p. 607 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. Jian, N., Hu, W., Cheng, G., Qu, Y., Falcon, A.O.: Aligning ontologies with Falcon. In: K-CAP 2005 Workshop on Integrating Ontologies, CEUR Workshop Proceedings 156, Banff, Canada (2005)Google Scholar
  21. Klein, M.: Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In: Proc. IJCAI Workshop Ontologies and Information Sharing, Seatle (WA US)(2001)Google Scholar
  22. McGuinness, D.L., Fikes, R., Rice, J., Wilder, S.: An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In: Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), Colorado, pp. 483–493 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. Nogueras-Iso, J., López, F.J., Lacasta, J., Zarazaga-Soria, F.J., Muro-Medrano, P.R.: Building an address gazetteer on top of an urban network ontology. 1st Workshop of COST Action C21: “Ontologies for Urban Development: Interfacing Urban Information Systems”, Geneva, 6–7 November 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. Porphyry.: Porphyry Project. http://www.porphyry.org (2004). Accessed 4 Feb 2010
  25. Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J. 10 (4), 334–350 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. Ribière, M., Dieng, R.: A viewpoint model for cooperative building of an ontology. 10th International Conference in Conceptual Structures. LNAI, vol. 2393, pp. 220–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  27. Zaher, H., Cahier, J.P., Zacklad, M.: The Agoræ / Hypertopic approach. In: Harzallah, M., Charlet, J., Aussenac-Gilles, N. (eds.) Proceedings of Indexing and Knowledge in Human Sciences, Nantes (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon (INSA-Lyon)LyonFrance

Personalised recommendations