Skip to main content

Gap Analysis of Ontology Mapping Tools and Techniques

  • Conference paper

Abstract

Mapping between ontologies provides a way to overcome any dissimilarities in the terminologies used in two ontologies. Some tools and techniques to map ontologies are available with some semi-automatic mapping capabilities. These tools are employed to join the similar concepts in two ontologies and overcome the possible mismatches.Several types of mismatches have been identified by researchers and certain overlaps can easily be seen in their description. Analysis of the mapping tools and techniques through a mismatches framework reveals that most of the tools and techniques just target the explication side of the concepts in ontologies and a very few of them opt for the conceptualization mismatches. Research therefore needs to be done in the area of detecting and overcoming conceptualization mismatches that may occur during the process of mapping. The automation and reliability of these tools are important because they directly affect the interoperatbility between different knowledge sources.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ehrig, M. and Staab, S., 2004, “QOM – Quick Ontology Mapping”, pp. 683-697.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bruijn, J. de., Ehrig, M., Feier, C., Marin-Recuerda, F., Scharffe, F. and Wieten, M., 2006, “Ontology Mediation, Merging and Aligning”, In Davies J, Studer R, Warren P (eds), Semantic Web Technologies: Trends and Research in Ontology-based Systems, Wiley, UK, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  3. Visser, P.R.S., Jones, D.M., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. and Shave, M.J.R.,1997, An Analysis of Ontology Mismatches; Heterogeneity versus Interoperability In AAAI1997 Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, Stanford, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chaplusky, H, 2000, “OntoMorph: A translation system for symbolic knowledge”, Proc 17th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’2000).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Klien, M, 2001, “Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions”, Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, IJCAI'01

    Google Scholar 

  6. Qadir, M. A., Fahad, M. and Noshairwan, M. W., 2007, “On conceptualization mismatches between ontologies”, IEEE International Conference on Granular Compution (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wiederhold, G, 1994, “An algebra for ontology composition”, In Proceedings of 1994 Monterey Workshop on Formal Methods, pp 56-61

    Google Scholar 

  8. Maedche, ,Alexander, Motik, ,Boris, Silva, ,Nuno and Volz, ,Raphael, 2002, “MAFRA - A MApping FRAmework for Distributed Ontologies”, EKAW '02: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web, 2002, Springer-Verlag pp235-250.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Calvanese, D. and Lenzerini, M., 2001. Ontology of integration and integration of ontologies, In Proceedings of the 2001 Description Logic Workshop (DL, 2001, pp10-19.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Doan, ,Anhai, Madhavan, ,Jayant, Domingos, ,Pedro and Halevy, ,Alon, 2002. Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web, WWW '02: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on World Wide Web, 2002, ACM pp662-673.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Noy, N. F. and Musen, M. A., 2003, “The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol 59 , No. 6,pp 983 - 1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mitra, P. and Wiederhold, G., 2002, “Resolving terminological heterogeneity in ontologies”, Workshop on Ontologies and Semantic Interoperability at the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stumme, G. and Maedche, A., 2001, “Ontology margining for federated ontologies on the semantic web”, In Proceedings of the International Workshop for Foundations of Models for Information Integration (FMII-2001), pp 413-418

    Google Scholar 

  14. McGuiness, D.L., Fikes, R., RICE, J. and Wilder, S., 2000, “An environment for merging and testing large ontologies”, Proc. 17th Intl. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this paper

Cite this paper

Anjum, N., Harding, J., Young, B., Case, K. (2010). Gap Analysis of Ontology Mapping Tools and Techniques. In: Popplewell, K., Harding, J., Poler, R., Chalmeta, R. (eds) Enterprise Interoperability IV. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-257-5_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-257-5_28

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84996-256-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84996-257-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics