Advertisement

Comparing Sets of Semantic Relations in Ontologies

  • Eduard Hovy
Part of the Information Science and Knowledge Management book series (ISKM, volume 3)

Abstract

A set of semantic relations is created every time a domain modeler wants to solve some complex problem computationally. These relations are usually organized into ontologies. But there is little standardization of ontologies today, and almost no discussion on ways of comparing relations, of determining a general approach to creating relations, or of modeling in general. This chapter outlines an approach to establishing a general methodology for comparing and justifying sets of relations (and ontologies in general). It first provides several dozen characteristics of ontologies, organized into three taxonomies of increasingly detailed features, by which many essential characteristics of ontologies can be described. These features enable one to compare ontologies at a general level, without studying every concept they contain. But sometimes it is necessary to make detailed comparisons of content. The chapter then illustrates one method for determining salient points for comparison, using algorithms that semi-automatically identify similarities and differences between ontologies.

Keywords

Semantic Relation Machine Translation Reference Ontology Ontology Alignment Conceptual Root 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agangemi, A., Pisanelli, D., & Steve, G. (1998). Ontology alignment: Experiences with medical terminologies. Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the First International Conference (FOIS’98), 61–69.Google Scholar
  2. Ageno, A., Castellon, I., Ribas, F., Rigau, G., Rodriguez, H., & Samiotou, A. (1994). TGE: Tlink generation environment. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 12–17.Google Scholar
  3. Agirre, E., Arregi, X., Artola, X., Diaz de Ilarazza, A., & Sarasola, K. (1994). Conceptual distance and automatic spelling correction. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Speech and Handwriting Recognition, 72–80.Google Scholar
  4. Aguado, G., Bañón, A., Bateman, J., Bernardos, S., Fernández, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., Nieto, E., Olalla, A., Plaza, R., & Sánchez, A. (1998). ONTOGENERATION: Reusing domain and linguistic ontologies for Spanish text generation. Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Applications of Ontologies and Problem Solving Methods, 1–10.Google Scholar
  5. Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1986). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bateman, J. A., Kasper, R. T., Moore, J. D., & Whitney, R. A. (1989). A general organization of knowledge for natural language processing: The Penman Upper Model. Unpublished manuscript, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA. A version of this paper appeared in 1990 as: Upper modeling: A level of semantics for natural language processing. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Language Generation.Google Scholar
  7. Borgida, A., Brachman, R. J., McGuinness, D. L., & Alperin Resnick, L. (1989). CLASSIC: A structural data model for objects. Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 58–67.Google Scholar
  8. Brachman, R. J. (1978). A Structural Paradigm for Representing Knowledge (BBN Report No. 3605). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.Google Scholar
  9. Brachman, R. J., McGuinness, D. L., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & Borgida, A. (1999). “Reducing” CLASSIC to practice: Knowledge representation theory meets reality. Artificial Intelligence, 114, 203–237.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chalupsky, H. (1996). Report on ontology alignment validity test. Unpublished manuscript, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, D. (1967). Truth and Meaning. Synthese, 17, 304–323.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorr, B. J. (1994). Machine translation divergences: A formal description and proposed solution. Computational Linguistics, 20, 597–634.Google Scholar
  13. Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., & Rice, J. (1997). The Ontolingua server: A tool for collaborative ontology construction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46, 707–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Guarino, N. (1997, March). Some organizing principles for a unified top-level ontology (rev. version). Paper presented at AAAI Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Guarino, N. (1998). Some ontological principles for designing upper level lexical resources. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-98), 527–534.Google Scholar
  17. Hobbs, J. R.(1985). Ontological promiscuity. 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Proceedings of the Conference, 61–69.Google Scholar
  18. Hovy, E. H. (1996, September). Semi-automated alignment of top regions of SENSUS and CYC. Paper presented to ANSI Ad Hoc Committee on Ontology Standardization, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Hovy, E. H. (1998). Combining and standardizing large-scale, practical ontologies for machine translation and other uses. Proceedings of the 1 st International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-98), 535–542.Google Scholar
  20. Hovy, E. H. & Lin, C.Y. (1999). Automated text summarization in SUMMARIST. In M. Maybury & I. Mani (Eds.), Advances in Automatic Text Summarization, 81–98. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Iwasaki, Y., Fraquhar, A., Fikes, R., & Rice, J. (1997). A Web-Based Compositional Modeling System for Sharing of Physical Knowledge. Nagoya: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  22. Jasper, R., & Uschold, M. (1999). A framework for understanding and classifying ontology applications. Proceedings of the Twellftth Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management. Available: < http://sern.ucalgary.ca/ KSI/KAW/KAW99/papers/Uschold2/final-ont-apn-fmk.pdf > [2001, October 9].Google Scholar
  23. Knight, K., & Luk, S.K. (1994). Building a large-scale knowledge base for machine translation. Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 773–778.Google Scholar
  24. Knight, K., Chander, I., Haines, M., Hatzivassiloglou, V., Hovy, E. H., Iida, M., Luk, S. K., Whitney, R.A., & Yamada, K. (1995). Filling knowledge gaps in a broad-coverage MT system. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1390–1396.Google Scholar
  25. Lehmann, F. (1997, March). Reworked alignment of top regions of CYC and SENSUS. Paper presented to ANSI Ad Hoc Committee on Ontology Standardization, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Lenat, D. B. (1995). CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 32–38.Google Scholar
  27. MacGregor, R. (1991). Inside the LOOM descriptive classifier. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3), 70–76.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mahesh, K. (1996). Ontology Development for Machine Translation: Ideology and Methodology (CRL Report MCCS-96–292). Las Cruces: New Mexico State University.Google Scholar
  29. McDermott, D. V. (1981). Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity. In J. Haugland (Ed.), Mind Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. McGuinness, D. L., Fikes, R., Rice, J., & Wilder, S. (2000). An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.Google Scholar
  31. Montague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nirenburg, S., Raskin V., & Onyshkevych, B. (1995). Apologiae ontologia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues.Google Scholar
  33. Noy, N. F., & Hafner, C. D. (1997). The state of the art in ontology design: A survey and comparative review. AI Magazine, 18(3), 53–74.Google Scholar
  34. Noy, N. F., & Musen, M. A. (1999a). SMART: Automated support for ontology merging and alignment. Proceedings of the Twellftth Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management. Available: < http://sern.ucalgary.ca/KSI/KAW/KAW99/papers/Fridmanl/NoyMusen.pdf [2001, October 9] . Also available: < http://smi-web.stanford.edu/pubs/SMI_Abstracts/SMI-1999-0813.html [2001, October 9].Google Scholar
  35. Noy, N. F., & Musen, M. A. (1999b). An algorithm for merging and aligning ontologies: Automation and tool support. Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontology Management at the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1201–1206. Also available: < http://www-smi.stanford.edu/pubs/SMI_Reports/SMI-1999-0799.pdf > [2001, October 9].Google Scholar
  36. Okumura, A., & Hovy, E. H. (1994). Ontology concept association using a bilingual dictionary. Proceedings of the 1 st Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, 177–184.Google Scholar
  37. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rigau, G., & Agirre, E. (1995). Disambiguating bilingual nominal entries against Word Net. Proceedings of the 7th ESSLLI Symposium, 16–23.Google Scholar
  39. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  41. Swartout, W. R., Patil, R., Knight, K., & Russ, T. (1996). Toward distributed use of large-scale ontologies. Proceedings of Tenth Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems Workshop. Available: < http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/ KAW/KAW96/swartout/Banff96_final_2.html > [2001, October 9].Google Scholar
  42. Uschold, M., Clark, P., Healy, M., Williamson, K., & Woods, S. (1998). Ontology reuse and application. Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the First International Conference (FOIS’98), 179–192.Google Scholar
  43. Van Zyl, J., & Corbett, D. (2000). A framework for comparing the use of a linguistic ontology in an application. Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Applications of Ontologies and Problem Solving Methods, 35–42.Google Scholar
  44. Visser, P., Jones, D., Bench-Capon, T., & Shave, M. (1998). Assessing heterogeneity by classifying ontology mismatches. Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the First International Conference (FOIS’98), 148–162.Google Scholar
  45. Wille, R. (1997). Conceptual graphs and formal concept analysis. Conceptual Structures: Fulfilling Peirce’s Dream: Fifith International Conference on Conceptual Structures, 290–303.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduard Hovy
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Sciences InstituteUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMarina del ReyUSA

Personalised recommendations