Skip to main content

Comparing Sets of Semantic Relations in Ontologies

  • Chapter
The Semantics of Relationships

Part of the book series: Information Science and Knowledge Management ((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.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1986). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Brachman, R. J. (1978). A Structural Paradigm for Representing Knowledge (BBN Report No. 3605). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chalupsky, H. (1996). Report on ontology alignment validity test. Unpublished manuscript, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1967). Truth and Meaning. Synthese, 17, 304–323.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dorr, B. J. (1994). Machine translation divergences: A formal description and proposed solution. Computational Linguistics, 20, 597–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hobbs, J. R.(1985). Ontological promiscuity. 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Proceedings of the Conference, 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lenat, D. B. (1995). CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, R. (1991). Inside the LOOM descriptive classifier. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3), 70–76.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mahesh, K. (1996). Ontology Development for Machine Translation: Ideology and Methodology (CRL Report MCCS-96–292). Las Cruces: New Mexico State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, D. V. (1981). Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity. In J. Haugland (Ed.), Mind Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Montague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nirenburg, S., Raskin V., & Onyshkevych, B. (1995). Apologiae ontologia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigau, G., & Agirre, E. (1995). Disambiguating bilingual nominal entries against Word Net. Proceedings of the 7th ESSLLI Symposium, 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hovy, E. (2002). Comparing Sets of Semantic Relations in Ontologies. In: Green, R., Bean, C.A., Myaeng, S.H. (eds) The Semantics of Relationships. Information Science and Knowledge Management, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0073-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0073-3_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5996-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0073-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics