Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Lightweight Ontologies

  • Fausto GiunchigliaEmail author
  • Ilya Zaihrayeu
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1314


Business catalogues; Controlled vocabularies; Faceted classifications; Taxonomies; Thesauri; Topic hierarchies; User classifications; Web directories


Ontologies are explicit specifications of conceptualizations [7]. They are often thought of as directed graphs whose nodes represent concepts and whose edges represent relations between concepts. The notion of a concept is understood as defined in Knowledge Representation, i.e., as a set of objects or individuals [2]. This set is called the concept extension or the concept interpretation. Concepts are often lexically defined, i.e., they have natural language names which are used to describe the concept extensions (e.g., concept motherdenotes the set of all female parents). Therefore, when ontologies are visualized, their nodes are often shown with corresponding natural language concept names. The backbone structure of the ontology graph is a taxonomy in which the relations are “is-a,” whereas the remaining structure...

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Avesani P, Giunchiglia F, Yatskevich M. A large scale taxonomy mapping evaluation. In: Proceedings of 4th International Semantic Web Conference; 2005. p. 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider P. The description logic handbook: theory, implementation and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giunchiglia FMM, Zaihrayeu I. Encoding classifications into lightweight ontologies. J Data Semant. 2007;VIII:57–81.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giunchiglia F, Shvaiko P, Yatskevich M. Discovering missing background knowledge in ontology matching. In: Proceedings of 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence; 2006. p. 382–6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giunchiglia F, Yatskevich M, Shvaiko P. Semantic matching: algorithms and implementation. J Data Semant. 2007;IX4601:1–38.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giunchiglia F, Zaihrayeu I, Kharkevich U. Formalizing the get-specific document classification algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries; 2007.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruber TR. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis. 1993;5(2):199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guarino N. Some ontological principles for designing upper level lexical resources. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference Lexical Resources and Evaluation; 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Helping GN. People (and machines) understanding each other: the role of formal ontology. In: Proceedings of the Confederated International Conferences, DOA, CoopIS and ODBASE; 2004. p. 599.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hepp M, de Bruijn J. GenTax: a generic methodology for deriving OWL and RDF-S ontologies from hierarchical classifications, thesauri, and inconsistent taxonomies. In: Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference; 2007. p. 129–44.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magnini B, Serafini L, Speranza M. Making explicit the hidden semantics of hierarchical classifications. In: Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence; 2003. p. 436–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller G. Wordnet: an electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1998.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rector AL, Drummond N, Horridge M, Rogers J, Knublauch H, Stevens R, Wang H, Wroe C. OWL pizzas: practical experience of teaching OWL-DL: common errors & common patterns. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web; 2004. p. 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uschold M, Gruninger M. Ontologies and semantics for seamless connectivity. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 2004;33(4):58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zaihrayeu I, Sun L, Giunchiglia F, Pan W, Ju Q, Chi M, Huang X. From web directories to ontologies: natural language processing challenges. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Semantic Web Conference; 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TrentoTrentoItaly

Section editors and affiliations

  • Avigdor Gal
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Engineering & ManagementTechnion–Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael