Encyclopedia of Database Systems

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


  • Tom GruberEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1318


Computational ontology; Ontological engineering; Semantic data model


In the context of computer and information sciences, an ontology defines a set of representational primitives with which to model a domain of knowledge or discourse. The representational primitives are typically classes (or sets), attributes (or properties), and relationships (or relations among class members). The definitions of the representational primitives include information about their meaning and constraints on their logically consistent application. In the context of database systems, ontology can be viewed as a level of abstraction of data models, analogous to hierarchical and relational models, but intended for modeling knowledge about individuals, their attributes, and their relationships to other individuals. Ontologies are typically specified in languages that allow abstraction away from data structures and implementation strategies; in practice, the languages of ontologies are closer...

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O. The semantic web. Scientific American; 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gruber TR. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis. 1993;5(2):199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruber TR. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 1995;43(5–6):907–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guarino N. Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 1995;43(5–6):625–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hayes PJ. The second naive physics manifesto. In: Moore RC, Hobbs J, editors. Formal theories of the common-sense world. Norwood: Ablex; 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCarthy J. Circumscription – a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artif Intell. 1980;5(13):27–39.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGuinness DL, van Harmelen F. OWL web ontology language. W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004. Available online at: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.
  8. 8.
    Neches R, Fikes RE, Finin T, Gruber TR, Patil R, Senator T, Swartout WR. Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. AI Mag. 1991;12(3):16–36.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith B, Welty C. Ontology – towards a new synthesis. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems; 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sowa JF. Conceptual structures: information processing in mind and machine. Reading: Addison Wesley; 1984.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Standard Upper Ontology Working Group (SUO). IEEE P1600.1. Available online at: http://suo.ieee.org/.

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RealTravelEmerald HillsUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Avigdor Gal
    • 1
  1. 1.Fac. of IE & Mgmt.Technion--Israel Inst. of TechnologyHaifaIsrael