DOCSLIB.ORG

A Declarative Approach to Ontology Translation with Knowledge Preservation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Declarative Approach to Ontology Translation with Knowledge Preservation UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID FACULTAD DE INFORMÁTICA PhD Thesis A DECLARATIVE APPROACH TO ONTOLOGY TRANSLATION WITH KNOWLEDGE PRESERVATION Author: Óscar Corcho Advisor: Asunción Gómez-Pérez April 2004 To myfamily andfriends Acknowledgeiiieiits I would like to thank Asunción Gómez-Pérez for her help and guidance during all these years. Since 1996, when we started working together, we have enjoyed with deep discussions and long struggles about many aspects of the Ontological Engineering field. Besides, Asun has been always able to find a time slot in her extremely busy schedule to help me to structure the thesis contents, to read the early drafts of this document, and to propose many interesting improvements to it so as to make the ideas expressed here easier to understand. I am also in debt with current and oíd members of the Ontological Engineering Group at UPM, with whom I have had many interesting discussions during my and their work and have shared many good moments. Among all of them, I would like to give special thanks to Mariano Femández-López, who made so many helpfiíl comments to improve this thesis, and who gave me important clues about knowledge representation ontologies and about different options for representing translators declaratively; to Rafael González-Cabero, who was in charge of implementing the RDF(S), DAML+OIL and OWL import services for the WebODE workbench and helped me to evalúate the ontology translation method proposed in this thesis; to Ángel López-Cima, who has been patient enough to cope with my frequent programming errors in all the WebODE ontology translation systems developed; and to David Manzano, who made his large mathematical background available to me whenever I needed it. I am particularly indebted to Rosario Plaza Arteche for her valuable help in checking and reviewing the grammar and spelling of the manuscript and improving its clarity and style. Last but not least, I must thank my friends and family for believing in me, and understanding and helping me in my academic career. And among them, I want to thank Katy, for her love and support in everything I do, and for not complaining so much about my constant work during the last period of my thesis work. 111 Abstract In Computer Science, an ontology is defined as a formal explicit specification of a shared conceptualisation. An ontology can be modelled in varied ontology tools, and implemented in varied ontology languages. Different ontology tools and languages are based on different knowledge representation formalisms and provide different ontology components to model ontologies. The ontology translation problem (aka ontology interoperability problem) appears when we decide to reuse an ontology (or part of an ontology) with a tool or language that is different from those ones in which the ontology is available. If we forcé each ontology-based system developer, individually, to commit to the task of translating and incorporating to their systems the ontologies that they need, they will require a lot of effort and time to achieve their objective. This thesis presents two contributions to the current state of the art on ontology translation among languages and/or tools: It proposes a new model for building and maintaining ontology translation systems, characterised by two main features. First, it identifies four layers where ontology translation decisions can be taken: lexical, syntax, semantic, and semiotic. This layered architecture is based on existing work in formal languages and the theory of signs. Second, it proposes to represent ontology translation decisions declaratively. It characterises existing ontology translation approaches from the perspectives of semantic and pragmatic preservation, that is, consequence and intended meaning preservation respectively. It also describes the lifecycle of ontologies in cyclic ontology translation processes, which are defined as successive translations where the initial source and final target formats coincide. Resumen Desde la perspectiva de la informática, una ontologia se define como una especificación formal y explícita de una conceptualización compartida. Las ontologías se pueden modelar con distintos tipos de herramientas e implementar con distintos tipos de lenguajes de ontologías. Estas herramientas y lenguajes pueden estar basados en diferentes formalismos de representación de conocimientos y proporcionar distintos componentes para modelar ontologías. El problema de la traducción o de interoperabilidad de ontologías aparece cuando se decide reutilizar una ontologia (o parte de ella) con una herramienta o lenguaje distinto de aquéllos en los que la ontologia está disponible. Si se fiíerza a cada desarrollador de sistemas basados en ontologías, de manera individual, a realizar la tarea de traducir e incorporar las ontologías que necesitan en sus sistemas, éstos necesitarán gran esfuerzo y tiempo para alcanzar sus objetivos. Esta tesis presenta las siguientes dos contribuciones al estado del arte actual en traducción de ontologías entre lenguajes y/o herramientas: Se propone un nuevo modelo para la construcción y mantenimiento de sistemas de traducción de ontologías. Este modelo se caracteriza, en primer lugar, por ser multicapa: se identifican cuatro capas donde se pueden tomar decisiones de traducción: léxica, sintáctica, semántica y semiótica; esta arquitectura multicapa está basada en el trabajo existente sobre lenguajes formales y la teoría de signos. Asimismo, el modelo propone representar las decisiones de traducción de manera declarativa. Se caracterizan los enfoques de traducción de ontologías existentes desde las perspectivas de la preservación de la semántica y de la pragmática en la traducción. También se describe el ciclo de vida de las ontologías en procesos cíclicos de traducción, que se definen como una secuencia de traducciones sucesivas donde el formato inicial y el final coinciden. vn Tatole ofCoratents Acknowledgements iii Abstract v Resumen vii Table of Contents ix List of Figures xv ListofTables xix Chapter 1 Iníroduction and Overview i Chapter 2 State ofthe Art on Ontological Engineering 7 2.1 What is an ontology? 7 2.2 Which are the main components of an ontology? 11 2.2.1 Modelling heavyweight ontologies using frames and first order logic 11 2.2.2 Modelling heavjrweight ontologies using description logic 12 2.2.3 Modelling lightweight ontologies using software engineering and datábase modelling techniques 14 2.3 Ontology languages 15 2.3.1 Ontology language evolution 15 2.3.2 KR language comparison frameworks 19 2.3.2.1 Formal approaches for KR language comparison 19 2.3.2.2 Semi-formal and informal approaches for KR language comparison 21 2.3.3 Comparison of ontology languages 23 IX 2.4 Ontology tools 26 2.4.1 Ontology development tool evolution 27 2.4.2 Comparison of ontology tools 30 2.5 The ontology translation problem 33 2.5.1 Characterisation of ontology translation problems 33 2.5.2 Translation approaches and architectures 35 2.5.3 Technology for building ontology translation systems 37 2.6 Conclusions 37 Chapter 3 Work Objectives. 39 3.1 Goals and open research problems 39 3.2 Contributions to the state of the art 40 3.3 Work assumptions, hypothesls, and restrictions 42 Chapter 4 A Layered Declarative Ontology Translation Model 47 4.1 Introduction 47 4.2 Ontology translation layers 48 4.2.1 Lexical layer 48 4.2.2 Syntactic layer 51 4.2.3 Semantic layer 53 4.2.3.1 Semantic transformations from combinations of frames and first order logic to description logic 55 4.2.3.2 Semantic transformations from description logic to combinations of frames and first order logic 57 4.2.4 Pragmatic layer 58 4.2.4.1 Pragmatic transformations from combinations of frames and first order logic to description logic 60 4.2.4.2 Pragmatic transformations from description logic to combinations of frames and first order logic 61 4.2.5 Relationships among ontology translation layers 62 4.3 Declarative speciflcation of translation decisions 64 4.3.1 Declarative speciflcation of transformations at the lexical layer 65 4.3.2 Declarative speciflcation of transformations at the syntactic layer 70 4.3.3 Declarative speciflcation of transformations at the semantic and pragmatic layers ... 78 XI 4.4 Method for building an ontology translation system 87 4.4.1 Activity 1. Feasibility study 89 4.4.1.1 Task 1.1. Identify ontology translation system scope 90 4.4.1.2 Task 1.2. Analysis of current ontology translation systems 93 4.4.1.3 Task 1.3. Ontology translation system requirement definition 95 4.4.1.4 Task 1.4. Feasibility decision-making and recommendation 96 4.4.2 Activity 2. Analysis of source and target formats 99 4.4.2.1 Task 2.1. Describe source and target formats 102 4.4.2.2 Task 2.2. Determine expressiveness of source and target formats 104 4.4.2.3 Task 2.3. Compare knowledge models of source and target formats 105 4.4.2.4 Task 2.4. Describe and compare additional features of source and target formats 107 4.4.2.5 Task 2.5. Determine the scope of translation decisions 108 4.4.2.6 Task 2.6. Speciíy test plan 110 4.4.3 Activity 3. Design ofthe translation system 111 4.4.3.1 Task 3.1. Find andreuse similar translation systems 114 4.4.3.2 Task 3.2. Propose transformations at the pragmatic level 115 4.4.3.3 Task 3.3. Propose transformations atthe semantic level 118 4.4.3.4 Task 3.4. Propose transformations atthe syntax level 119 4.4.3.5 Task 3.5. Propose transformations at the lexical level 121 4.4.3.6 Task 3.6. Propose additional transformations 122 4.4.4 Activity 4. Implementation ofthe translation system 123 4.4.4.1 Task 4.1. Find translation fimctions to be reused 127 4.4.4.2 Task 4.2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bi-Directional Transformation Between Normalized Systems Elements and Domain Ontologies in OWL
    Bi-directional Transformation between Normalized Systems Elements and Domain Ontologies in OWL Marek Suchanek´ 1 a, Herwig Mannaert2, Peter Uhnak´ 3 b and Robert Pergl1 c 1Faculty of Information Technology, Czech Technical University in Prague, Thakurova´ 9, Prague, Czech Republic 2Normalized Systems Institute, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, Antwerp, Belgium 3NSX bvba, Wetenschapspark Universiteit Antwerpen, Galileilaan 15, 2845 Niel, Belgium Keywords: Ontology, Normalized Systems, Transformation, Model-driven Development, Ontology Engineering, Software Modelling. Abstract: Knowledge representation in OWL ontologies gained a lot of popularity with the development of Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Semantic Web, and Linked Open Data. OWL ontologies are very versatile, and there are many tools for analysis, design, documentation, and mapping. They can capture concepts and categories, their properties and relations. Normalized Systems (NS) provide a way of code generation from a model of so-called NS Elements resulting in an information system with proven evolvability. The model used in NS contains domain-specific knowledge that can be represented in an OWL ontology. This work clarifies the potential advantages of having OWL representation of the NS model, discusses the design of a bi-directional transformation between NS models and domain ontologies in OWL, and describes its implementation. It shows how the resulting ontology enables further work on the analytical level and leverages the system design. Moreover, due to the fact that NS metamodel is metacircular, the transformation can generate ontology of NS metamodel itself. It is expected that the results of this work will help with the design of larger real-world applications as well as the metamodel and that the transformation tool will be further extended with additional features which we proposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Automated Ontology Creation Using XML Schema Elements
    Automated Ontology Creation using XML Schema Elements Samuel Suhas Singapogu, Paulo C. G. Costa, J. Mark Pullen C4I center, George Mason University Fairfax, VA, USA [ssingapo,pcosta,mpullen]@c4i.gmu.edu Abstract—Ontologies are commonly used to represent formal semantics in a computer system, usually capturing them in the Although ontologies are valuable assets in system model- form of concepts, relationships and axioms. Axioms convey ing, testing and analysis, the process of manually creating an asserted knowledge and support inferring new knowledge ontology for a complex system is inherently tedious and through logical reasoning. For complex systems, the process of error prone. Existing methods of knowledge discovery and creating ontologies manually can be tedious and error-prone. ontology creation usually are based on text mining of a data Many automated methods of knowledge discovery are based on mining domain text corpus, but current state-of-the-art meth- corpus for that domain. XML-based systems capture the ods using this approach fail to consider properly semantic data structure and syntax of all necessary and meaningful ele- embedded in XML schemata in complex systems. This paper ments in a XML schema, which therefore is a useful starting proposes a mapping method for identifying relevant semantic point for semantic analysis. In such systems, XML schemata data in XML schemata, automatically structuring and repre- have been shown to be a valuable resource of semantic data senting it in the form of a draft ontology. Concepts, concept [2]. Command and Control systems in the military context hierarchy and domain relationships from XML schema are support various functions, including commanding of forces mapped to relevant parts of an OWL ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontojit: Parsing Native OWL DL Into Executable Ontologies in an Object Oriented Paradigm
    OntoJIT: Parsing Native OWL DL into Executable Ontologies in an Object Oriented Paradigm Sohaila Baset and Kilian Stoffel Information Management Institute University of Neuchatel, Neuchatel, Switzerland [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. Despite meriting the growing consensus between researchers and practitioners of ontology modeling, the Web Ontology Language OWL still has a modest presence in the communities of "traditional" web developers and software engineers. This resulted in hoarding the se- mantic web field in a rather small circle of people with a certain profile of expertise. In this paper we present OntoJIT, our novel approach to- ward a democratized semantic web where we bring OWL ontologies into the comfort-zone of end-application developers. We focus particularly on parsing OWL source files into executable ontologies in an object oriented programming paradigm. We finally demonstrate the dynamic code-base created as the result of parsing some reference OWL DL ontologies. Keywords: Ontologies, OWL, Semantic Web, Meta Programming,Dynamic Compilation 1 Background and Motivation With a stack full of recognized standards and specifications, the Web Ontology Language OWL has made long strides to allocate itself a distinctive spot in the landscape of knowledge representation and semantic web. Obviously, OWL is not the only player in the scene; over the couple of last decades many other languages have also emerged in the ontology modeling paradigm. Most of these languages are logic-based formalisms with underlying constructs in first order logic [5][7][8][11] or in one of the description logic fragments like OWL itself [3][4] and its predecessor DAML+OIL [10].
    [Show full text]
  • Open Geospatial Consortium
    Open Geospatial Consortium Submission Date: 2016-08-23 Approval Date: 2016-11-29 Publication Date: 2016-01-31 External identifier of this OGC® document: http://www.opengis.net/doc/geosciml/4.1 Internal reference number of this OGC® document: 16-008 Version: 4.1 Category: OGC® Implementation Standard Editor: GeoSciML Modelling Team OGC Geoscience Markup Language 4.1 (GeoSciML) Copyright notice Copyright © 2017 Open Geospatial Consortium To obtain additional rights of use, visit http://www.opengeospatial.org/legal/. IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information, Copyright © 2016-2017. All rights reserved. Warning This formatted document is not an official OGC Standard. The normative version is posted at: http://docs.opengeospatial.org/is/16-008/16-008.html This document is distributed for review and comment. This document is subject to change without notice and may not be referred to as an OGC Standard. Recipients of this document are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are aware and to provide supporting documentation. Document type: OGC® Standard Document subtype: Document stage: Approved for Publis Release Document language: English i Copyright © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium License Agreement Permission is hereby granted by the Open Geospatial Consortium, ("Licensor"), free of charge and subject to the terms set forth below, to any person obtaining a copy of this Intellectual Property and any associated documentation, to deal in the Intellectual Property without restriction (except as set forth below), including without limitation the rights to implement, use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sublicense copies of the Intellectual Property, and to permit persons to whom the Intellectual Property is furnished to do so, provided that all copyright notices on the intellectual property are retained intact and that each person to whom the Intellectual Property is furnished agrees to the terms of this Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Conceptual Framework for Persistent
    Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks CEC Theses and Dissertations College of Engineering and Computing 2017 Towards a Conceptual Framework for Persistent Use: A Technical Plan to Achieve Semantic Interoperability within Electronic Health Record Systems Shellon Blackman-Lees Nova Southeastern University, [email protected] This document is a product of extensive research conducted at the Nova Southeastern University College of Engineering and Computing. For more information on research and degree programs at the NSU College of Engineering and Computing, please click here. Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Share Feedback About This Item NSUWorks Citation Shellon Blackman-Lees. 2017. Towards a Conceptual Framework for Persistent Use: A Technical Plan to Achieve Semantic Interoperability within Electronic Health Record Systems. Doctoral dissertation. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, College of Engineering and Computing. (998) https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd/998. This Dissertation is brought to you by the College of Engineering and Computing at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CEC Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Towards a Conceptual Framework for Persistent Use: A Technical Plan to Achieve Semantic Interoperability within Electronic Health Record Systems By Shellon M. Blackman-Lees A dissertation report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Information Systems College of Engineering and Computing Nova Southeastern University 2017 An Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to Nova Southeastern University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Towards a Conceptual Framework for Persistent Use: A Technical Plan to Achieve Semantic Interoperability within Electronic Health Record Systems by Shellon M.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology Definition Metamodel
    Date: May 2009 Ontology Definition Metamodel Version 1.0 OMG Document Number: formal/2009-05-01 Standard document URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.0 Associated Files*: http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20080901 http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20080902 * source files: ptc/2008-09-09 (CMOF XMI), ptc/2008-09-09 (UML2 XMI) Copyright © 2005-2008, IBM Copyright © 2009, Object Management Group, Inc. Copyright © 2005-2008, Sandpiper Software, Inc. USE OF SPECIFICATION - TERMS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES The material in this document details an Object Management Group specification in accordance with the terms, conditions and notices set forth below. This document does not represent a commitment to implement any portion of this specification in any company's products. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. LICENSES The companies listed above have granted to the Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG) a nonexclusive, royalty-free, paid up, worldwide license to copy and distribute this document and to modify this document and distribute copies of the modified version. Each of the copyright holders listed above has agreed that no person shall be deemed to have infringed the copyright in the included material of any such copyright holder by reason of having used the specification set forth herein or having conformed any computer software to the specification. Subject to all of the terms and conditions below, the owners of the copyright in this specification hereby grant you a fully-paid up, non-exclusive, nontransferable, perpetual,
    [Show full text]
  • A Detailed Comparison of UML and OWL
    REIHE INFORMATIK TR-2008-004 A Detailed Comparison of UML and OWL Kilian Kiko und Colin Atkinson University of Mannheim – Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik – Lehrstuhl für Softwaretechnik A5, 6 D-68159 Mannheim, Germany 1 A Detailed Comparison of UML and OWL Kilian Kiko University of Mannheim Colin Atkinson University of Mannheim Abstract As models and ontologies assume an increasingly central role in software and information systems engineering, the question of how exactly they compare and how they can sensibly be used together assumes growing importance. However, no study to date has systematically and comprehensively compared the two technology spaces, and a large variety of different bridging and integration ideas have been proposed in recent years without any detailed analysis of whether they are sound or useful. In this paper, we address this problem by providing a detailed and comprehensive comparison of the two technology spaces in terms of their flagship languages – UML and OWL – each a de facto and de jure standard in its respective space. To fully analyze the end user experience, we perform the comparison at two levels – one considering the underlying boundary assumptions and philosophy adopted by each language and the other considering their detailed features. We also consider all relevant auxiliary languages such as OCL. The resulting comparison clarifies the relationship between the two technologies and provides a solid foundation for deciding how to use them together or integrate them. 2 Index Terms – Analysis, language comparison, representation languages, ontology languages, software modeling languages, syntax, semantics, interpretation assumptions. 1 Introduction A major trend in IT over the last decade has been the move towards greater inter-connectivity of systems and the creation of enterprise-wide computing solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology Definition Metamodel
    Date: September 2014 Ontology Definition Metamodel Version 1.1 OMG Document Number: formal/2014-09-02 Standard Document URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.1/ Normative Machine Consumable Files: http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/ODM-metamodels.xmi http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/RDFProfile.xmi http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/OWLProfile.xmi http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/RDFLibrary.xmi http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/XSDLibrary.xmi http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/OWLLibrary.xmi Copyright © 2009-2014, 88Solutions Copyright © 2013-2014, ACORD Copyright © 2009-2014, Adaptive, Inc. Copyright © 2009-2014, California Institute of Technology. United States Government sponsorship acknowledged. Copyright © 2005-2012, Computer Sciences Corporation Copyright © 2009-2014, Deere & Company Copyright © 2005-2014, International Business Machines Corporation Copyright © 2013-2014, Institute for Defense Analyses Copyright © 2009-2014, Object Management Group, Inc. Copyright © 2011-2014, No Magic, Inc. Copyright © 2005-2012, Raytheon Company Copyright © 2005-2011, Sandpiper Software, Inc. Copyright © 2009-2014, Sparx Systems Pty Ltd Copyright © 2011-2014, Thematix Partners LLC USE OF SPECIFICATION - TERMS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES The material in this document details an Object Management Group specification in accordance with the terms, conditions and notices set forth below. This document does not represent a commitment to implement any portion of this specification in any company's products. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. LICENSES The companies listed above have granted to the Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG) a nonexclusive, royalty-free, paid up, worldwide license to copy and distribute this document and to modify this document and distribute copies of the modified version.
    [Show full text]
  • Experience in Reasoning with the Foundational Model of Anatomy in Owl Dl
    Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2006: World Scientific; 2006. p. 200-211. ´' 2006 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. EXPERIENCE IN REASONING WITH THE FOUNDATIONAL MODEL OF ANATOMY IN OWL DL SONGMAO ZHANG 1, OLIVIER BODENREIDER 2, CHRISTINE GOLBREICH 3 1 Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Mathematics and System Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China {[email protected]} 2 U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA {[email protected]} 3 LIM, University Rennes 1, Rennes, France {[email protected]} The objective of this study is to compare description logics (DLs) and frames for representing large-scale biomedical ontologies and reasoning with them. The ontology under investigation is the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA). We converted it from its frame-based representation in Protégé into OWL DL. The OWL reasoner Racer helped identify unsatisfiable classes in the FMA. Support for consistency checking is clearly an advantage of using DLs rather than frames. The in- terest of reclassification was limited, due to the difficulty of defining necessary and sufficient con- ditions for anatomical entities. The sheer size and complexity of the FMA was also an issue. 1 Introduction As virtually all other biomedical ontologies relate to them, reference ontologies for core domains such as anatomical entities and small molecules form the backbone of the Se- mantic Web for Life Sciences. One such ontology is the Foundational Model of Anat- omy (FMA). However, existing reference ontologies sometimes need to be adapted to Semantic Web technologies before they can actually contribute to the Semantic Web.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Recursive Relationships to OWL2 Components
    (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 10, No. 10, 2019 Ontology Learning from Relational Databases: Transforming Recursive Relationships to OWL2 Components 1 Mohammed Reda CHBIHI LOUHDI Hicham BEHJA2 Research Laboratory on computer science innovation (LRII) LRI - Laboratory Faculty of Science Aïn Chock Casablanca ENSEM, Hassan II University Hassan II University, Casablanca, Morocco Casablanca, Morocco Abstract—Relational databases (RDB) are widely used as a ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data backend for information systems, and contain interesting values and are stored as Semantic Web documents [3]. structured data (schema and data). In the case of ontology learning, RDB can be used as knowledge source. Multiple There are many approaches that transform a RDB to an approaches exist for building ontologies from RDB. They mainly ontology. Three main techniques are used: (1) Reverse use schema mapping to transform RDB components to Engineering, to convert the relational model to the conceptual ontologies. Most existing approaches do not deal with recursive model (which is considered as semantically richer than the relationships that can encapsulate good semantics. In this paper, relational model) or to retrieve lost information during the two technics are proposed for transforming recursive transformation of the conceptual model to the relational model, relationships to OWL2 components: (1) Transitivity mechanism (2) Schema Mapping, to convert relational model components and (2) Concept Hierarchy. The main objective of this work is to to ontology components, through the use of transformation build richer ontologies with deep taxonomies from RDB. rules and (3) Data Mining to analyze stored data in order to enrich the ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology Life Cycle: a Survey on the Ontology and Its Development Steps
    International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online): 2319-7064 Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391 Ontology Life Cycle: A Survey on the Ontology and its Development Steps Eiman Alsiddig Altayeb Ibrahim1, Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ataelfadiel2 1Sudan University of Science and Technology, College of Computer Science and Information Technology, Khartoum – Sudan 2Computer Science dept. AL-Imam MuhommedIbn Saud Islamic University, AL-Ahsa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Abstract: In the last decades, the turnout has become great for the use of ontology in various fields, such as web technologies, database integration, multi agent systems, natural language processing, etc... The main goal of this paper is to answer generic questions about ontologies, such as: What is the ontology? Which are the different Types of ontologies? What is the purpose of the use of ontologies in an application? Which methods can I use to build ontology? During the paper we discussed the definition of Ontology, types of ontologies (Formal and Informal ontology) and its Component.Also, highlighted some of the languages used in the construction of the Ontologies beside the ontology Building Tools. In addition, we listed the agreed steps for building the Ontology. In conclusion, we did not overlook to mention some of the Ontology projects specifically in Holy Quran Domain. Keywords: Ontology Definition, Ontology Types, Ontology Building Tools, Ontology languages, Ontology components, Ontology Engineering 1. Introduction 2. Ontology Definition Historically, ontologies arise out of the branch of philosophy There are many interpretations about what ontology is. In fact, known as metaphysics, which deals with the nature of reality – hot discussions are often done in many meetings on ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • An Approach to Formalizing Ontology Driven Semantic Integration: Concepts, Dimensions and Framework Wenlong Gao
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2012 An Approach to Formalizing Ontology Driven Semantic Integration: Concepts, Dimensions and Framework Wenlong Gao Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION AN APPROACH TO FORMALIZING ONTOLOGY DRIVEN SEMANTIC INTEGRATION: CONCEPTS, DIMENSIONS AND FRAMEWORK By WENLONG GAO A Dissertation submitted to the School of Library and Information Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2012 Wenlong Gao defended this dissertation on December 9, 2011 The members of the supervisory committee were: Corinne Jörgensen Professor Directing Dissertation Daniel Schwartz University Representative Ian Douglas Committee Member Besiki Stvilia Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii For my parents, I could not have done this without you. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation could not have been completed without the tremendous support and help of my dissertation committee, friends and family. First, I would like to thank Dr. Corinne Jörgensen, my dissertation chair and mentor. You supported me through this entire process, and encouraged me whenever I encountered challenges. I will always appreciate the trust and confidence you placed in me. It has been an honor and privilege to be your doctoral student. Second, I am thankful for other committee members, Dr. Ian Douglas, Dr. Besiki Stvilia, Dr. Daniel Schwartz, who inspired me not only throughout the dissertation development but also though my personal academic development.
    [Show full text]