Comparing Sets of Semantic Relations in Ontologies

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.

[1]  Carole D. Hafner,et al.  The State of the Art in Ontology Design: A Survey and Comparative Review , 1997, AI Mag..

[2]  D. Davidson Truth and meaning , 2004, Synthese.

[3]  Mike Uschold,et al.  A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology Applications , 1999 .

[4]  Kavi Mahesh,et al.  Ontology Development for Machine Translation: Ideology and Methodology , 1996 .

[5]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[6]  John Haugeland Mind design , 1985 .

[7]  Eduard Hovy,et al.  Automated Text Summarization in SUMMARIST , 1997, ACL 1997.

[8]  N. Cocchiarella,et al.  Situations and Attitudes. , 1986 .

[9]  Matthew Haines,et al.  Filling Knowledge Gaps in a Broad-Coverage Machine Translation System , 1995, IJCAI.

[10]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  SMART: Automated Support for Ontology Merging and Alignment , 1999 .

[11]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[12]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[13]  Rudolf Wille,et al.  Conceptual Graphs and Formal Concept Analysis , 1997, ICCS.

[14]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  An Environment for Merging and Testing Large Ontologies , 2000, KR.

[15]  Eneko Agirre,et al.  Disambiguating bilingual nominal entries against WordNet , 1995, ArXiv.

[16]  Elizabeth D. Liddy,et al.  Advances in Automatic Text Summarization , 2001, Information Retrieval.

[17]  Dan Corbett,et al.  A Framework for Comparing the use of a Linguistic Ontology in an Application , 2000 .

[18]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  CLASSIC: a structural data model for objects , 1989, SIGMOD '89.

[19]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  "Reducing" CLASSIC to Practice: Knowledge Representation Theory Meets Reality , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Eduard Hovy,et al.  Combining and standardizing large- scale, practical ontologies for machine tranlation and other uses , 1998, LREC.

[21]  Drew McDermott,et al.  Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity , 1976, SGAR.

[22]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Knowledge Representation , 1998 .

[23]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  ONTOGENERATION: Reusing Domain and Linguistic Ontologies for Spanish Text Generation , 1998 .

[24]  Robert M. MacGregor,et al.  Inside the LOOM description classifier , 1991, SGAR.

[25]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  An Algorithm for Merging and Aligning Ontologies: Automation and Tool Support , 1999 .

[26]  N. Cocchiarella,et al.  Situations and Attitudes. , 1986 .

[27]  Richard Fikes,et al.  The Ontolingua Server: a tool for collaborative ontology construction , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[28]  Ronald J. Brachman,et al.  A Structural Paradigm for Representing Knowledge. , 1978 .

[29]  Eduard Hovy,et al.  Lexicon-to-Ontology Concept Association Using a Bilingual Dictionary , 1994, AMTA.

[30]  Alicia Ageno,et al.  TGE: Tlinks Generation Environment , 1994, COLING.

[31]  Mark T. Maybury,et al.  Advances in Automatic Text Summarization , 1999 .

[32]  Douglas B. Lenat,et al.  CYC: a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure , 1995, CACM.

[33]  Keith E. Williamson,et al.  Ontology reuse and application , 1998 .

[34]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Some Ontological Principles for Designing Upper Level Lexical Resources , 1998, LREC.

[35]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Some Organizing Principles For A Unified Top-Level Ontology 1 , 1997 .

[36]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  Ontology alignment: Experiences with medical terminologies , 1998 .

[37]  Kevin Knight,et al.  Toward Distributed Use of Large-Scale Ontologies t , 1997 .

[38]  John F. Sowa,et al.  Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations , 2000 .

[39]  Kevin Knight,et al.  Building a Large-Scale Knowledge Base for Machine Translation , 1994, AAAI.

[40]  Jerry R. Hobbs Ontological Promiscuity , 1985, ACL.

[41]  Cherri M. Pancake,et al.  The promise and the cost of object technology: a five-year forecast , 1995, CACM.

[42]  Richard Fikes,et al.  A Web-Based Compositional Modeling System for Sharing of Physical Knowledge , 1997, IJCAI.

[43]  Bonnie J. Dorr,et al.  Machine Translation Divergences: A Formal Description and Proposed Solution , 1994, CL.