Winnowing Ontologies Based on Application Use

The requirements of specific applications and services are often over estimated when ontologies are reused or built. This sometimes results in many ontologies being too large for their intended purposes. It is not uncommon that when applications and services are deployed over an ontology, only a few parts of the ontology are queried and used. Identifying which parts of an ontology are being used could be helpful to winnow the ontology, i.e., simplify or shrink the ontology to smaller, more fit for purpose size. Some approaches to handle this problem have already been suggested in the literature. However, none of that work showed how ontology-based applications can be used in the ontology-resizing process, or how they might be affected by it. This paper presents a study on the use of the AKT Reference Ontology by a number of applications and services, and investigates the possibility of relying on this usage information to winnow that ontology.

[1]  David Taniar,et al.  Semantic Completeness in Sub-ontology Extraction Using Distributed Methods , 2004, ICCSA.

[2]  Michel C. A. Klein,et al.  Guest Editors' Introduction: Semantic Web Challenge 2003 , 2004, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[3]  Hugh Glaser,et al.  Monitoring Research Collaborations Using Semantic Web Technologies , 2005, ESWC.

[4]  Alexiei Dingli,et al.  Learning to Harvest Information for the Semantic Web , 2004, ESWS.

[5]  N. F. Noy,et al.  Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology , 2001 .

[6]  Michael Gruninger,et al.  Methodology for the Design and Evaluation of Ontologies , 1995, IJCAI 1995.

[7]  Nicholas Gibbins,et al.  3store: Efficient Bulk RDF Storage , 2003, PSSS.

[8]  Nenad Stojanovic,et al.  Usage-Oriented Evolution of Ontology-Based Knowledge Management Systems , 2002, OTM.

[9]  Michel C. A. Klein,et al.  Semantic Web Challenge 2004 , 2005, J. Web Semant..

[10]  Julian Seidenberg,et al.  Techniques for Segmenting Large Description Logic Ontologies , 2005 .

[11]  Vassilis Christophides,et al.  Viewing the Semantic Web through RVL Lenses , 2003, SEMWEB.

[12]  Hugh Glaser,et al.  CS AKTive space: representing computer science in the semantic web , 2004, WWW '04.

[13]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Cognitive process as a basis for intelligent retrieval systems design , 1991, Inf. Process. Manag..

[14]  Daniel Oberle,et al.  Implementing views for light-weight Web ontologies , 2003, Seventh International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium, 2003. Proceedings..

[15]  Harith Alani,et al.  OntologyWinnowing: A Case Study on the AKT Reference Ontology , 2005, International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (CIMCA-IAWTIC'06).

[16]  Peter Haase,et al.  Collaborative and Usage-driven Evolution of Personal Ontologies , 2005, LWA.

[17]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  Specifying Ontology Views by Traversal , 2004, International Semantic Web Conference.

[18]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web" in Scientific American , 2001 .

[19]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classification and use , 2006, WWW '06.

[20]  Rudi Studer,et al.  OntoManager - A System for the Usage-Based Ontology Management , 2003, OTM.

[21]  Harith Alani,et al.  Identifying Communities of Practice through Ontology Network Analysis , 2003, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[22]  Hugh Glaser,et al.  CS AKTive Space or how we stopped worrying and learned to love the Semantic Web , 2003 .

[23]  Michel C. A. Klein,et al.  Structure-Based Partitioning of Large Concept Hierarchies , 2004, SEMWEB.

[24]  Michael Uschold,et al.  Ontologies: principles, methods and applications , 1996, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[25]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  A Framework for Handling Inconsistency in Changing Ontologies , 2005, SEMWEB.