Skip to main content

Lightweight Ontologies

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
  • 18 Accesses

Synonyms

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

Definition

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 via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   4,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   6,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Recommended Reading

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Giunchiglia FMM, Zaihrayeu I. Encoding classifications into lightweight ontologies. J Data Semant. 2007;VIII:57–81.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. Giunchiglia F, Yatskevich M, Shvaiko P. Semantic matching: algorithms and implementation. J Data Semant. 2007;IX4601:1–38.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. Gruber TR. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis. 1993;5(2):199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller G. Wordnet: an electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1998.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Uschold M, Gruninger M. Ontologies and semantics for seamless connectivity. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 2004;33(4):58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fausto Giunchiglia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Giunchiglia, F., Zaihrayeu, I. (2018). Lightweight Ontologies. In: Liu, L., Özsu, M.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1314

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics