Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 5333))

  • 1623 Accesses

Abstract

This paper introduces the notion of Ontology Robustness in Evolution and discusses a solution based on the distinction among a stable component and a contingent component of the ontology. The stable component represents the annotation used to store data into the ontology, while the contingent component contains assertions generated by constraining the assertions in the stable component. This distinction can be used to understand which annotations can be migrated from one old version of the ontology to a new one. This way it is minimized the number of inconsistencies introduced in annotations when evolving an ontology.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 2001(5) (2001), http://www.sciam.com/2001/0501issue/0501berners-lee.html

  2. Gomez-Perez, A., Manzano-Macho, D.: A survey of ontology learning methods and techniques. OntoWeb Deliverable (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gruber, T.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge acquisitions 5, 199–220 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hahn, U., Marko, K.G.: Ontology and lexicon evolution by text understanding. In: Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing for Ontology Engineering (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science research in information systems. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Heflin, J., Pan, Z.: A model theoretic semantics for ontology versioning. In: Third International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Huang, Z., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Reasoning with multiversion ontologies: a temporal logic approach. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 398–412. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Klein, M.: Change Management for Distributed Ontologies. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca-Grau, B., Hendler, J.: SWOOP: A web ontology editing browser. Journal of Web Semantics (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Malhotra, Y.: Why Knowledge Management Systems Fail? Enablers and Constraints of Knowledge Management in Human Enterprises. In: Holsapple, C.W. (ed.) Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters, pp. 577–599 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Noy, N.F., Klein, M.: Ontology Evolution: Not the Same as Schema Evolution. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 6(4), 428–440 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: The PROMPT suite: Interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59(6), 983–1024 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Plessers, P., De Troyer, O.: Ontology change detection using a version log. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 578–592. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Stojanovic, L., Maedche, A., Motik, B., Stojanovic, N.: User-Driven Ontology Evolution Management. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 285–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Stojanovic, L., Maedche, A., Stojanovic, N., Studer, R.: Ontology evolution as reconfiguration-design problem solving. In: KCAP 2003, pp. 162–171. ACM, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vanhoenacker, J., Bryant, A., Dedene, G.: Creating a knowledge management architecture for business process change. In: The Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research, New York, NY, USA, pp. 231–241 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ventrone, V.: Semantic heterogeneity as a result of domain evolution. SIGMOD Rec. 20(4), 16–20 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. OWL Web Ontology Language Concrete Abstract Syntax. W3C (2003), http://owl.man.ac.uk/2003/concrete/20031210

  19. OWL - Web Ontology Language defintion, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., Leida, M. (2008). Ontology Robustness in Evolution. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2008 Workshops. OTM 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5333. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88875-8_128

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88875-8_128

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-88874-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-88875-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics