skip to main content
article

Semantic integration: a survey of ontology-based approaches

Published:01 December 2004Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Semantic integration is an active area of research in several disciplines, such as databases, information-integration, and ontologies. This paper provides a brief survey of the approaches to semantic integration developed by researchers in the ontology community. We focus on the approaches that differentiate the ontology research from other related areas. The goal of the paper is to provide a reader who may not be very familiar with ontology research with introduction to major themes in this research and with pointers to different research projects. We discuss techniques for finding correspondences between ontologies, declarative ways of representing these correspondences, and use of these correspondences in various semantic-integration tasks

References

  1. J. Barwise and J. Seligman. Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. D. Calvanese, G. Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. Ontology of integration and integration of ontologies. In Description Logic Workshop (DL 2001), pages 10--19, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, R. Rosati, and G. Vetere. DL-lite: Practical Reasoning for Rich DLs. In International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2004), Whistler, Canada, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Crubézy and M. A. Musen. Ontologies in support of problem solving. In S. Staab and R. Studer, editors, Handbook on Ontologies, pages 321--342. Sringer, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Doan, J. Madhavan, P. Domingos, and A. Halevy. Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web. In The Eleventh International WWW Conference, Hawaii, US, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Dou, D. McDermott, and P. Qi. Ontology translation on the semantic web. In International Conference on Ontologies, Databases and Applications of Semantics, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J. Euzenat and P. Valtchev. Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-Lite. In The 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-04), Valencia, Spain, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Gangemi, N. Guarino, C. Masolo, and A. Oltramari. Sweetening wordnet with DOLCE. AI Magazine, 24(3): 13--24, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. B. Ganter and R. Wille. Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical foundations. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. F. Giunchiglia, P. Shvaiko, and M. Yatskevich. Semantic matching. In 1st European semantic web symposium (ESWS'04), pages 61--75, Heraklion, Greece, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Grüninger. A guide to the ontology of the process specification language. In S. Staab and R. Studer, editors, Handbook on Ontologies. Sringer, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Grüninger and J. Kopena. Semantic integration through invariants. In A. Doan, A. Halevy, and N. Noy, editors, Workshop on Semantic Integration at ISWC-2003, Sanibel Island, FL, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. E. Hovy. Combining and standardizing largescale, practical ontologies for machine translation and other uses. In The First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pages 535--542, Granada, Spain, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer. IF-Map: an ontology mapping method based on information flow theory. Journal on Data Semantics, 1(1):98--127, Oct. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(1): 1--31, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Klein. Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In IJCAI-2001 Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, pages 53--62, Seattle, WA, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Madhavan, P. Bernstein, and E. Rahm. Generic schema matching using Cupid. In The 27th International Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB'01), Rome, Italy, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. Maedche, B. Motik, N. Silva, and R. Volz. MAFRA - a mapping framework for distributed ontologies. In 13th European Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management EKAW, Madrid, Spain, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. I. Niles and A. Pease. Towards a standard upper ontology. In The 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2001), Ogunquit, Maine, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. N. F. Noy and M. A. Musen. The PROMPT suite: Interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6):983--1024, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Polyak, J. Lee, M. Gruninger, and C. Menzel. Applying the process interchange format(PIF) to a supply chain process interoperability scenario. In Workshop on Applications of Ontologies and Problem Solving Methods, ECAI'98, Brighton, England, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. E. Rahm and P. A. Bernstein. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal, 10(4), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. G. Stumme and A. Mädche. FCA-Merge: Bottom-up merging of ontologies. In 7th Intl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI '01), pages 225--230, Seattle, WA, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. M. Uschold and M. Grüninger. Ontologies and semantics for seamless connectivity. SIGMOD Record, 33(3), 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. Valente, T. Russ, R. MacGrecor, and W. Swartout. Building and (re)using an ontology for air campaign planning. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(1):27--36, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Welty. Ontology research. AI Magazine, 24(3), 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image ACM SIGMOD Record
    ACM SIGMOD Record  Volume 33, Issue 4
    December 2004
    92 pages
    ISSN:0163-5808
    DOI:10.1145/1041410
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Copyright © 2004 Author

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 1 December 2004

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • article

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader