skip to main content
10.1145/1458484.1458492acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Merging taxonomies under RCC-5 algebraic articulations

Published: 30 October 2008 Publication History

Abstract

Taxonomies are widely used to classify information, and multiple (possibly competing) taxonomies often exist for the same domain. Given a set of correspondences between two taxonomies, it is often necessary to "merge" the taxonomies, thereby creating a unified taxonomy (e.g., that can then be used by data integration and discovery applications). We present an algorithm for merging taxonomies that have been related using articulations given as RCC-5 constraints. Two taxa N and M can be related using (disjunctions of) the five base relations in RCC-5: N a M; N -- M; N -- M; N -- M (partial overlap of N and M); and N ! M (disjointness: N ) M = Ø). RCC-5 is increasingly being adopted by scientists to specify mappings between large species taxonomies. We discuss the properties of the proposed merge algorithm and evaluate our approach using real-world biological taxonomies.

References

[1]
A. V. Aho, M. R. Garey, and J. D. Ullman. The transitive reduction of a directed graph. SIAM J. Comput., 1(2):131--137, 1972.
[2]
K. D. Bailey. Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques. Sage Publications, Inc, 1994.
[3]
B. Bennett. Spatial reasoning with propositional logics. In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso, editors, KR'94: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 51--62. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California, 1994.
[4]
W. G. Berendsohn. MoReTax -- Handling Factual Information Linked to Taxonomic Concepts in Biology. Number 39 in Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2003.
[5]
R. Brachman. What is-a is and isn't: An analysis of taxonomic links in semantic networks. IEEE Computer, 16:30--36, 1983.
[6]
R. Côté, D. Rothwell, and L. Brochu, editors. SNOMED international : the systematized nomenclature of human and veterinary medicine. College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Ill., 3rd edition, 1993.
[7]
W. F. Doolittle. Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science, 284(5423):2124--2128, 1999.
[8]
D. Dou, D. McDermott, and P. Qi. Ontology translation on the semantic web. In International Conference on Ontologies, Databases and Applications, 2004.
[9]
M. Ehrig. Ontology Alignment: Bridging the Semantic Gap, volume 4 of Semantic Web And Beyond Computing for Human Experience. Springer, 2007.
[10]
J. Euzenat. State of the art on ontology alignment. http://www.starlab.vub.ac.be/publications/kweb-223.pdf, 2004.
[11]
N. M. Franz, R. K. Peet, and A. S. Weakley. On the use of taxonomic concepts in support of biodiversity research and taxonomy. Proceedings of the New Taxonomy Symposium, 2006.
[12]
S. Henikoff, E. A. Greene, S. Pietrokovski, P. Bork, T. K. Attwood, and L. Hood. Gene families: The taxonomy of protein paralogs and chimeras. Science, 278(5338):609--614, 1997.
[13]
Y. E. Ioannidis and R. Ramakrishnan. An efficient transitive closure algorithm. In Proc. of the 14th International Conference Very Large Databases, pages 382--394, 1988.
[14]
P. Jonsson and T. Drakengren. A complete classification of tractability in RCC-5. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 6:211--221, 1997.
[15]
J. J. Jung. Taxonomy alignment for interoperability between heterogeneous digital libraries. In S. Sugimoto, J. Hunter, A. Rauber, and A. Morishima, editors, ICADL, volume 4312 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 274--282. Springer, 2006.
[16]
J. Kennedy, R. Kukla, and T. Paterson. Scientific names are ambiguous as identifiers for biological taxa: Their context and definition are required for accurate data integration. In 2nd Intl. Workshop on Data Integration in the Life Sciences (DILS), LNCS 3615, pages 80--95, July 2005.
[17]
J. Kim, M. Jang, Y.-G. Ha, J.-C. Sohn, and S.-J. Lee. MoA: OWL ontology merging and alignment tool for the semantic web. In M. Ali and F. Esposito, editors, IEA/AIE, volume 3533 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 722--731. Springer, 2005.
[18]
M. Klein. Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In A. Gomez-Perez, M. Gruninger, H. Stuckenschmidt, and M. Uschold, editors, Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, IJCAI'01, Seattle, USA, 2001.
[19]
M. Koperski, M. Sauer, W. Braun, and S. Gradstein. Referenzliste der Moose Deutschlands, volume 34. Schriftenreihe Vegetationsk, 2000.
[20]
K. Kotis and G. A. Vouros. The HCONE approach to ontology merging. In C. Bussler, J. Davies, D. Fensel, and R. Studer, editors, ESWS, volume 3053 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 137--151. Springer, 2004.
[21]
K. Kotis, G. A. Vouros, and K. Stergiou. Towards automatic merging of domain ontologies: The HCONE-merge approach. J. Web Sem., 4(1):60--79, 2006.
[22]
P. Lambrix and H. Tan. SAMBO - a system for aligning and merging biomedical ontologies. J. Web Sem., 4(3):196--206, 2006.
[23]
C. Linnaeus. Systema Naturae. Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm, 1758.
[24]
D. L. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder. The Chimaera ontology environment. In AAAI/IAAI, pages 1123--1124. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 2000.
[25]
D. L. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder. An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In Proc. of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge, Breckenridgeand Coloradoand United States, April 2000.
[26]
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.
[27]
C. Orengo, A. Michie, S. Jones, D. Jones, M. Swindells, and J. Thornton. CATH - a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure, 5(8):1093--1108, aug 1997.
[28]
R. K. Peet. Ranunculus data set. June 2005.
[29]
D. A. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. Cohn. A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, and W. Swartout, editors, KR'92. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, pages 165--176. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1992.
[30]
J. Renz and B. Nebel. On the complexity of qualitative spatial reasoning: A maximal tractable fragment of the region connection calculus. Artif. Intell., 108(1-2):69--123, 1999.
[31]
A. Riazanov and A. Voronkov. The design and implementation of VAMPIRE. AI Commun., 15(2-3):91--110, 2002.
[32]
S. S. Staff. Soil taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. Number 436 in Soil Conservation Service Agricultural Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture, 1975.
[33]
G. Stumme and A. Maedche. FCA-MERGE: Bottom-Up Merging of Ontologies. In Proc. of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial, pages 225--234, 2001.
[34]
G. Stumme and A. Maedche. Ontology merging for federated ontologies on the semantic web, 2001.
[35]
D. Thau. Reasoning about taxonomies and articulations. In Workshop Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Extending Database Technology. ACM, 2008.
[36]
D. Thau and B. Ludäscher. Reasoning about taxonomies in first-order logic. Ecological Informatics, 2(3):195--209, 2007.
[37]
M. Wessel. On spatial reasoning with description logics-position paper. In I. Horrocks and S. Tessaris, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop in Description Logics, pages 156--163, Touluse, France, April 2002. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
[38]
W.W.McCune. Prover 9: http://www.cs.unm.edu/mccune/prover9/, July 2008.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)TaxonWorks in its 10th Year: What’s new, what’s next?Biodiversity Information Science and Standards10.3897/biss.7.1120407Online publication date: 5-Sep-2023
  • (2020)What to Do When the Users of an Ontology Merging System Want the Impossible? Towards Determining Compatibility of Generic Merge RequirementsKnowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management10.1007/978-3-030-61244-3_2(20-36)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2020
  • (2017)Cultural Dynamics, Deep Time, and DataAdvances in Archaeological Practice10.7183/2326-3768.3.1.13:1(1-15)Online publication date: 16-Jan-2017
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ONISW '08: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Ontologies and information systems for the semantic web
October 2008
124 pages
ISBN:9781605582559
DOI:10.1145/1458484
  • General Chair:
  • Ramez Elmasri,
  • Program Chairs:
  • Martin Doerr,
  • Mathias Brochhausen,
  • Hyoil Han
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 30 October 2008

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. automated deduction (reasoning)
  2. merging
  3. taxonomies

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

CIKM08
CIKM08: Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
October 30, 2008
California, Napa Valley, USA

Upcoming Conference

CIKM '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)TaxonWorks in its 10th Year: What’s new, what’s next?Biodiversity Information Science and Standards10.3897/biss.7.1120407Online publication date: 5-Sep-2023
  • (2020)What to Do When the Users of an Ontology Merging System Want the Impossible? Towards Determining Compatibility of Generic Merge RequirementsKnowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management10.1007/978-3-030-61244-3_2(20-36)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2020
  • (2017)Cultural Dynamics, Deep Time, and DataAdvances in Archaeological Practice10.7183/2326-3768.3.1.13:1(1-15)Online publication date: 16-Jan-2017
  • (2017)Agreeing to disagree: Reconciling conflicting taxonomic views using a logic‐based approachProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/pra2.2017.1450540100654:1(46-56)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2017
  • (2016)Controlling the taxonomic variable: Taxonomic concept resolution for a southeastern United States herbarium portalResearch Ideas and Outcomes10.3897/rio.2.e106102(e10610)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2016
  • (2016)Names are not good enoughSemantic Web10.3233/SW-1602207:6(645-667)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2016
  • (2014)Target-driven merging of taxonomies with AtomInformation Systems10.1016/j.is.2013.11.00142(1-14)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2014
  • (2014)Taxonomic data integration from multilingual Wikipedia editionsKnowledge and Information Systems10.1007/s10115-012-0597-339:1(1-39)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2014
  • (2014)A Hybrid Diagnosis Approach Combining Black-Box and White-Box ReasoningRules on the Web. From Theory to Applications10.1007/978-3-319-09870-8_9(127-141)Online publication date: 2014
  • (2012)Towards a Benchmark for Ontology MergingOn the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2012 Workshops10.1007/978-3-642-33618-8_20(124-133)Online publication date: 2012
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media