Ontology Management Del4: Survey, Requirement and Direction

1
Ontology Management (Del4)Survey, Requirement
and Direction

• Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

2
Outline

• Ontology library system
• Evaluation models
• Summary and requirement
• Ontology versioning
• Requirement
• Proposal
• Summary and conclusions

3
Ontology Library System (OLS)

• Evaluation Model

4
Surveyed OLSs

• WebOnto (http//eldora.open.ac.uk3000/webonto)
• Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK,
• Ontolingual (http//www-ksl-svc.stanford.edu5915/
  )
• Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford
  University, USA),
• DAML Ontology library system (http//www.daml.org
  /ontologies/)
• DAML, DAPAR, USA,
• SHOE (http//www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/SHOE/)
• University of Maryland, USA,
• Ontology Server (http//www.starlab.vub.ac.be/rese
  arch/dogma/OntologyServer.htm)
• Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium,
• IEEE Standard Upper Ontology (http//suo.ieee.org/
  refs.html)
• IEEE,
• OntoServer (http//ontoserver.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.d
  e/)
• AIFB, University of Karlshruhe, Germany
• ONIONS (http//saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it/onto/)
• Biomedical Technologies Institute (ITBM) of the
  Italian National Research Council (CNR), Italy.
• Sesame (http//sesame.aidministrator.nl/)
• Aidministrator, the Netherlands.

5
Management

• Storage
• Accessibility
• client/server-based architecture
• web accessible
• Classification
• It is necessary to classify ontology in an OLS in
  order to facilitate searching, managing and
  re-using ontology. Some of the ontology
  classification mechanisms available are based on
  distinguishable features of ontologies.

6
Management

• Storage
• Modular organization
• serve to maximize cohesion within modules and
  minimize interaction between modules.
• facilitate ontology re-use, ontology mapping and
  integration
• ONIONS highlights the stratified design of an
  ontology library system.
• Different naming policies assist OLS to achieve
  the modular organization or stratified storage of
  ontologies.
• The disjointed partitioning of classes can
  facilitate modularity, assembling, integrating
  and consisting checking of ontologies.
• Identification
• Unique ontology URL, Identifier and name
• Versioning
• Unfortunately, only SHOE supports it.

7
Adaptation

• Searching Editing
• feature a visualized browsing environment, using
  hyperlinks or cross-references to closely related
  information.
• support collaborative editing
• offer advanced searching features
• monitor user profiles based on access patterns in
  order to personalize the view of ontologies
• Reasoning
• A simple reasoning function should be included in
  order to facilitate ontology creation, ontology
  mapping and integration.

8
Standardization

• Language
• Syntactically, language should be standardized or
  inter- or intra- ontology language translation
  should be supported.
• Semantically, OLS should feature the common
  vocabulary (or faceted taxonomy). At any rate, it
  should eliminate the implicitness and
  misunderstanding of terms in different
  ontologies.
• Preferably, OLS should also support compatibility
  with or mapping between multiple controlled
  vocabularies from different domains (The
  structures of these common vocabularies or
  multiple controlled vocabularies must be faceted,
  or modulated. These vocabularies can help in
  simple synonym matching, sibling analysis, and
  disjoint partition checking).
• Upper-level Ontology
• Standard upper-level ontology is important for
  better organization of OLS (Ontolingua, IEEE
  SUO).

9
Others

• Ontology scalability
• increase the scale of ontologies.
• Maintaining facility
• provide some maintenance features, such as
  consistency checking, diagnostic testing, support
  for changes, and adaptation of ontologies for
  different applications.
• Explicit documentation
• extensively and explicitly documented
• include such information as how the ontology was
  constructed, how to make extensions and what the
  ontologys naming policy, organizational
  principles and functions are.
• pave the way for efficient ontology management
  and re-use.

10
Ontology versioning

• Definition the ability to handle changes in
  ontologies by creating and managing different
  variants of it
• Goalexploit as much knowledge as possible
• Identification for every use of a concept or a
  relation, a versioning framework should provide
  an unambigious reference to the intended
  definition
• Change tracking a versioning framework should
  make the relation of one version of a concept or
  relation to other versions of that construct
  explicit
• Transparent evolution versioning methodology on
  the web should make clear which part of the data
  can still be valid interpreted

11
Ideas on ontology identification

• Putting it together
• different causes of change give different types
  of change
• several types of compatibility
• minimal ontological commitment for data sources
  maximizes validness of data across different
  versions

12
Identification and referring proposal

• Distinguish between three classes of resources
• files, ontologies, lines of backward compatible
  ontologies
• Use URL for file identification, new URI scheme
  for other two
• Two level numbering
• minor numbers for backward compatible changes
• major numbers for incompatible changes
• Concepts that only differ in minor number are
  equivalent
• Backward compatible additions are added as
  instance of class Addition class, e.g.
  Additions1.3
• Data refers to the minimal necessary minor number

13
Summary

• Well-structured Ontology Library systems (OLSs)
  are of the great importance to secure the
  efficient re-use of ontologies, including
  ontology generation, integration, mapping,
  maintenance, and versioning (evolving).
• Robustness for change is essential for the
  Semantic Web
• Ontology identification and referring is one of
  the most important aspects of versioning problem