Computing minimal mappings
Pages 37 - 48
Abstract
Given two classifications, or lightweight ontologies, we compute the minimal mapping, namely the subset of all possible correspondences, called mapping elements, between them such that i) all the others can be computed from them in time linear in the size of the input ontologies, and ii) none of them can be dropped without losing property i). In this paper we provide a formal definition of minimal mappings and define a time efficient computation algorithm which minimizes the number of comparisons between the nodes of the two input ontologies. The experimental results show a substantial improvement both in the computation time and in the number of mapping elements which need to be handled.
References
[1]
F. Giunchiglia, M. Marchese, I. Zaihrayeu, 2006. Encoding Classifications into Lightweight Ontologies. Journal of Data Semantics 8, pp. 57-81.
[2]
P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat, 2007. Ontology Matching. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. Secaucus, NJ, USA.
[3]
P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat, 2008. Ten Challenges for Ontology Matching. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Ontologies, Databases, and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE 2008).
[4]
J. Madhavan, P. A. Bernstein, P. Domingos, A. Y. Halevy, 2002. Representing and Reasoning about Mappings between Domain Models. At the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002).
[5]
F. Giunchiglia, M. Yatskevich, P. Shvaiko, 2007. Semantic Matching: algorithms and implementation. Journal on Data Semantics, IX, 2007.
[6]
C. Caracciolo, J. Euzenat, L. Hollink, R. Ichise, A. Isaac, V. Malaisé, C. Meilicke, J. Pane, P. Shvaiko, 2008. First results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2008.
[7]
F. Giunchiglia, I. Zaihrayeu, 2007. Lightweight Ontologies. In The Encyclopedia of Database Systems, to appear. Springer, 2008.
[8]
F. Giunchiglia, P. Shvaiko, M. Yatskevich, 2006. Discovering missing background knowledge in ontology matching. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2006), pp. 382-386.
[9]
H. Stuckenschmidt, L. Serafini, H. Wache, 2006. Reasoning about Ontology Mappings. Proceedings of the ECAI-06 Workshop on Contextual Representation and Reasoning.
[10]
C. Meilicke, H. Stuckenschmidt, A. Tamilin, 2006. Improving automatically created mappings using logical reasoning. In the proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Ontology Matching OM-2006, CEUR Workshop Proceedings Vol. 225.
[11]
C. Meilicke, H. Stuckenschmidt, A. Tamilin, 2008. Reasoning support for mapping revision. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2008.
[12]
A. Borgida, L. Serafini. Distributed Description Logics: Assimilating Information from Peer Sources. Journal on Data Semantics pp. 153-184.
[13]
I. Zaihrayeu, L. Sun, F. Giunchiglia, W. Pan, Q. Ju, M. Chi, and X. Huang, 2007. From web directories to ontologies: Natural language processing challenges. In 6th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2007).
[14]
P. Avesani, F. Giunchiglia and M. Yatskevich, 2005. A Large Scale Taxonomy Mapping Evaluation. In Proceedings of International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2005), pp. 67-81.
[15]
M. L. Zeng, L. M. Chan, 2004. Trends and Issues in Establishing Interoperability Among Knowledge Organization Systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(5) pp. 377-395.
[16]
L. Kovács. A. Micsik, 2007. Extending Semantic Matching Towards Digital Library Contexts. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Digital Libraries (ECDL 2007), pp. 285-296.
[17]
B. Marshall, T. Madhusudan, 2004. Element matching in concept maps. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2004), pp.186-187.
[18]
B. Hjørland, 2008. What is Knowledge Organization (KO)?. Knowledge Organization. International Journal devoted to Concept Theory, Classification, Indexing and Knowledge Representation 35(2/3) pp. 86-101.
[19]
D. Soergel, 1972. A Universal Source Thesaurus as a Classification Generator. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 23(5), pp. 299-305.
[20]
D. Vizine-Goetz, C. Hickey, A. Houghton, and R. Thompson. 2004. Vocabulary Mapping for Terminology Services. Journal of Digital Information, Volume 4, Issue 4.
[21]
M. Doerr, 2001. Semantic Problems of Thesaurus Mapping. Journal of Digital Information, Volume 1, Issue 8.
[22]
F. Giunchiglia, V. Maltese, A. Autayeu, 2008. Computing minimal mappings. University of Trento, DISI Technical Report: http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/00001525/.
- Computing minimal mappings
Recommendations
Computing minimal mappings between lightweight ontologies
As a valid solution to the semantic heterogeneity problem, many matching solutions have been proposed. Given two lightweight ontologies, we compute the minimal mapping, namely the subset of all possible correspondences, that we call mapping elements, ...
Enriching ontology mappings with semantic relations
There is a large number of tools to match or align corresponding concepts between ontologies. Most tools are restricted to equality correspondences, although many concepts may be related differently, e.g. according to an is-a or part-of relationship. ...
Analyzing the Evolution of Life Science Ontologies and Mappings
DILS '08: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on Data Integration in the Life SciencesOntologies are heavily developed and used in life sciences and undergo continuous changes. However, the evolution of life science ontologies and references to them (e.g., annotations) is not well understood and has received little attention so far. We ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2009
261 pages
Publisher
CEUR-WS.org
Aachen, Germany
Publication History
Published: 25 October 2009
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 1Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 04 Jan 2025