Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2019

The Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) aims at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can be based on ontologies of different levels of complexity (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different evaluation modalities (e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, or consensus). The OAEI 2019 campaign offered 11 tracks with 29 test cases, and was attended by 20 participants. This paper is an overall presentation of that campaign

DOOR: towards a formalization of ontology relations

In this paper, we describe our ongoing effort in describing and formalizing semantic relations that link ontolo- gies with each others on the Semantic Web in order to create an ontology, DOOR, to represent, manipulate and reason upon these relations. DOOR is a Descriptive Ontology of Ontology Relations which intends to define relations such as inclusion, versioning, similarity and agreement using ontological primitives as well as rules. Here, we provide a detailed description of the methodology used to design the DOOR ontology, as well as an overview of its content. We also describe how DOOR is used in a complete framework (called KANNEL) for detecting and managing semantic relations between ontologies in large ontology repositories. Applied in the context of a large collection of automatically crawled ontologies, DOOR and KANNEL provide a starting point for analyzing the underlying structure of the network of ontologies that is the Semantic Web

On the similarity relation within fuzzy ontology components

Ontology reuse is an important research issue. Ontology merging, integration, mapping, alignment and versioning are some of its subprocesses. A considerable research work has been conducted on them. One common issue to these subprocesses is the problem of defining similarity relations among ontologies components. Crisp ontologies become less suitable in all domains in which the concepts to be represented have vague, uncertain and imprecise definitions. Fuzzy ontologies are developed to cope with these aspects. They are equally concerned with the problem of ontology reuse. Defining similarity relations within fuzzy context may be realized basing on the linguistic similarity among ontologies components or may be deduced from their intentional definitions. The latter approach needs to be dealt with differently in crisp and fuzzy ontologies. This is the scope of this paper.ou

Ontology mapping: the state of the art

Ontology mapping is seen as a solution provider in today's landscape of ontology research. As the number of ontologies that are made publicly available and accessible on the Web increases steadily, so does the need for applications to use them. A single ontology is no longer enough to support the tasks envisaged by a distributed environment like the Semantic Web. Multiple ontologies need to be accessed from several applications. Mapping could provide a common layer from which several ontologies could be accessed and hence could exchange information in semantically sound manners. Developing such mapping has beeb the focus of a variety of works originating from diverse communities over a number of years. In this article we comprehensively review and present these works. We also provide insights on the pragmatics of ontology mapping and elaborate on a theoretical approach for defining ontology mapping

Some Issues on Ontology Integration

The word integration has been used with different meanings in the ontology field. This article aims at clarifying the meaning of the word “integration” and presenting some of the relevant work done in integration. We identify three meanings of ontology “integration”: when building a new ontology reusing (by assembling, extending, specializing or adapting) other ontologies already available; when building an ontology by merging several ontologies into a single one that unifies all of them; when building an application using one or more ontologies. We discuss the different meanings of “integration”, identify the main characteristics of the three different processes and proposethree words to distinguish among those meanings:integration, merge and use