The Evolution Ontology

Existing ontologies model components of evolution, but none synthesize them or describe the framework of ideas used to conceptualize evolution. The Evolution Ontology (EO) aims to do just this. EO models processes (e.g. natural selection); contexts (e.g. habitats); the entities that undergo evolution; and the theories, methods, and disciplines of evolutionary science. Uses include data curation, data mining, and literature curation, EO’s developers working on the latter two for works of Darwin and the Biodiversity Heritage Library

Change Management: The Core Task of Ontology Versioning and Evolution

Change management as a key issue in ontology versioning and evolution is still not fully addressed, which to some extent forms a barrier against the smooth process of ontology evolution. The key issue in the support of evolving ontologies is to distinguish and recognize the changes during the process of ontology evolution. Most of the current popular work on ontology versioning do not keep a record of the changes in the ontology, thus preventing the user from tracking those changes back and forward, or to at least understand the rational behind those changes. We are proposing an approach to get the evidences of ontology changes, keep track of them, and manage them in an engineering fashion

How do Ontology Mappings Change in the Life Sciences?

Mappings between related ontologies are increasingly used to support data integration and analysis tasks. Changes in the ontologies also require the adaptation of ontology mappings. So far the evolution of ontology mappings has received little attention albeit ontologies change continuously especially in the life sciences. We therefore analyze how mappings between popular life science ontologies evolve for different match algorithms. We also evaluate which semantic ontology changes primarily affect the mappings. We further investigate alternatives to predict or estimate the degree of future mapping changes based on previous ontology and mapping transitions.Comment: Keywords: mapping evolution, ontology matching, ontology evolutio

Guidelines for a Dynamic Ontology - Integrating Tools of Evolution and Versioning in Ontology

Ontologies are built on systems that conceptually evolve over time. In addition, techniques and languages for building ontologies evolve too. This has led to numerous studies in the field of ontology versioning and ontology evolution. This paper presents a new way to manage the lifecycle of an ontology incorporating both versioning tools and evolution process. This solution, called VersionGraph, is integrated in the source ontology since its creation in order to make it possible to evolve and to be versioned. Change management is strongly related to the model in which the ontology is represented. Therefore, we focus on the OWL language in order to take into account the impact of the changes on the logical consistency of the ontology like specified in OWL DL

A layered framework for pattern-based ontology evolution

The challenge of ontology-driven modelling of information components is well known in both academia and industry. In this paper, we present a novel approach to deal with customisation and abstraction of ontology-based model evolution. As a result of an empirical study, we identify a layered change operator framework based on the granularity, domain-specificity and abstraction of changes. The implementation of the operator framework is supported through layered change logs. Layered change logs capture the objective of ontology changes at a higher level of granularity and support a comprehensive understanding of ontology evolution. The layered change logs are formalised using a graph-based approach. We identify the recurrent ontology change patterns from an ontology change log for their reuse. The identified patterns facilitate optimizing and improving the definition of domain-specific change patterns

Composite ontology change operators and their customizable evolution strategies

Change operators are the building blocks of ontology evolution. Elementary, composite and complex change operators have been suggested. While lower-level change operators are useful in terms of finegranular representation of ontology changes, representing the intent of change requires higher-level change operators. Here, we focus on higherlevel composite change operators to perform an aggregated task. We introduce composite-level evolution strategies. The central role of the evolution strategies is to preserve the intent of the composite change with respect to the user’s requirements and to reduce the change operational cost. Composite-level evolution strategies assist in avoiding the illegal changes or presence of illegal axioms that may generate inconsistencies during application of a composite change. We discuss few composite changes along with the defined evolution strategies as an example that allow users to control and customize the ontology evolution process

Using background knowledge for ontology evolution

One of the current bottlenecks for automating ontology evolution is resolving the right links between newly arising information and the existing knowledge in the ontology. Most of existing approaches mainly rely on the user when it comes to capturing and representing new knowledge. Our ontology evolution framework intends to reduce or even eliminate user input through the use of background knowledge. In this paper, we show how various sources of background knowledge could be exploited for relation discovery. We perform a relation discovery experiment focusing on the use of WordNet and Semantic Web ontologies as sources of background knowledge. We back our experiment with a thorough analysis that highlights various issues on how to improve and validate relation discovery in the future, which will directly improve the task of automatically performing ontology changes during evolution

Ontology acquisition and exchange of evolutionary product-brokering agents

Agent-based electronic commerce (e-commerce) has been booming with the development of the Internet and agent technologies. However, little effort has been devoted to exploring the learning and evolving capabilities of software agents. This paper addresses issues of evolving software agents in e-commerce applications. An agent structure with evolution features is proposed with a focus on internal hierarchical knowledge. We argue that knowledge base of agents should be the cornerstone for their evolution capabilities, and agents can enhance their knowledge bases by exchanging knowledge with other agents. In this paper, product ontology is chosen as an instance of knowledge base. We propose a new approach to facilitate ontology exchange among e-commerce agents. The ontology exchange model and its formalities are elaborated. Product-brokering agents have been designed and implemented, which accomplish the ontology exchange process from request to integration

Pragmatic Ontology Evolution: Reconciling User Requirements and Application Performance

Increasingly, organizations are adopting ontologies to describe their large catalogues of items. These ontologies need to evolve regularly in response to changes in the domain and the emergence of new requirements. An important step of this process is the selection of candidate concepts to include in the new version of the ontology. This operation needs to take into account a variety of factors and in particular reconcile user requirements and application performance. Current ontology evolution methods focus either on ranking concepts according to their relevance or on preserving compatibility with existing applications. However, they do not take in consideration the impact of the ontology evolution process on the performance of computational tasks – e.g., in this work we focus on instance tagging, similarity computation, generation of recommendations, and data clustering. In this paper, we propose the Pragmatic Ontology Evolution (POE) framework, a novel approach for selecting from a group of candidates a set of concepts able to produce a new version of a given ontology that i) is consistent with the a set of user requirements (e.g., max number of concepts in the ontology), ii) is parametrised with respect to a number of dimensions (e.g., topological considerations), and iii) effectively supports relevant computational tasks. Our approach also supports users in navigating the space of possible solutions by showing how certain choices, such as limiting the number of concepts or privileging trendy concepts rather than historical ones, would reflect on the application performance. An evaluation of POE on the real-world scenario of the evolving Springer Nature taxonomy for editorial classification yielded excellent results, demonstrating a significant improvement over alternative approaches