8,366 research outputs found
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
The Requirements for Ontologies in Medical Data Integration: A Case Study
Evidence-based medicine is critically dependent on three sources of
information: a medical knowledge base, the patients medical record and
knowledge of available resources, including where appropriate, clinical
protocols. Patient data is often scattered in a variety of databases and may,
in a distributed model, be held across several disparate repositories.
Consequently addressing the needs of an evidence-based medicine community
presents issues of biomedical data integration, clinical interpretation and
knowledge management. This paper outlines how the Health-e-Child project has
approached the challenge of requirements specification for (bio-) medical data
integration, from the level of cellular data, through disease to that of
patient and population. The approach is illuminated through the requirements
elicitation and analysis of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA), one of three
diseases being studied in the EC-funded Health-e-Child project.Comment: 6 pages, 1 figure. Presented at the 11th International Database
Engineering & Applications Symposium (Ideas2007). Banff, Canada September
200
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 âintegrationâ
and presenting some of the relevant work
done in integration. We identify three meanings of
ontology âintegrationâ: 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 âintegrationâ, identify the main characteristics
of the three different processes and proposethree words to distinguish among those meanings:integration, merge and use
Re-use of an ontology for modelling urban energy systems
The use of ontologies for the interoperability of software models is widespread, with many applications also in the energy domain. By formulating a shared data structure and a definition of concepts and their properties, a language is created that can be used between modellers and - formalised in an ontology - between model components. When modelling energy systems, connections between different infrastructures are critical, e.g. the interaction between the gas and electricity markets or the need for various infrastructures including power, heat, water and transport in cities. While a commonly shared ontology of energy systems would be highly desirable, the fact is that different existing models or applications already use dedicated ontologies, and have been demonstrated to work well using them. To benefit from linking data sources and connecting models developed with different ontologies, a translation between concepts can be made. In this paper a model of an urban energy system built upon one ontology is initialised using energy transformation technologies defined in another ontology, thus illustrating how this common perspective might benefit researchers in the energy domain. ©2010 IEEE
Overview of methodologies for building ontologies
A few research groups are now proposing a series of steps and methodologies for developing ontologies. However, mainly due to the fact that Ontological Engineering is still a relatively immature discipline, each work group employs its own methodology. Our goal is to present the most representative methodologies used in ontology development and to perform an analysis of such methodologies against the same framework of reference. So, the goal of this paper is not to provide new insights about methodologies, but to put it all in one place and help people to select which methodology to use
Towards automated knowledge-based mapping between individual conceptualisations to empower personalisation of Geospatial Semantic Web
Geospatial domain is characterised by vagueness, especially in the semantic disambiguation of the concepts in the domain, which makes defining universally accepted geo- ontology an onerous task. This is compounded by the lack of appropriate methods and techniques where the individual semantic conceptualisations can be captured and compared to each other. With multiple user conceptualisations, efforts towards a reliable Geospatial Semantic Web, therefore, require personalisation where user diversity can be incorporated. The work presented in this paper is part of our ongoing research on applying commonsense reasoning to elicit and maintain models that represent users' conceptualisations. Such user models will enable taking into account the users' perspective of the real world and will empower personalisation algorithms for the Semantic Web. Intelligent information processing over the Semantic Web can be achieved if different conceptualisations can be integrated in a semantic environment and mismatches between different conceptualisations can be outlined. In this paper, a formal approach for detecting mismatches between a user's and an expert's conceptual model is outlined. The formalisation is used as the basis to develop algorithms to compare models defined in OWL. The algorithms are illustrated in a geographical domain using concepts from the SPACE ontology developed as part of the SWEET suite of ontologies for the Semantic Web by NASA, and are evaluated by comparing test cases of possible user misconceptions
- âŠ