The functions of definitions in ontologies

To understand what ontologies do through their definitions, we propose a theoretical explanation of the functions of definitions in ontologies backed by empirical neuropsychological studies. Our goal is to show how these functions should motivate (i) the systematic inclusion of definitions in ontologies and (ii) the adaptation of definition content and form to the specific context of use of ontologies

Semantic mappings: out of ontology world limits

Mappings usually relate two similar knowledge representations. Thus, we can find many examples of mappings amid thesauri, databases, ontologies (domain ontologies, top-level and domain ontologies, PSM (Problem Solving Method) and domain ontologies, linguistic and domain ontologies); additionally, we can frequently find systems with mappings that relate two different knowledge representations, for instance, databases and ontologies. All these mappings are operationally different ,and are also named differently (mappings, correspondences, semantic bridges, transformations, semantic relations, functions, conversions, domain-PSM relations), but is there a single definition for these concepts? Can we find common characteristics? This paper analyzes the existing definitions and representation of the term “mapping” (and related terms) in the ontology world and its semantic neighborhood and proposes a new definition and representation of “mapping” for the Semantic Web field

Definitions in ontologies

Definitions vary according to context of use and target audience. They must be made relevant for each context to fulfill their cognitive and linguistic goals. This involves adapting their logical structure, type of content, and form to each context of use. We examine from these perspectives the case of definitions in ontologies

Evaluating Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Capabilites of Ontology Specification Languages

The interchange of ontologies across the World Wide Web (WWW) and the cooperation among heterogeneous agents placed on it is the main reason for the development of a new set of ontology specification languages, based on new web standards such as XML or RDF. These languages (SHOE, XOL, RDF, OIL, etc) aim to represent the knowledge contained in an ontology in a simple and human-readable way, as well as allow for the interchange of ontologies across the web. In this paper, we establish a common framework to compare the expressiveness of "traditional" ontology languages (Ontolingua, OKBC, OCML, FLogic, LOOM) and "web-based" ontology languages. As a result of this study, we conclude that different needs in KR and reasoning may exist in the building of an ontology-based application, and these needs must be evaluated in order to choose the most suitable ontology language(s)

Some Ideas and Examples to Evaluate Ontologies

The lack of methods for evaluating ontologies in laboratories can be an obstacle to their use in companies. This paper presents a set of emerging ideas in evaluation of ontologies useful for: (1) ontologies developers in the lab, as a foundation from which to perform technical evaluations; (2) end users of ontologies in companies, as a point of departure in the search for the best ontology for their systems; and (3) future research, as a basis upon which to perform progressive and disciplined investigations in this area. After briefly exploring some general questions such as: why, what, when, how and where to evaluate; who evaluates; and, what to evaluate against, we focus on the definition of a set of criteria useful in the evaluation process. Finally, we use some of these criteria in the evaluation of the Bibliographic-Data [5] ontology

Ontological Reengineering for Reuse

This paper presents the concept of Ontological Reengineering as the process of retrieving and transforming a conceptual model of an existing and implemented ontology into a new, more correct and more complete conceptual model which is reimplemented. Three activities have been identified in this process: reverse engineering, restructuring and forward engineering. The aim of Reverse Engineering is to output a possible conceptual model on the basis of the code in which the ontology is implemented. The goal of Restructuring is to reorganize this initial conceptual model into a new conceptual model, which is built bearing in mind the use of the restructured ontology by the ontology/application that reuses it. Finally, the objective of Forward Engineering is output a new implementation of the ontology. The paper also discusses how the ontological reengineering process has been applied to the Standard-Units ontology [18], which is included in a Chemical-Elements [12] ontology. These two ontologies will be included in a Monatomic-Ions and Environmental-Pollutants ontologies

Guidelines for writing definitions in ontologies

Ontologies are being used increasingly to promote the reusability of scientific information by allowing heterogeneous data to be integrated under a common, normalized representation. Definitions play a central role in the use of ontologies both by humans and by computers. Textual definitions allow ontologists and data curators to understand the intended meaning of ontology terms and to use these terms in a consistent fashion across contexts. Logical definitions allow machines to check the integrity of ontologies and reason over data annotated with ontology terms to make inferences that promote knowledge discovery. Therefore, it is important not only to include in ontologies multiple types of definitions in both formal and in natural languages, but also to ensure that these definitions meet good quality standards so they are useful. While tools such as Protégé can assist in creating well-formed logical definitions, producing good definitions in a natural language is still to a large extent a matter of human ingenuity supported at best by just a small number of general principles. For lack of more precise guidelines, definition authors are often left to their own personal devices. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing the ontology community with a set of principles and conventions to assist in definition writing, editing, and validation, by drawing on existing definition writing principles and guidelines in lexicography, terminology, and logic

Guidelines to Study Differences in Expressiveness between Ontology Specification Languages: A Case Of Study

We focus on our experiences on translating ontologies between two ontology languages, FLogic and Ontolingua, in the framework of Methontology and ODE. Rather than building "ad hoc" translators between languages or using KIF, our option consists of translating through ODE intermediate representations. So, we have built direct translators from ODE intermediate representations to Ontolingua and FLogic, and we have also built reverse translators from these two languages to ODE intermediate representations. Expressiveness of the target languages is the main feature to analyse when automatically generating ontologies from ODE intermediate representations. Therefore, we analyse the expressiveness of Ontolingua and FLogic for creating classes, instances, relations, functions and axioms, which are the essential components in ontologies. The motivation for this analysis can be found in the (KA)² initiative and can be easily extended to any other domains and languages

An evolutionary approach to Function

The distinction between function and role is a vexed and difficult one. While the distinction appears to be useful, in practice it is hard to apply; this can be even worse when applying this distinction to biology. In this paper, I take an evolutionary approach, considering a series of examples, to develop and generate definitions for these concepts. I test them in practice against work performed on the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI). Finally, I give an axiomatisation and discuss methods for applying these definitions in practice