Zubeida C. Khan
ABSTRACT
Dividing up data or information into smaller components---modules---is a well-know approach to a range of problems, such as scalability and model comprehension. The use of modules in ontologies at the knowledge layer is receiving increased attention, and a plethora of approaches, algorithms, and tools exist, which, however, yield only very limited success. This is mainly because wrong combinations of techniques are being used. To solve this issue, we examine the modules' use-cases, types, techniques, and properties from the literature. This is used to create a framework for ontology modularity, such that a user with a certain use case will know the type of modules needed, and therewith then also the appropriate technique to realise it and what properties the resultant modules will have. This framework is then evaluated with three case studies, begin the QUDT, FMA, and OpenGalen ontologies.
- E. Antezana, M. Egaña, W. Blondè, A. Illarramendi, I. n. Bilbao, B. De Baets, R. Stevens, V. Mironov, and M. Kuiper. The cell cycle ontology: an application ontology for the representation and integrated analysis of the cell cycle process. Genome Biology, 10(5):R58, 2009.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- K. T. Belloze, D. I. S. B. Monteiro, T. F. Lima, F. P. S. Jr., and M. C. R. Cavalcanti. An evaluation of annotation tools for biomedical texts. In Joint V Seminar on Ontology Research in Brazil and VII International Workshop on Metamodels, Ontologies and Semantic Technologies, volume 938 of CEUR Workshop Proc. CEUR-WS.org, 2012. Recife, Brazil, September 19--21.Google Scholar
- S. Borgo. Goals of modularity: A voice from the foundational viewpoint. In O. Kutz and T. Schneider, editors, Fifth International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WOMO'11), volume 230 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 1--6. IOS Press, 2011. Ljubljana, Slovenia, August.Google Scholar
- L. J. Campbell, T. A. Halpin, and H. A. Proper. Conceptual schemas with abstractions: Making flat conceptual schemas more comprehensible. Data Knowledge Engineering, 20(1):39--85, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, Y. Kazakov, and U. Sattler. Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 31:273--318, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. d'Aquin, A. Schlicht, H. Stuckenschmidt, and M. Sabou. Ontology modularization for knowledge selection: Experiments and evaluations. In R. Wagner, N. Revell, and G. Pernul, editors, 18th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'07), volume 4653 of LNCS, pages 874--883. Springer, 2007. Regensburg, Germany, September 3--7. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. d'Aquin, A. Schlicht, H. Stuckenschmidt, and M. Sabou. Criteria and evaluation for ontology modularization techniques. In H. Stuckenschmidt, C. Parent, and S. Spaccapietra, editors, Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization, volume 5445 of LNCS, pages 67--89. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Del Vescovo. The modular structure of an ontology: Atomic decomposition towards applications. In R. Rosati, S. Rudolph, and M. Zakharyaschev, editors, 24th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2011), volume 745 of CEUR Workshop Proc. CEUR-WS.org, 2011. Barcelona, Spain, July 13--16.Google Scholar
- C. Del Vescovo, D. Gessler, P. Klinov, B. Parsia, U. Sattler, T. Schneider, and A. Winget. Decomposition and Modular Structure of BioPortal Ontologies. In 10th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'11), volume 7031 of LNCS, pages 130--145. Springer, 2011. October 23--27, Bonn, Germany. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Doran, I. Palmisano, and V. A. M. Tamma. SOMET: algorithm and tool for SPARQL based ontology module extraction. In Third Workshop on Ontologies: Reasoning and Modularity (WoMO'08), volume 348 of CEUR Workshop Proc. CEUR-WS.org, 2008. Tenerife, Spain, June 2.Google Scholar
- A. C. Garcia, L. Tiveron, C. Justel, and M. C. Cavalcanti. Applying graph partitioning techniques to modularize large ontologies. In Joint V Seminar on Ontology Research in Brazil and VII International Workshop on Metamodels, Ontologies and Semantic Technologies, volume 938 of CEUR Workshop Proc, pages 72--83. CEUR-WS.org, 2012. Recife, Brazil, September 19--21.Google Scholar
- F. Giunchiglia, A. Villafiorita, and T. Walsh. Theories of abstraction. AI Communication, 10(3,4):167--176, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Golbeck, G. Fragoso, F. W. Hartel, J. A. Hendler, J. Oberthaler, and B. Parsia. The national cancer institute's thesaurus and ontology. Journal of Semantic Web, 1(1):75--80, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Hodgson and P. J. Keller. QUDT-quantities, units, dimensions and data types in OWL and XML. Online (September 2011) http://www.qudt.org, 2011.Google Scholar
- A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, B. Cuenca Grau, and J. A. Hendler. Swoop: A Web Ontology Editing Browser. Journal of Web Semantics, 4(2):144--153, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Kazakov, M. Krötzsch, and F. Simancik. ELK reasoner: Architecture and evaluation. In 1st International Workshop on OWL Reasoner Evaluation (ORE-2012), volume 858 of CEUR Workshop Proc. CEUR-WS.org, 2012. Manchester, UK, July 1st.Google Scholar
- C. M. Keet. Using abstractions to facilitate management of large ORM models and ontologies. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari, P. Herrero, G. Méndez, L. Cavedon, D. B. Martin, A. Hinze, G. Buchanan, M. S. Pérez, V. Robles, J. Humble, A. Albani, J. L. G. Dietz, H. Panetto, M. Scannapieco, T. A. Halpin, P. Spyns, J. M. Zaha, E. Zimányi, E. Stefanakis, T. S. Dillon, L. Feng, M. Jarrar, J. Lehmann, A. de Moor, E. Duval, and L. Aroyo, editors, OTM Workshops, volume 3762 of LNCS, pages 603--612. Springer, 2005. Agia Napa, Cyprus, October 31 - November 4. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. M. Keet. Enhancing comprehension of ontologies and conceptual models through abstractions. In 10th Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA'07), volume 4733 of LNCS, pages 813--821. Springer, 2007. Rome, Italy, September 10--13. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. M. Keet, C. d'Amato, Z. Khan, and A. Lawrynowicz. Exploring reasoning with the DMOP ontology. In 3rd Workshop on Ontology Reasoner Evaluation (ORE'14), CEUR Workshop Proc, pages 64--70. CEUR-WS.org, 2014. July 1, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
- Z. Khan and C. M. Keet. The foundational ontology library ROMULUS. In 3rd International Conference on Model & Data Engineering (MEDI'13), volume 8216 of LNCS. Springer, 2013. Sep 25-27, Amantea, Calabria, Italy.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. D. Larson, L. L. Fong, A. Gupta, C. Condit, W. J. Bug, and M. E. Martone. A Formal Ontology of Subcellular Neuroanatomy. Front Neuroinformatics, 1:3, 2007.Google Scholar
- N. F. Noy and M. A. Musen. Traversing ontologies to extract views. In Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization, volume 5445 of LNCS, pages 245--260. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Parent and S. Spaccapietra. An Overview of Modularity. In Modular Ontologies, volume 5445 of LNCS, pages 5--23. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Pathak, T. M. Johnson, and C. G. Chute. Survey of modular ontology techniques and their applications in the biomedical domain. Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, 16(3):225--242, 2009. Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Paulheim. On applying matching tools to large-scale ontologies. In 3rd International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM'08), volume 431 of CEUR Workshop Proc. CEUR-WS.org, 2008. Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26.Google Scholar
- A. L. Rector, J. Rogers, P. E. Zanstra, and E. J. van der Haring. OpenGALEN: Open source medical terminology and tools. In American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium (AMIA'03). AMIA, 2003. Washington, DC, USA, November 8--12.Google Scholar
- C. Rosse and J. L. V. Mejino. A reference ontology for biomedical informatics: the Foundational Model of A|atomy. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 36(6):478--500, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Schlicht and H. Stuckenschmidt. Towards structural criteria for ontology modularization. In P. Haase, V. Honavar, O. Kutz, Y. Sure, and A. Tamilin, editors, 1st International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WoMO'06), volume 232 of CEUR Workshop Proc. CEUR-WS.org, 2006. November 5, Athens, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
- A. Schlicht and H. Stuckenschmidt. A flexible partitioning tool for large ontologies. In International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI'08), pages 482--488. IEEE Computer Society, 2008. 9--12 December, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Seidenberg. Web ontology segmentation: Extraction, transformation, evaluation. In Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization, volume 5445 of LNCS, pages 211--243. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Turlapati and S. Puligundla. Efficient module extraction for large ontologies. In Knowledge Engineering and the Semantic Web, volume 394 of Communications in Computer and Information Science, pages 162--176. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Vigo, C. Jay, and R. Stevens. Design insights for the next wave ontology authoring tools. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'14), pages 1555--1558. ACM, 2014. Toronto, ON, Canada, April 26 - May 01. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. L. Whetzel, N. F. Noy, N. H. Shah, P. R. Alexander, C. Nyulas, T. Tudorache, and M. A. Musen. BioPortal: enhanced functionality via new web services from the national center for biomedical ontology to access and use ontologies in software applications. Nucleic Acids Research, 39(Web-Server-Issue), 2011.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Toward a framework for ontology modularity
Recommendations
Ontology paper: The SSN ontology of the W3C semantic sensor network incubator group
The W3C Semantic Sensor Network Incubator group (the SSN-XG) produced an OWL 2 ontology to describe sensors and observations - the SSN ontology, available at http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ssnx/ssn. The SSN ontology can describe sensors in terms of ...
Cohesion and coupling metrics for ontology modules
In recent years, an increasing number of ontologies and semantic web applications have been developed and used. A conscious effort has been made to develop methods to modularize ontologies. These methods contribute to building a new ontology. However, ...
Ontology-based modularization of user interfaces
EICS '09: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systemsModularization is almost the only feasible way of implementing large-scale applications. For user interfaces, interactions involving more than one module generate dependencies between modules. In this paper, we present a framework that uses ontologies ...
Comments