Here is the 1st Protege message. -- _____________________________________________ Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640 Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
attached mail follows:
Kostas, There is a large (and growing larger) literature out there. In general you cannot do automated mapping, since someone or something needs to know the semantics of both ontologies. State of the art is semi-automated. People try to get by with weak methods, i.e., string/substring identity, graph homomorphism, etc., but these are really insufficient. The best method is to show that two ontologies have equivalent formal models (or subsets, overlaps, etc.), but the problem is that that is easier said than done. Usually the ontologies are expressed in different representation languages (possibly with ill-defined formal model theories). Also, it may be the case that you need to have as much semantics preservation as possible as you go between a semantically well-defined ontology/taxonomy and an ill-defined ontology/taxonomy, the latter of which may have "pockets" of well-defined semantics or has [typically unsound] reasoning methods which nevertheless may be pragmatically and locally useful: many of the procedural and quasi-declarative reasoning systems and applications in the world are unsound. The question of semantic mapping is being addressed in 3 technical areas that I am aware of: database, thesaurus, and ontology communities. On the one hand the task is harder in ontologies because of the semantic richness, on the other it's easier because of the typically more precisely defined semantics. Also, the ontology community has mostly focused on merging ontologies, not mapping ontologies, but in many cases you need to preserve the independence of the ontologies (possibly different owners, standards, etc.) and hence just map. I am very interested in this area myself. We recently had a paper in F.OIS-01 "Ontological Engineering for B2B E-Commerce" where we illustrate somewhat the problem of semantic mapping, from the perspective of B2B. Here is just a short list of approaches and related literature (yes, formalization of context is very close to semantic mapping), don't have the exact citations right now: Microtheories: Lena, Guha, et al, 1990, etc., Cycorp “Little Theories” and Theory Interpretation: Farmer et al, 1994, MITRE Articulation Ontologies: Wiederhold, Mitra, Jannink, 2000, Stanford U. Graph Homomorphisms: Many Conceptual Anchoring, etc.: Noy, 2001, SMI Local Models Semantics (Context): Giunchiglia, Ghidini, 1997, U. Trento Formalized Context: McCarthy, Guha, Buvac, 1990, etc. Stanford U. Morphisms (Category Theory): Many Information Flow Theory: Barwise & Seligman, 1997 Information Flow Framework Candidate Upper Ontology (IEEE Standard Upper Ontology): Robert Kent, 2001 Intercontext Correlation: Skvortsov, Kalinichenko, 2001, Institute for Problems of Informatics, Russian Academy of Science Schema Mapping: Rahm & Bernstein, Universität Leipzig, 2001 Ontolingua/Chimaera, Fikes & McGuinness, 1999, etc., Stanford U. Ontomorph, Chalupsky, 2000, ISI. Also, of course, there is some work being done on approximating semantic equivalence statistically, have to look for references. Hope this helps some. Leo > Kostas Kastradas wrote: > > Hi, > I am looking for algorithms that map, automatically not manually, two > ontologies. First, I want to understand the mechanisms of mapping amd > second I want to apply them to map two simple, not large scale, > ontologies.Any suggestions? > P.S.:I am aware of the Anchor algorithm that it was suggested by > Natasha F. Noy but I would like to see some more just to have a > general idea of mapping > Thanks > Kostas Kastradas -- _____________________________________________ Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640 Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@smi.stanford.edu with "unsubscribe protege-discussion" in the message body (no quotes). If this doesn't work, contact owner-protege-discussion@smi.stanford.eduReceived on Friday, 18 January 2002 18:43:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:19:56 GMT