W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2002

[Fwd: Ontology mapping] Re: model-model mapping

From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:44:55 -0500
Message-ID: <3C48B377.9334F8@mitre.org>
To: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>, RDF <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
2nd message from Protege list.
-- 
_____________________________________________
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:


Hi, Andrzej,

I agree: semantic interoperability is really the generalization of the
problem of semantic mapping. I wasn't familiar with the ECIMF project,
so will take a look. Also, you should look at the Information Flow
Framework candidate standard upper ontology, if you are new to SUO:
http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/. Although fairly complicated (based on Barwise
& Seligman's Information Flow Theory, itself based on category theory)
and mostly a meta-ontology, I think it is trying to do perhaps something
similar to the Semantic Translation ontology: give a precise way of
interrelating (mapping) ontologies.

Thanks!
Leo

Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> 
> Leo Obrst wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> The database schema mapping is one of the main aspects of more general
> problem of system integration and interoperability. The integration
> scenarios are perfect examples, where two schemas (ontologies) are
> maintained separately, and need to be kept separately, because they
> drive the separate businesses and the separate technical
> infrastructures.
> 
> So, I would add to your list the fourth one: EAI. Furthermore, the
> problem of semantic conflicts has grown even more acute in the era of
> electronic commerce, where the private semantics of individual IT
> systems is more exposed to the public.
> 
> The ECIMF project (http://www.ecimf.org) has been started to address,
> among others, this area. One of the by-products, so to speak, is the
> Semantic Translation ontology we created. Although it doesn't assume any
> specific algorithms to create the mappings, it  allows to record them,
> preserving the original contexts in each source ontology (which is
> crucial for proper understanding of the meaning).
> 
> >
> > 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, Universitšt Leipzig, 2001
> > Ontolingua/Chimaera, Fikes & McGuinness, 1999, etc., Stanford U.
> > Ontomorph, Chalupsky, 2000, ISI.
> 
> Very useful list, indeed.
> 
> > Also, of course, there is some work being done on approximating semantic
> > equivalence statistically, have to look for references.
> >
> > Hope this helps some.
> 
> Definitely, please keep us posted. Thanks!
> 
> --
> 
> Andrzej
> 
> // ----------------------------------------------------------------
> // Andrzej Bialecki <abial@webgiro.com>, Chief System Architect
> // WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com)
> // ----------------------------------------------------------------
> // <abial@freebsd.org> FreeBSD developer (http://www.freebsd.org)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.edu

-- 
_____________________________________________
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.edu
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 18:44:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT