The modular structure of an ontology: an empirical study (WoMO-10) (original) (raw)

Abstract

Efficiently extracting a module from a given ontology that captures all the ontology's knowledge about a set of specified terms is a well-understood task. This task can be based, for instance, on locality-based modules.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (23)

  1. J. Bao, G. Voutsadakis, G. Slutzki, and V. Honavar. Package-based description logics. In Stuckenschmidt et al. [21], pages 349-371.
  2. C. Bezerra, F. L. G. de Freitas, A. Zimmermann, and J. Euzenat. ModOnto: A tool for modularizing ontologies. In Proc. WONTO-08, volume 427 of CEUR, 2008.
  3. A. Borgida and L. Serafini. Distributed description logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. J. Data Semantics, 1:153-184, 2003.
  4. B. Cuenca Grau, C. Halaschek-Wiener, and Y. Kazakov. History matters: Incremental ontology reason- ing using modules. In Proc. of ISWC/ASWC-07, volume 4825 of LNCS, pages 183-196, 2007.
  5. B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, Y. Kazakov, and U. Sattler. Modular reuse of ontologies: Theory and practice. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 31:273-318, 2008.
  6. B. Cuenca Grau, B. Parsia, and E. Sirin. Combining OWL ontologies using E-connections. JWebSem, 4(1):40-59, 2006.
  7. B. Cuenca Grau, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, and A. Kalyanpur. Modularity and web ontologies. In Proc. of KR-06, pages 198-209, 2006.
  8. C. Del Vescovo, B. Parsia, U. Sattler, and T. Schneider. The modular structure of an ontology: an empirical study. Technical report, University of Manchester. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Eschneidt/publ/modstrucreport.pdf .
  9. S. Ghilardi, C. Lutz, and F. Wolter. Did I damage my ontology? A case for conservative extensions in description logics. In Proc. of KR-06, pages 187-197, 2006.
  10. I. Horrocks, O. Kutz, and U. Sattler. The even more irresistible SROIQ. In Proc. of KR-06, pages 57-67, 2006.
  11. I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and F. van Harmelen. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. JWebSem, 1(1):7-26, 2003.
  12. E. Jiménez-Ruiz, B. Cuenca Grau, U. Sattler, T. Schneider, and R. Berlanga Llavori. Safe and economic re-use of ontologies: A logic-based methodology and tool support. In Proc. of ESWC-08, volume 5021 of LNCS, pages 185-199, 2008.
  13. A. Jimeno, E. Jiménez-Ruiz, R. Berlanga, and D. Rebholz-Schuhmann. Use of shared lexical resources for efficient ontological engineering. In SWAT4LS-08, volume 435 of CEUR, 2008.
  14. A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, and J. Hendler. Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies. JWebSem, 3(4), 2005.
  15. B. Konev, C. Lutz, D. Walther, and F. Wolter. Logical difference and module extraction with CEX and MEX. In Proc. of DL 2008, volume 353 of CEUR, 2008.
  16. B. Konev, C. Lutz, D. Walther, and F. Wolter. Formal properties of modularization. In Stuckenschmidt et al. [21], pages 25-66.
  17. O. Kutz, C. Lutz, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev. E-connections of abstract description systems. Artificial Intelligence, 156(1):1-73, 2004.
  18. Materials. http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/modproj/meat-experiment .
  19. U. Sattler, T. Schneider, and M. Zakharyaschev. Which kind of module should I extract? In DL 2009, volume 477 of CEUR, 2009.
  20. H. Stuckenschmidt and M. Klein. Structure-based partitioning of large concept hierarchies. In Proc. of ISWC-04, volume 3298 of LNCS, pages 289-303, 2004.
  21. H. Stuckenschmidt, C. Parent, and S. Spaccapietra, editors. Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization, volume 5445 of LNCS. Springer, 2009.
  22. H. Stuckenschmidt, F. van Harmelen, P. Bouquet, F. Giunchiglia, and L. Serafini. Using C-OWL for the alignment and merging of medical ontologies. In Proc. KR-MED, volume 102 of CEUR, pages 88-101, 2004.
  23. B. Suntisrivaraporn. Module extraction and incremental classification: A pragmatic approach for EL + ontologies. In Proc. of ESWC-08, volume 5021 of LNCS, pages 230-244, 2008.