Ontology quality by detection of conflicts in metadata

EON 2006 - Evaluation of Ontologies for the Web: 4th International Workshop - Located at the 15th International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2006

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages

  Budak Arpinar, I ^a   Giriloganathan, Karthikeyan ^a   Aleman Meza, Boanerges ^a  

^a University of Georgia ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Conflict; Ontology evaluation; Ontology quality; RDF; Rule; RuleML; Semantic web

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT; HUMAN EXPERT; RDF; RULE; RULE-BASED APPROACH; RULEML; SEMANTIC TECHNOLOGIES;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; METADATA; SEMANTIC WEB; WORLD WIDE WEB;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84873446494     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Aleman-Meza, B., Halaschek, C., Sheth, A., Arpinar, I.B. and Sannapareddy, G., SWETO: Large-Scale Semantic Web Test-bed. In 16th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE2004): Workshop on Ontology in Action, (Banff, Canada, 2004), 490-493.
2. Boley, H., Tabet, S. and Wagner, G., Design Rationale of RuleML: A Markup Language for Semantic Web Rules. In The first Semantic Web Working Symposium, (Stanford University, California, USA, 2001).
3. Brickley, D. and Guha, R.V. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation, 2000.
4. Burton-Jones, A., Storey, V.C., Sugumaran, V. and Ahluwalia, P. A Semiotic Metrics Suite for Assessing the Quality of Ontologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55 (1). 84-102.
5. Dietrich, J. The Mandarax Manual, http://mandarax.sourceforge.net/docs/ mandarax.pdf 2003.
6. Dietrich, J., Kozlenkov, A. and Schroeder, M. Rule-based Agents for the Semantic Web. Journal on Electronic Commerce Research Applications, 2 (4). 323-338.
7. Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Pan, R., Cost, R.S., Peng, Y., Reddivari, P., Doshi, V. and Sachs, J., Swoogle: A Search and Metadata Engine for the Semantic Web. In International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, (Washington, DC, USA, 2004).
8. Ding, L., Zhou, L., Finin, T. and Joshi, A., How the Semantic Web is Being Used: An Analysis of FOAF Documents. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (Big Island, HI, USA, 2005).
9. Finin, T. and Joshi, A. Agents, Trust, and Information Access on the Semantic Web. Sigmod Record, 31 (4). 30-35.
10. Glyco-Ontology. http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/Projects/Glycomics.
11. Golbeck, J., Parsia, B. and Hendler, J. Trust networks on the semantic web. Cooperative Information Agents VII, Proceedings, 2782. 238-249.
12. Grosof, B.N. Courteous Logic Programs: Prioritized Conflict Handling for Rules IBM Research Report RC 20836, 1997.
13. Guarino, N. and Welty, C. Evaluating Ontological Decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM, 45 (2). 61-65.
14. Guha, R., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P. and Tomkins, A. Propagation of Trust and Distrust Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 2004.
15. Guha, R., McCool, R. and Fikes, R., Contexts for the Semantic Web. In International Semantic Web Conference, (Hiroshima, Japan, 2004), 32-46.
16. Guha, R.V. and McCool, R. TAP: A Semantic Web Testbed. Journal of Web Semantics, 1 (1). 81-87.
17. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B. and Dean, M. SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML, 2003.
18. Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E. and Hendler, J. Debugging Unsatisfiable Classes in OWL Ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics, 3 (4). 268-293.
19. Kim, W. and Seo, J.Y. Classifying Schematic and Data Heterogeneity in Multidatabase Systems. IEEE Computer, 24 (12). 12-18.
20. Lassila, O. and Swick, R.R. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. W3C Recommendation, W3C, 1999.
21. Li, C. and Ling, T.W. OWL-Based Semantic Conflicts Detection and Resolution for Data Interoperability, 2004.
22. Lozano-Tello, A. and Gomez-Perez, A. ONTOMETRIC: A Method to Choose the Appropriate Ontology. Journal of Database Management, 15 (2). 1-18.
23. Lu, H., Fan, W. and Goh, C.H., Discovering and Reconciling Semantic Conflicts: A Data Mining Perspective. In Proceedings of the 7th IFIP 2.6 Working Conference on Data Semantics (DS-7), (Leysin, Switzerland, 1997).
24. Mostowfi, F., Fotouhi, F., Improving Quality of Ontology: An Ontology Transformation Approach. In Third Semantic Web and Databases Workshop, (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2006).
25. Naiman, C.F. and Ouksel, A.M., A Classification of Semantic Conflicts in Heterogeneous Database Systems. Journal of Organizational Computing, 5 (2). 167-193.
26. Noy, N.F. and Hafner, C.D. The State of the Art in Ontology Design - A Survey and Comparative Review. AI Magazine, 18 (3). 53-74.
27. Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P. and Horrocks, I. OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax. W3C Technical Recommendation.
28. Patel, C., Supekar, K., Lee, Y. and Park, E.K. OntoKhoj: A Semantic Web Portal for Ontology Searching, Ranking and Classification Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Workshop on Web Information and Data Management, ACM Press, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2003.
29. Ram, S. and Park, J. Semantic Conflict Resolution Ontology (SCROL): An Ontology for Detecting and Resolving Data and Schema-Level Semantic Conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 16 (2). 189-202.
30. Richardson, M., Agrawal, R. and Domingos, P. Trust Management for the Semantic Web. Semantic Web - ISWC 2003, 2870. 351-368.
31. Sheth, A.P., Arpinar, I.B. and Kashyap, V. Relationships at the Heart of Semantic Web: Modeling, Discovering and Exploiting Complex Semantic Relationships. In Nikravesh, M., Azvin, B., Yager, R. and Zadeh, L.A. eds. Enhancing the Power of the Internet Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer-Verlag, 2003.
32. Sheth, A.P. and Kashyap, V. So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically). IFIP Transactions a-Computer Science and Technology, 25. 283-312.
33. Soldatova, L.N. and King, R.D. Are the current ontologies in biology good ontologies? Nat Biotech, 23 (9). 1095-1098.
34. Staab, S. Why Evaluate Ontology Technologies? - Because it Works! IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19 (4). 74-81.
35. Staab, S. and Maedche, A., Axioms are Objects too - Ontology Engineering beyond the Modeling of Concepts and Relations. In Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, (Berlin, Germany, 2000).
36. Sugiura, N., Shigeta, Y., Fukuta, N., Izumi, N. and Yamaguchi, T. Towards On-the-fly Ontology Construction Focusing on Ontology Quality Improvement. Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 3053. 1-15.
37. Supekar, K., Patel, C. and Lee, Y. Characterizing Quality of Knowledge on Semantic Web Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, AAAI Press, Miami Beach, Florida, USA, 2004.
38. Tartir, S., Arpinar, I.B., Moore, M., Sheth, A.P. and Aleman- Meza, B. OntoQA: Metric-Based Ontology Quality Analysis IEEE Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources, Houston, TX, USA, 2005.