Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-pgkvd Total loading time: 0.578 Render date: 2022-08-11T15:47:18.035Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Ontologies: principles, methods and applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Mike Uschold
Affiliation:
Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, (AIAI); The University of Edinburgh, 80 South Bridge, Edingburgh EHI IHN
Michael Gruninger
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S IA4, Canada

Abstract

This paper is intended to serve as a comprehensive introduction to the emerging field concerned with the design and use of ontologies. We observe that disparate backgrounds, languages, tools and techniques are a major barrier to effective communication among people, organisations and/or software understanding (i.e. an “ontology”) in a given subject area, can improve such communication, which in turn, can give rise to greater reuse and sharing, inter-operability, and more reliable software. After motivating their need, we clarify just what ontologies are and what purpose they serve. We outline a methodology for developing and evaluating ontologies, first discussing informal techniques, concerning such issues as scoping, handling ambiguity, reaching agreement and producing definitions. We then consider the benefits and describe, a more formal approach. We re-visit the scoping phase, and discuss the role of formal languages and techniques in the specification, implementation and evalution of ontologies. Finally, we review the state of the art and practice in this emerging field, considering various case studies, software tools for ontology development, key research issues and future prospects.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANSI, 1995. “Conceptual graphs, a presentation language for knowledge in conceptual models; working draft of proposed american national standard”. Technical Report X3T2/95–019r1, ANSI.Google Scholar
Embury, S and Gray, P, 1995. “Compiling a declarative high-level language for semantic integrity constraints”. Technical Report AUCS/TR9506, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Farquhar, A, Fikes, R, Pratt, W and Rice, J, 1995. “Collaborative ontology construction for information integration”. Technical Report KSL-9563, Stanford University Knowledge Systems Laboratory.Google Scholar
Fikes, R, Cutkosky, M, Gruber, T and van Baalen, J, 1991. “Knowledge sharing technology project overview”. Technical Report KSL–91–71, Stanford University, Knowledge Systems Laboratory.Google Scholar
Fraser, J, Tate, A and Uschold, M, 1995. “The enterprise toolset–an open enterprise architecture”. In: The Impact of Ontologies on Reuse, Interoperability and Distributed Processing pp. 4250. Unicom Seminars, London, 1995. (Further information about the Enterprise Project and Ontology is available on the World Wide Web from:http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/#entprise/enterprise/.)Google Scholar
Fuchs, J and Wheadon, J, 1995. “Prospective applications of ontologies for future space missions”. In: The Impact of Ontologies on Reuse, Interoperability and Distributed Processing pp. 8396. Unicorn Seminars.Google Scholar
Genesereth, MR and Fikes, RE, 1992. “Knowledge interchange format, version 3.0 reference manual”. Technical Report Logic-92−1, Computer Science Department, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Gómez-Pérez, A, 1995. “Some ideas and examples to evaluate ontologies”. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Artificial intelligence Applications. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Gómez-Pérez, A, 1996. “Guidelines to verify completeness and consistency in ontologies”. Third World Congress on Expert Systems.Google Scholar
Gómez-Pérez, A, Juristo, N and Pazos, J, 1995. “Evaluation and assessment of knowledge sharing technology”. In: Mars, NJ, (ed.), Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases–Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing 1995 pp. 289296. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, T, 1993. “A translation approach to portable ontology specifications”. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2) 199220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, T, 1995. “Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5/6) 907928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruninger, M and Fox, MS, 1995. “The logic of enterprise modelling”. In: Brown, J and O'Sullivan, D (eds), Reengineering the Enterprise pp. 8398. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Gruninger, M and Fox, MS, 1995. “Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies”. In: Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Guarino, N, Carrara, N and Giaretta, P, 1994a. “Formalizing ontological committment”. In: Doyle, J, Sandewall, E and Torasso, P (eds), National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94). Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
Guarino, N, Carrata, M and Giaretta, P, 1994b. “An ontology of meta-level categories”. In: Doyle, J, Sandewall, E and Torasso, P (eds), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference (KR94) pp. 270280. Morgan Kaufman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guarino, N and Giaretta, P, 1995. “Ontologies and knowledge bases–towards a terminalogical clarification”. In: Mars, NJ (ed.) Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases–Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing 1995 pp. 2532. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Guarino, N and Poli, R, 1995. “The role of formal ontology in the information technology”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5/6) 623624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBM, 1990. “Introduction to business system development method”. Technical Report GE19–5387–01, International Business Machines Corporation.Google Scholar
ISO, 1994. Initial release of international standard (is) 10303. Technical Report IS 10303, International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
Jones, M, Wheadon, J, Whitgift, D, Niezatte, M, Timmermans, R, Rodriguez, I and Romero, R, 1995. “An agent based approach to spacecraft mission operations”. In: Mars, NJ (ed.) Towards Very Large Knowledges Bases–Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing 1995 pp. 259269. IOS Press.Google Scholar
King, M, 1995. “Knowledge reuse in business domains: Experience with IBM BSDM”. In: The Impact of Ontologies on Reuse, Interoperability and Distributed Processing, pp. 97107. Unicorn Seminars.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G, 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J and Malone, T, 1990. “Partially shared views: A scheme for communicating among groups that use different type hierarchies”. ACM Trans Information Systems 8(1) 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J, Yost, G and PIF Working Group, 1995. “The pif process interchange format and framework”. Technical Report 180, MIT Center for Coordination Science.Google Scholar
Lehrer, N, 1993. “Knowledge representation specification language”. Technical report, DARPA/Rome Laboratory Planning and Scheduling Initiative. Reference Manual.Google Scholar
Lenat, D and Guha, RV, 1990. Building Large Knowledge-based Systems: Representation and Inference in the CYC Project. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Malone, T, Crowston, K, Lee, J and Pentland, D, 1993. “Tools for inventing organizations: Toward a handbook of organizational processes”. Technical Report 141, MIT Center for Coordination Science.Google Scholar
Mowbray, TJ and Zahavi, R, 1995. The ESSENTIAL COBRA: System Integration Using Distributed Objects. Wiley and Object Management Group.Google Scholar
Schreiber, AT, Wielinga, BJ, Akkermans, JM, Van de Velde, W and Anjewierden, W, 1994. “Cml: The commonkads conceptual modelling language”. In: Steels, L, Schreiber, AT and de Velde, W Van (eds) A Future for Knowledge Acquisition: Proceedings of the 8th European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop EKAW 94, pp. 125. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schreiber, G, Wielinga, B and Jansweijer, W, 1995. “The kactus view on the ‘o’ word”. In: Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Skuce, D, 1995. “Conventions for reaching agreement on shared ontologies”. In: Proceedings of the 9th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems Workshop.Google Scholar
Sowa, J, 1984. Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Sowa, J, 1995. “Top-level ontological categories”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5/6): 669686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speel, PH, van Raalte, PE, van der Vet, PE and Mars, NJ, 1995. “Scalability of the performance of knowledge representation systems”. In: Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases–Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing 1995 pp. 173183. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Uschold, M and King, M, 1995. “Towards a methodology for building ontologies”. In: Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. (Also available as AIAI-TR-183 from AIAI, The University of Edinburgh).Google Scholar
van der Vet, P and Mars, N, 1993. “Structured system of concepts for storing, retrieving, and manipulating chemical information”. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 33 564568.Google Scholar
van der Vet, PE, Speel, PH and Mars, N, 1995. “Ontologies for very large knowledge bases in materials science: a case study”. In: Mars, NJ (ed.) Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases–Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing pp. 7383. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Wielinga, R, Schreiber, G, Jansweijer, W, Anjewierden, A and van Hamelen, F, 1994. “Framework and formalism for expressing ontologies”. Technical report, University of Amsterdam, 1994. (Esprit Project 8145 Deliverable DO1b1, available from http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/projects/Kactus/Reports.html.)Google Scholar
Workflow Management Coalition, 1994. “Glossary—a workflow management coalition specification”. Technical report, The Workflow Management Coalition.Google Scholar
1687
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Ontologies: principles, methods and applications
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Ontologies: principles, methods and applications
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Ontologies: principles, methods and applications
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *