Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for by Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Christine Parent, Stefano

By Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Christine Parent, Stefano Spaccapietra

This booklet constitutes a suite of study achievements mature sufficient to supply an organization and trustworthy foundation on modular ontologies. It offers the reader a close research of the cutting-edge of the examine sector and discusses the hot suggestions, theories and strategies for wisdom modularization.

The thirteen papers provided during this publication have been all conscientiously reviewed sooner than booklet. they've been prepared in 3 elements: half I supplies a common creation to the assumption and matters characterizing modularization and gives an in-depth research of homes, standards and information import suggestions for modularization. half II describes 4 significant examine proposals for developing modules from an current ontology both through partitioning an ontology right into a choice of modules or by way of extracting a number of modules from the ontology. half III reviews on collaborative methods the place modules that pre-exist are associated jointly via mappings to shape a digital huge ontology.

Show description

Read Online or Download Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization PDF

Best data modeling & design books

Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization

This e-book constitutes a set of study achievements mature adequate to supply an organization and trustworthy foundation on modular ontologies. It provides the reader an in depth research of the state-of-the-art of the study zone and discusses the new thoughts, theories and strategies for wisdom modularization.

Advances in Object-Oriented Data Modeling

Until eventually lately, info platforms were designed round various company services, equivalent to money owed payable and stock regulate. Object-oriented modeling, against this, buildings platforms round the data--the objects--that make up a few of the enterprise features. simply because information regarding a specific functionality is restricted to at least one place--to the object--the process is protected against the results of switch.

Introduction To Database Management System

Designed in particular for a unmarried semester, first path on database structures, there are four elements that differentiate our booklet from the remainder. simplicity - in general, the know-how of database platforms could be very obscure. There are

Extra resources for Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization

Example text

T. , M ⊆ O1 and M ≈QL O1 . If (L, QL) is robust under replacement, where L is the language S in which O0 and O1 are formulated, then it follows that M ∪ O0 ≈QL S O1 ∪ O0 . 38 B. Konev et al. Fig. 2. Robustness under replacement It is thus indeed possible to use M instead of O1 in O0 without loosing consequences for the signature S in QL; observe that this does not follow from the defi ition of a weak module alone. 2. Observe that the argument does not depend on the details of O0 and does not break when O0 evolves.

T. QLALC , but (O1 , {r(a, a)}) is consistent and (O2 , {r(a, a)}) is inconsistent. Thus, the ABox A = {r(a, a)} and assertion ⊥(a) separate O1 and O2 . Note that this example is similar to the counterexample given in the proof of Proposition 1. t. t. QLL because of the availability of the ABox, which allows us to fi a part of the model up to isomorphism. We show that the notions of inseparability given under c) and d) live inside our framework. In what follows, we use individual names as f rst-order constants.

Clearly, O |= ⊥ iff O is inconsistent. t. QL⊥ if either both O1 and O2 are inconsistent, or both are consistent. t. QL⊥ does not depend on the actual signature S. The query language QL⊥ is too weak for def ning a reasonable notion of modularity. t. QL⊥ . For every ontology language L, (L, QL⊥ ) is robust under vocabulary extensions because S-inseparability does not depend on S. 2. Let, for example, O1 = {A ≡ } and O2 = {A ≡ ⊥}. Then O1 ≈QL⊥ O2 , but O1 ≈QL⊥ O1 ∪ O2 because O1 and O2 are consistent, but O1 ∪ O2 is inconsistent.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.00 of 5 – based on 16 votes