IBM Research Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; E-mails: vivianet@br.ibm.com, raphaelt@br.ibm.com, eltons@ibm.com, lga@br.ibm.com;"/> Instituto de Computação, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, RJ, Brazil; E-mail: s.jessicasoares@gmail.com"/>
Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
Submit Manuscript
7.7CiteScore
2.0Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
2022 Volume 37
Article Contents
Next Previous
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

OWL ontology evolution: understanding and unifying the complex changes

More Information
  • Abstract: Knowledge-based systems and their ontologies evolve due to different reasons. Ontology evolution is the adaptation of an ontology and the propagation of these changes to dependent artifacts such as queries and other ontologies. Besides identifying basic/simple changes, it is imperative to identify complex changes between two versions of the same ontology to make this adaptation possible. There are many definitions of complex changes applied to ontologies in the literature. However, their specifications across works vary both in formalization and textual description. Some works also use different terminologies to refer to a change, while others use the same vocabulary to refer to distinct changes. Therefore, there is a lack of a unified list of complex changes. The main goals of this paper are: (i) present the primary documents that identify complex changes; (ii) provide critical analyses about the set of the complex changes proposed in the literature and the documents mentioning them; (iii) provide a unified list of complex changes mapping different sets of complex changes proposed by several authors; (iv) present a classification for those complex changes; and (v) describe some open directions of the area. The mappings between the complex changes provide a mechanism to relate and compare different proposals. The unified list is thus a reference for the complex changes published in the literature. It may assist the development of tools to identify changes between two versions of the same ontology and enable the adaptation of artifacts that depend on the evolved ontology.
  • 加载中
  • Burton-Jones , A., Storey , V. C., Sugumaran , V. & Ahluwalia , P. 2005. A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data and Knowledge Engineering. North-Holland 55(1), 84–102.

    Google Scholar

    Davidovsky , M.,Ermolayev , V. & Tolok , V. 2011. Instance migration between ontologies having structural differences. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 20(06), 1127–1156.

    Google Scholar

    Dinh , D., Dos Reis , J. C., Pruski , C., Da Silveira , M. & Reynaud-Delaître , C. 2014. Identifying relevant concept attributes to support map-ping maintenance under ontology evolution. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 29, 53–66.

    Google Scholar

    Dos Reis , J. C., Da Silveira , M., Dinh , D., Pruski , C. & Reynaud-Delaître , C. 2014. Requirements for implementing mapping adaptation systems. In IEEE 23rd International WETICE Conference, 405–410. IEEE.

    Google Scholar

    Dos Reis , J. C., Dinh , D., Pruski , C., Da Silveira , M. & Reynaud -Delaîtrec. 2013. Mapping adaptation actions for the automatic reconciliation of dynamic ontologies. In 22nd ACM international conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 599–608. ACM.

    Google Scholar

    Djedidi , R. & Aufaure , M.-A. 2010. Onto-evoal an ontology evolution approach guided by pattern modeling and quality evaluation. In International Symposium on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, 286–305. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Flouris , G., Manakanatas , D., Kondylakis , H., Plexousakis , D. & Antoniou , G. 2008. Ontology change: classification and survey. The Knowledge Engineering Review 23(2), 117–152.

    Google Scholar

    Galani , T., Papastefanatos , G. & Stavrakas , Y. 2016. A language for defining and detecting interrelated complex changes on RDF(S) knowledge bases. In ICEIS, 472–481.

    Google Scholar

    Galani , T., Stavrakas , Y., Papstefanatos , G. & Flouris G. 2015. Supporting cOmplex changes in RDF(S) knowledge bases. In DIACRON@ESWC, 28–33.

    Google Scholar

    Gröner , G., Parreiras , F. S. & Staab , S. 2010. Semantic recognition of ontology refactoring. In International Semantic Web Conference, 273–288. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Hartung , M., Groß , A. & Rahm , E. 2010. Rule-based generation of diff evolution mappings between ontology versions, ArXiv, vol.abs/1010.0122.

    Google Scholar

    Hartung , M., Groß , A., & Rahm , E. 2013. COnto–diff: generation of complex evolution mappings for life science ontologies. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 46(1), 15–32.

    Google Scholar

    Herrmannsdoerfer , M., Vermolen , S. & Washsmuth , G. 2001. An extensive catalog of operators for the coupled evolution of metamodels and models. In SLE, LNCS 6563, 163–182. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Javed , M., Abgaz , Y. M. & Pahl , C. 2012. Composite ontology change operators and their customizable evolution strategies. In CEUR.

    Google Scholar

    Javed , M., Abgaz , Y. M. & Pahl , C. 2013. Ontology change management and identification of change patterns. Journal on Data Semantics 2(2–3), 119–143.

    Google Scholar

    Kalibatiene , D. & Vasilecas , O. 2011. Survey on ontology languages. In Perspectives in Business Informatics Research. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 90, 124–141. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Kirsten , T., Gross , A., Hartung , M. & Rahm , E. 2011. Gomma: acomponent-based infrastructure for managing and analyzing life science ontologies and their evolution. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 2(1), 6.

    Google Scholar

    Kitchenham , B., Brereton , O. P., Budgen , D., Turner , M., Bailey , J. & Linkman , S. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 51(1), 7–15.

    Google Scholar

    Khattak , A., Batool , R., Pervez , Z., Khan , A. & Lee , S. 2013. Ontology evolution and challenges. Journal on Information Science and Engineering 29(5), 851–871.

    Google Scholar

    Khattak , A. M., Latif , K., Khan , S. & Ahmed , N. 2008. Ontology recovery and visualization. In 4th International Conference on Next Generation Web Services Practices, 90–96. IEEE.

    Google Scholar

    Khattak , A. M., Latif , K. & Lee , S. 2013. Change management in evolving web ontologies. Knowledge-Based Systems 37, 1–18.

    Google Scholar

    Khelladi , D., Hebig , R., Bendraou , R., Robin , J. & Gervais , M. 2015. Detecting complex changes during metamodel evolution. In CAiSE, 263–278.

    Google Scholar

    Klein , M. & Noy , N. 2003. A component-based framework for ontology evolution. In Workshop on Ontologies and Distributed Systems at IJCAI, 3, 4–12.

    Google Scholar

    Klein , M. C. A. 2004. Change Management for Distributed Ontologies. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar

    Kondylakis , H. 2010. Ontology Evolution in Data Integration. PhD dissertation, University of Crete.

    Google Scholar

    Kondylakis , H. & Papadakis , N. 2018. EvoRDF: evolving the exploration of ontology evolution. The Knowledge Engineering Review 33, e.12.

    Google Scholar

    Kondylakis , H. & Plexousakis , D. 2012. Ontology evolution: assisting query migration. In Conceptual Modeling, 7532, 331–344.

    Google Scholar

    Lantow , B. 2016. OntoMetrics: application of on-line ontology metric calculation. In BIR Workshops.

    Google Scholar

    Lara , A., Henriques , P. R. & Gancarski , A. L. 2017. Visualization of ontology evolution using ontodiff graph. In 6th Symposium on Languages, Applications and Technologies (SLATE 2017). SchlossDagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.

    Google Scholar

    Lambrix , P., Dragistic , Z., Ivanova , V. & Anslow , C. 2016. Visualization for ontology envolution, In VOILA@ISWC, 54–67.

    Google Scholar

    Liu , L., Zhang , P., Fan , R., Zhang , R., & Yang , H. 2014. Modeling ontology evolution with Setpi. Information Sciences 255, 155–169.

    Google Scholar

    Lozano-Tello , A. & Gomez-Perez , A. 2004. ONTOMETRIC: a method to choose the appropriate ontology. Journal of Database Management 15, 1–18.

    Google Scholar

    Maedche , A., Motik , B., Stojanovic , L., Studer , R. & Volz , R. 2002. Managing multiple ontologies and ontology evolution in ontologging. In International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing, 51–63. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Mahfoudh , M., Forestier , G., Thiry , L. & Hassenforder , M. 2015. Algebraic graph transformations for formalizing ontology changes an devolving ontologies. Knowledge-Based Systems 73, 212–226.

    Google Scholar

    Najla , S., Wassim , J. & Faiez , G. 2009. Extension of protege to support evolution of ontology. In First International Conference on Advances in Databases, Knowledge, and Data Applications, 149–154. IEEE.

    Google Scholar

    Noy , N. & Klein , M. 2004. Ontology evolution: not the same as schema evolution. Knowledge and Information Systems 6(4), 428–440.

    Google Scholar

    Noy , N., Kunnatur , S., Klein , M. & Musen , M. 2004. Tracking changes during ontology evolution. In ISWC, 259–273.

    Google Scholar

    Palma , R., Haase , P., Corcho , O. & Gomez Perez , A. 2009. Changerepresentation for owl 2 ontologies. In 5th InternationalWorkshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions. CEUR-WS.

    Google Scholar

    Papavasileiou , V., Flouris , G., Fundulaki , I., Kotzinos , D. & Christophides , V. 2009a. On detecting high-level changes in RDF/S KBs. In The Semantic Web—ISWC 2009, 5823, 473–488.

    Google Scholar

    Papavasileiou , V., Flouris , G., Fundulaki , I., Kotzinos , D. & Christophides , V. 2009b. Formalizing high-level change detection for rdf/s kbs, FORTH-ICS (Technical Report TR-398).

    Google Scholar

    Papavasileiou , V., Flouris , G., Fundulaki , I., Kotzinos , D. & Christophides , V. 2013. High-level change detection in RDF(S) KBs. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 38(1), 1:1–1:42.

    Google Scholar

    Paré , G. & Kitsiou , S. 2017. Methods for literature reviews. In Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach. University of Victoria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/.

    Google Scholar

    Pare , G., Trudel , M.-C., Jaana , M. & Kitsiou , S. 2015. Synthesizing in-formation systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Information and Management 52(2), 183–199.

    Google Scholar

    Pittet , P., Cruz , C. & Nicolle , C. 2013. Modeling changes for shoin (d)ontologies: an exhaustive structural model. In 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Semantic Computing, 104–109. IEEE.

    Google Scholar

    Plessers , P. 2006. An Approach to Web-based Ontology Evolution. PhD dissertation, Faculteit van de Wetenschappen.

    Google Scholar

    Rahnama , A. & Barforoush , A. A. 2015. A novel ontology evolution methodology. Journal of Web Engineering 14(3–4), 301–324.

    Google Scholar

    Rogozan , D. & Paquette , G. 2005. Managing ontology changes on the semantic web. In The 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI’05), 430–433. IEEE.

    Google Scholar

    Rogozan , D. & Paquette , G. 2009. Ontology evolution and the referencing of resources in semantic web context. In Semantic Web Technologies for e-Learning.

    Google Scholar

    Stojanovic , L. 2004. Methods and Tools for Ontology Evolution. PhD dissertation, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany.

    Google Scholar

    Stojanovic , L., Maedche , A., Motik , B. & Stojanovic , N. 2002. User-driven ontology evolution management. In International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, 285–300. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Stuckenschmidt , H. & Van Harmelen , F. 2005. Information Sharing on the Semantic Web. Springer Science and Business Media.

    Google Scholar

    Tang , X. & Yang , F. 2007. A study on dynamic ontology for information integration in e-governmental virtual organization. In International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 3600–3604. IEEE.

    Google Scholar

    Templier , M. & Pare , G. 2015. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 37(1), 6.

    Google Scholar

    Tudorache , T., Nyulas , C., Noy , N. F. & Musen , M. A. 2013. Webprotege: a collaborative ontology editor and knowledge acquisition tool for the web. Semantic Web 4(1), 89–99.

    Google Scholar

    Xie , C., Jiang , L. & Cai , H. 2011. Instance-driven ontology evolution mechanism towards enterprise data management. In IEEE 8th International Conference on e-Business Engineering, 24–30. IEEE.

    Google Scholar

    Zablith , F., Antoniou , G., d’Aquin , M., Flouris , G., Kondylakis , H. & Motta , E. 2015. Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey. The Knowledge Engineering Review 30(1), 45–75.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Viviane Torres da Silva, Jéssica Soares dos Santos, Raphael Thiago, Elton Soares, Leonardo Guerreiro Azevedo. 2022. OWL ontology evolution: understanding and unifying the complex changes. The Knowledge Engineering Review 37(1), doi: 10.1017/S0269888922000066
    Viviane Torres da Silva, Jéssica Soares dos Santos, Raphael Thiago, Elton Soares, Leonardo Guerreiro Azevedo. 2022. OWL ontology evolution: understanding and unifying the complex changes. The Knowledge Engineering Review 37(1), doi: 10.1017/S0269888922000066
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(54) PDF downloads(103)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

OWL ontology evolution: understanding and unifying the complex changes

  • Received: 25 August 2021
  • Revised: 11 October 2022
  • Accepted: 17 October 2022
  • Published online: 21 November 2022
The Knowledge Engineering Review  37,  2022, 37(1)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: Knowledge-based systems and their ontologies evolve due to different reasons. Ontology evolution is the adaptation of an ontology and the propagation of these changes to dependent artifacts such as queries and other ontologies. Besides identifying basic/simple changes, it is imperative to identify complex changes between two versions of the same ontology to make this adaptation possible. There are many definitions of complex changes applied to ontologies in the literature. However, their specifications across works vary both in formalization and textual description. Some works also use different terminologies to refer to a change, while others use the same vocabulary to refer to distinct changes. Therefore, there is a lack of a unified list of complex changes. The main goals of this paper are: (i) present the primary documents that identify complex changes; (ii) provide critical analyses about the set of the complex changes proposed in the literature and the documents mentioning them; (iii) provide a unified list of complex changes mapping different sets of complex changes proposed by several authors; (iv) present a classification for those complex changes; and (v) describe some open directions of the area. The mappings between the complex changes provide a mechanism to relate and compare different proposals. The unified list is thus a reference for the complex changes published in the literature. It may assist the development of tools to identify changes between two versions of the same ontology and enable the adaptation of artifacts that depend on the evolved ontology.

    HTML

    • Pull up class: Move a class to a higher position in the subsumption hierarchy (Papavasileiou et al., 2013).

    • Move subtree: Move a concept (and subtree) from parent A to parent B (Dos Reis et al., 2014).

    • https://www.w3.org/OWL/.

    • https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.

    • https://dl.acm.org/dl.cfm.

    • https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp.

    • https://link.springer.com/.

    • https://www.sciencedirect.com/.

    • https://dblp.org/.

    • https://scholar.google.com.br/.

    • The numbers in these tables refer to the following references: [1](Stojanovic, 2004); [2](Stojanovic et al., 2002); [3](Klein & Alexander, 2004); [4](Rahnama & Barforoush, 2015); [5](Papavasileiou et al., 2013); [6](Hartung et al., 2013); [7](Rogozan & Paquette, 2005); [8](Najla et al., 2009); [9](Xie et al., 2011); [10](Dos Reis et al., 2014); [11](Khattak et al., 2008); [12](Tang & Yang, 2007); [13](Kirsten et al., 2011); [14](Javed et al., 2013); [15](Maedche et al., 2002); [16](Gröner et al., 2010); [17](Stuckenschmidt & Van Harmelen, 2005); [18](Palma et al., 2009); [19](Liu et al., 2014); [20](Khattak et al., 2013); [21](Dinh et al., 2014); [22](Dos Reis et al., 2013); [23](Javed et al., 2012); [24](Hartung et al., 2010); [25](Mahfoudh et al., 2015); [26](Rogozan & Paquette et al., 2009); [27](Kondylakis et al., 2010); [28](Djedidi & Aufaure, 2010); [29](Khelladi et al., 2015) [30](Galani et al., 2016) [31](Galani et al., 2015) [32](Noy et al., 2004) [33](Khattak et al., 2013) [34](Herrmannsdoerfer et al., 2001).

    • The references used in Figure 4 are defined as follows: [A](Klein, 2004), [B](Kondylakis et al., 2010), [C](Papavasileiou et al., 2013), [D](Rogozan & Paquette, 2009), [E][C7](Herrmannsdoerfer et al., 2010) [F][C4](Falani et al., 2015) [G](Gröner et al., 2010), [H](Hartung et al., 2013), [I](Stojanovic, 2004), [J](Stojanovic et al., 2002), [K](Javed et al., 2013), [L](Tang & Yang, 2007), [M](Rahnama & Barforoush, 2015), [N](Dos Reis et al., 2014), [O](Dinh et al., 2014), [P](Javed et al., 2012), [Q](Hartung et al., 2010), [R](Dos Reis et al., 2013), [S](Najla et al., 2009), [T](Liu et al., 2014), [U](Djedidi & Aufaure, 2010), [V](Khattak et al., 2008), [W][C3](Khelladi et al., 2015) [X](Stuckenschmidt & Van Harmelen, 2005), [Y](Khattak et al., 2013) [Z](Rogozan & Paquette, 2005), [A1](Khattak et al., 2013), [A2](Xie et al., 2011), [A3](Kirsten et al., 2011), [A4](Maedche et al., 2002), [A5](Palma et al., 2009), and [A6](Mahfoudh et al., 2015) [A7](Noy et al., 2004), and [A8](Galani et al., 2016).

    • http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/.

    Rights and permissions
    • © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press2022The Author(s)
References (56)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Viviane Torres da Silva, Jéssica Soares dos Santos, Raphael Thiago, Elton Soares, Leonardo Guerreiro Azevedo. 2022. OWL ontology evolution: understanding and unifying the complex changes. The Knowledge Engineering Review 37(1), doi: 10.1017/S0269888922000066
    Viviane Torres da Silva, Jéssica Soares dos Santos, Raphael Thiago, Elton Soares, Leonardo Guerreiro Azevedo. 2022. OWL ontology evolution: understanding and unifying the complex changes. The Knowledge Engineering Review 37(1), doi: 10.1017/S0269888922000066
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return