A Survey on Ontology Operations Techniques

Mario Maroun


Ontologies are increasingly seen as key factors in enabling interoperability between heterogeneous systems and semantic web applications and are emerging as representative techniques for overlapping complementary context domains. A single ontology is no longer sufficient to support the tasks predicted by a distributed environment such as the Semantic Web; several ontologies for many applications are necessary. Different ontological tools have different representations of data and concept operations with respect to their input. Its functions and informational structures also differ depending on its tools and processes. Currently very few investigation documents provide an in-depth discussion of these technologies and their applications. In this article, we discuss various sophisticated ontological tools with their various internal processes and algorithms. Mapping, aligning, or merging ontologies creates an identification layer that allows different applications to access the resulting ontology and then share its information, of course, while preserving the semantics it contains. For integrating large ontologies, automatic matches become an essential solution. However, the large ontology matching process presents high spatial and temporal complexities. Therefore, for a tool to efficiently and accurately match this large ontology within limited computing resources, it must have techniques that can significantly reduce the high spatio-temporal complexities associated with the existential matching process. These processes provide an important basis for many other processes such as translation, reconciliation, coordination and negotiation between ontologies.


tools; algorithms; ontology operations; ontologies; techniques; ontology mapping; ontology aligning; ontology merging

Full Text:



Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer, “Ontology mapping, the state of the art”. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(1):1-31. 2003.

N. F. Noy, “Semantic Integration: A Survey of Ontology-Based Approaches”. SIGMOD Record, Vol. 33, No. 4. pp. 65-70.2004.

M. Benerecetti, P. Bouquet and C. Ghdini, “Contextual reasoning distilled”. Journal of Théoritical and Experimental Artificial intelligence, 12(3):279-305. 2000.

Lorena Otero-Cerdeira, Francisco J. Rodriguez-Martinez, and Alma Gomez-Rodriguez. 2015. Ontology matching: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications (2015), 949–971.

P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat. 2013. Ontology matching: State of the art and future challenges. Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE (2013). 158–176.

Pavel Shvaiko and Jerome Euzenat. 2008. Ten challenges of ontology matching. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Ontologies, DataBases, and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE’08). 1163–1181.

Namyoun Choi, Il-Yeol Song, and Hyoil Han, “A Survey on Ontology Mapping”, SIGMOD, Vol. 35, No. 3, Sep. 2006.

Natalya F. Noy, “Semantic Integration: A Survey of Ontology-Based Approaches”, SIGMOD, Vol. 33, No. 4, December 2004.

Akrivi Katifori and Constantin Halatsis, “Ontology Visualization Methods—A Survey”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 39, No. 4, Oct 2007.

Matteo Cristani and Roberta Cuel, “A Survey on Ontology Creation Methodologies”, International Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems 1(2), 49-69, June 2005.

Elena Simperi, “Reusing Ontologies on the Semantic Web: A Feasibility Study”, Science Direct, Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol: 68, issue 10, p: 905-925, Oct 2009.

Yannis, K. and S. Marco, “Ontology mapping: The state of the art”, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18: p: 1-31, 2003.

Ravi Loudrusamy and Gopinath Ganapathy, “Feature Analysis of Ontology Mediation Tools”, Journal of Computer Science, 4(6), p: 437-446, 2008.

Tin-Yu Wu, Chi-Yuan Chen, Kai-Di Chang, Diego Chung and Han-Chieh Chao., Pave the Way to Future Smart Living Space-Cross-layer Enhanced AAA for 4G Core Network, Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 2007. MUE '07, International Conference on., 1(2), 191-203, (2007).

Berenjian, Samaneh, Mehdi Shajari, Nadieh Farshid, and Majid Hatamian.” Intelligent automated intrusion response system based on fuzzy decision making and risk assessment.” In 2016 IEEE 8th International Conference on Intelligent Systems (IS), pp. 709-714. IEEE, 2016.

Naghizadeh, Alireza, Samaneh Berenjian, Ehsan Meamari, and R. Ebrahimi Atani. ”Structuralbased tunneling: preserving mutual anonymity for circular P2P networks.” International Journal of Communication Systems 29, no. 3 (2016): 602-619.

Naghizadeh, Alireza, Samaneh Berenjian, Behrooz Razeghi, Saghi Shahanggar, and Nima Razagh Pour.” Preserving receiver’s anonymity for circular structured P2P networks.” In 2015 12th Annual IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), pp. 71-76. IEEE, 2015.

Berenjian, Samaneh, Saeed Hajizadeh, Majid Hatamian, and Reza brahimi Atani.” An Incentive Security Model to Provide Fairness for Peer-to-Peer Networks.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.09355 (2019).

Naghizadeh, Alireza.” Improving fairness in peer-to-peer networks by separating the role of seeders in network infrastructures.” Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 24, no. 4 (2016): 2255- 2266.

Hatamian, Majid, Seyed Sajad Ahmadpoor, Samaneh Berenjian, Behrooz Razeghi, and Hamid Barati.” A centralized evolutionary clustering protocol for wireless sensor networks.” In 2015 6th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), pp. 1-6. IEEE, 2015.

Siham AMROUCH and Sihem MOSTEFAI, ‘Survey on the literature of ontology Mapping, Alignment and Merging.’, 2012.

Reuven Cohen, Guy Grebla and LiranKatzir., Cross-Layer Hybrid FEC/ARQ Reliable Multicast with Adaptive Modulation and Coding in Broadband Wireless Networks, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking., 18(6), 1908–1920, (2010).

N. F. Noy and M. A. Musen, “The prompt suite: Interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 983–1024, 2003, ISSN: 10715819. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003. 08.002.

G. Stumme and A. Maedche, “FCA-Merge: Bottom-up merging of ontologies,” in IJCAI, vol. 1, 2001, pp. 225–230.

D. L. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder, “An environment for merging and testing large ontologies,” in KR, 2000, pp. 483–493.

K. Kotis, G. A. Vouros, and K. Stergiou, “Towards automatic merging of domain ontologies: The hcone-merge approach,” Journal of Web Semantics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 60–79, 2006, ISSN: 15708268. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2005.09.004.

Y. R. Jean-Mary, E. P. Shironoshita, and M. R. Kabuka, “Ontology matching with semantic verification,” Journal of Web Semantics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 235–251, 2009.

X. Lin and N. B. Shroff., The Impact of Imperfect Scheduling on Cross Layer Rate Control in Wireless Networks, INFOCOM 2005. 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Proceedings IEEE., 3, 1804-1814, (2005).

E. Jiménez-Ruiz, B. C. Grau, I. Horrocks, and R. Berlanga, “Ontology integration using mappings: Towards getting the right logical consequences,” in ESWC, Springer, 2009, ch. 16, pp. 173–187, ISBN: 9783642021206. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-642-02121-3_16.

S. Raunich and E. Rahm, “Target-driven merging of taxonomies with ATOM,” Information Systems, vol. 42, pp. 1–14, 2014, ISSN: 03064379. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2013.11.001.

D. H. Fudholi, W. Rahayu, and E. Pardede, “Code (common ontology development): A knowledge integration approach from multiple ontologies,” in IEEE 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, 2014, pp. 751–758, ISBN: 9781479936304. DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AINA.2014.92.

S. P. Ju, H. E. Esquivel, A. M. Rebollar, M. C. Su, et al., “CreaDO–a methodology to create domain ontologies using parameter based ontology merging techniques,” in 10th Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IEEE, 2011, pp. 23–28.

Cruz, I., Antonelli, F.P., Stroe, C.: AgreementMaker: efficient matching for large real-world schemas and ontologies. Proc. VLDB Endow. 2(2), 1586–1589 (2009) (p. 230).


  • There are currently no refbacks.
We use cookies.