Ontologies are the prime way of organizing data in the Semantic Web. Often, it is necessary to combine several, independently developed ontologies to obtain a complete representation of a domain of interest. The complementarity of existing ontologies can be leveraged by merging them. Existing approaches for ontology merging mostly implement a binary merge. However, with the growing number and size of relevant ontologies across domains, scalability becomes a central challenge. A multi-ontology merging technique offers a potential solution to this problem. We present oerger, a scalable multiple ontologies merging method. It takes as input a set of source ontologies and existing mappings across them and generates a merged ontology. For efficient processing, rather than successively merging complete ontologies pairwise, we group related concepts across ontologies into partitions and merge first within and then across those partitions. In both steps, user-specified subsets of generic merge requirements (GMRs) are taken into account and used to optimize outputs. The experimental results on well-known datasets confirm the feasibility of our approach and demonstrate its superiority over binary strategies. A prototypical implementation is freely accessible through a live web portal.
Algergawy, A., Babalou, S., Kargar, M.J. & Davarpanah, S.H. (2015). SeeCOnt: A new seeding-based clustering approach for ontology matching. In Advances in Databases and Information Systems. Chapter 17. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23135-8.
2.
Algergawy, A., Faria, D., Ferrara, A., Fundulaki, I., Harrow, I., Hertling, S., Jimenez-Ruiz, E., Karam, N., Khiat, A., Lambrix, P., Li, H., Montanelli, S., Paulheim, H., Pesquita, C., Saveta, T., Shvaiko, P., Splendiani, A., Thiéblin, E., Trojahn, C., Vataščinová, J., Zamazal, O. & Zhou, L. (2019). Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2019. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (Vol. 2536, pp. 46–85).
3.
Aumueller, D., Do, H.-H., Massmann, S. & Rahm, E. (2005). Schema and ontology matching with COMA++. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data – SIGMOD’05 (pp. 906–908). doi:10.1145/1066157.1066283.
4.
Babalou, S., Grygorova, E. & König-Ries, B. (2020a). CoMerger: A customizable online tool for building a consistent quality-assured merged ontology. In 17th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’20), Poster and Demo Track.
5.
Babalou, S., Grygorova, E. & König-Ries, B. (2020b). What to do when the users of an ontology merging system want the impossible? Towards determining compatibility of generic merge requirements. In International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (pp. 20–36). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61244-3_2.
6.
Babalou, S. & König-Ries, B. (2019a). GMRs: Reconciliation of generic merge requirements in ontology integration. In SEMANTICS Poster and Demo Track.
7.
Babalou, S. & König-Ries, B. (2019b). A subjective logic based approach to handling inconsistencies in ontology merging. In OTM Confederated International Conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems” (pp. 588–606). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33246-4_37.
8.
Batini, C., Lenzerini, M. & Navathe, S.B. (1986). A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 18(4), 323–364. doi:10.1145/27633.27634.
9.
Brank, J., Grobelnik, M. & Mladenic, D. (2005). A survey of ontology evaluation techniques. In Proceedings of the Conference on Data Mining and Data Warehouses (SiKDD 2005) (pp. 166–170). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Citeseer.
10.
Caldarola, E.G. & Rinaldi, A.M. (2016). An approach to ontology integration for ontology reuse. In IEEE 17th International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) (pp. 384–393). doi:10.1109/IRI.2016.58.
11.
d’Aquin, M., Schlicht, A., Stuckenschmidt, H. & Sabou, M. (2007). Ontology modularization for knowledge selection: Experiments and evaluations. In International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (pp. 874–883). Springer. Chapter 85. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74469-6_85.
12.
Deelers, S. & Auwatanamongkol, S. (2007). Enhancing K-means algorithm with initial cluster centers derived from data partitioning along the data axis with the highest variance. International Journal of Computer Science, 2(4), 247–252.
13.
Dooley, D.M., et al. (2018). FoodOn: A harmonized food ontology to increase global food traceability, quality control and data integration. npj Science of Food, 2. doi:10.1038/s41538-018-0032-6.
14.
Duchateau, F. & Bellahsene, Z. (2010). Measuring the quality of an integrated schema. In Conceptual Modeling – ER (pp. 261–273). Chapter 19. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16373-9_19.
Fahad, M. (2017). Merging of axiomatic definitions of concepts in the complex OWL ontologies. Artificial Intelligence Review, 47(2), 181–215. doi:10.1007/s10462-016-9479-5.
17.
Finke, M.T., Filice, R.W. & Kahn, C.E.Jr. (2019). Integrating ontologies of human diseases, phenotypes, and radiological diagnosis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26(2), 149–154. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocy161.
18.
Gruber, T.R., et al. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220. doi:10.1006/knac.1993.1008.
19.
Guzmán-Arenas, A. & Cuevas, A.-D. (2010). Knowledge accumulation through automatic merging of ontologies. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 1991–2005. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.078.
20.
Hlomani, H. & Stacey, D. (2014). Approaches, methods, metrics, measures, and subjectivity in ontology evaluation: A survey. Semantic Web Journal, 1(5), 1–11.
21.
Hu, W., Qu, Y. & Cheng, G. (2008). Matching large ontologies: A divide-and-conquer approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 67(1), 140–160. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2008.06.003.
22.
Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Agibetov, A., Samwald, M. & Cross, V. (2018). We divide, you conquer: From large-scale ontology alignment to manageable subtasks with a lexical index and neural embeddings. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2288, 13–24.
23.
Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I. & Berlanga, R. (2009). Ontology integration using mappings: Towards getting the right logical consequences. In ESWC (pp. 173–187). Springer. Chapter 16. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02121-3_16.
24.
Ju, S.P., Esquivel, H.E., Rebollar, A.M., Su, M.C., et al. (2011). CreaDO – A methodology to create domain ontologies using parameter-based ontology merging techniques. In 10th Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 23–28). IEEE.
25.
Livingston, K.M., Bada, M., Baumgartner, W.A. & Hunter, L.E. (2015). KaBOB: Ontology-based semantic integration of biomedical databases. BMC bioinformatics, 16(1), 1. doi:10.1186/s12859-015-0559-3.
26.
Mahfoudh, M., Forestier, G. & Hassenforder, M. (2016). A benchmark for ontologies merging assessment. In Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management (pp. 555–566). Chapter 44. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47650-6_44.
27.
Mahfoudh, M., Thiry, L., Forestier, G. & Hassenforder, M. (2014). Algebraic graph transformations for merging ontologies. In Model and Data Engineering (pp. 154–168). Springer. Chapter 16. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11587-0_16.
28.
Maiz, N., Fahad, M., Boussaid, O. & Bentayeb, F. (2010). Automatic ontology merging by hierarchical clustering and inference mechanisms. In Proceedings of I-KNOW (pp. 1–3).
29.
Makwana, A. & Ganatra, A. (2018). A known in advance, what ontologies to integrate? For effective ontology merging using K-means clustering. International Journal of Intelligent Engineering and Systems, 11, 72. doi:10.22266/ijies2018.0831.08.
30.
Noy, N.F. & Musen, M.A. (2003). The PROMPT suite: Interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6), 983–1024. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.08.002.
31.
Osman, I., Pileggi, S.F., Yahia, S.B. & Diallo, G. (2021). An alignment-based implementation of a holistic ontology integration method. MethodsX, 8, 101460. doi:10.1016/j.mex.2021.101460.
32.
Otero-Cerdeira, L., Rodríguez-Martínez, F.J. & Gómez-Rodríguez, A. (2015). Ontology matching: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(2), 949–971. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.08.032.
33.
Paixao, M., Harman, M., Zhang, Y. & Yu, Y. (2017). An empirical study of cohesion and coupling: Balancing optimization and disruption. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 22(3), 394–414. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2017.2691281.
34.
Pottinger, R.A. & Bernstein, P.A. (2003). Merging models based on given correspondences. In Proceedings 2003 VLDB Conference (pp. 862–873). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-012722442-8/50081-1.
35.
Poveda Villalon, M., Suárez-Figueroa, M.C. & Gómez-Pérez, A. (2010). A double classification of common pitfalls in ontologies. In Workshop on Ontology Quality (OntoQual 2010). Co-located with EKAW. Informatica.
36.
Priya, M. & Cherukuri, A.K. (2019). A novel method for merging academic social network ontologies using formal concept analysis and hybrid semantic similarity measure. Library Hi Tech, 38, 399. doi:10.1108/LHT-02-2019-0035.
37.
Priya, M. & Kumar, C.A. (2019). An approach to merge domain ontologies using granular computing. Granular Computing, 6, 1–26. doi:10.1007/s41066-019-00193-3.
38.
Raad, J. & Cruz, C. (2015). A survey on ontology evaluation methods. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery. Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. doi:10.5220/0005591001790186.
39.
Rahm, E. (2016). The case for holistic data integration. In Advances in Databases and Information Systems (pp. 11–27). Chapter 2. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44039-2_2.
40.
Rahm, E. & Bernstein, P.A. (2001). A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal, 10(4), 334–350. doi:10.1007/s007780100057.
41.
Raunich, S. & Rahm, E. (2012). Towards a benchmark for ontology merging. In OTM Confederated International Conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems” (Vol. 7567, pp. 124–133). Chapter 20. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33618-8_20.
42.
Raunich, S. & Rahm, E. (2014). Target-driven merging of taxonomies with ATOM. Information Systems, 42, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.is.2013.11.001.
43.
Saleem, K., Bellahsene, Z. & Hunt, E. (2008). Porsche: Performance oriented schema mediation. Information Systems, 33(7), 637–657. doi:10.1016/j.is.2008.01.010.
44.
Shvaiko, P. & Euzenat, J. (2011). Ontology matching: State of the art and future challenges. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 25(1), 158–176. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2011.253.
45.
Zalamea Patino, O.P., Van Orshoven, J. & Steenberghen, T. (2018). Merging and expanding existing ontologies to cover the Built Cultural Heritage domain. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 8(2), 162–178. doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-05-2017-0028.
46.
Zhang, L.-Y., Ren, J.-D. & Li, X.-W. (2017). OIM-SM: A method for ontology integration based on semantic mapping. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(3), 1983–1995. doi:10.3233/JIFS-161553.
