Abstract:
To maintain several versions of ontology requires having means to differentiate the various versions and to ensure the validity of the authorities. For the implementation of our ontology, we chose Protégé.3.4 several reasons justified our choice: Protégé-3.4. source is an open editor and free, it allows to import and to export ontologies in the various languages of implementation (RDF-Diagram, OWL, DAML, OIL,… etc), it has a modular interface, this which allows its enrichment by modules additional (plugins), Protégé-3.4.1 allows the edition and the visualization of ontologies. Lastly, it is provided with API written in JAVA, which makes it possible to develop applications being able to reach ontologies of Protected and to handle them. The objective of this article is to underline the interest to have a tool for analysis of the differences between versions of ontology of the same field. We present the tool entitled CVO allowing to handle and compare ontologies in form OWL. The field of study relates to the medical field of the disease breast cancer.
Keywords:
Curve Segment, Incremental Splitting, Iteration
References:
[1] Charlet J., Bachimont B. and Troncy R., “Ontologies pour le web sémantique. Le web sémantique. Revue 13, numéro HS”, Web sémantique, (2005).
[2] et Fensel, K., Klein, M., and Fensel, D., “Ontology versioning for the semantic web”, International Semantic Web working Symposium (SWWS), USA.
[3] Klein, M. and Noy, N., “A component- based framework for ontology evolution”, Technical report, Department of computer Science, Vrije Amesterdam University, (2001).
[4] Maedche, A., Staab, A. measuring similarity between ontologies. Proceeding of European Conference on Knowledge acquisition and Management. EKAW Madrid, Spain, LNCS/ LNAI 2473, Springer (2002) 251-263.
[5] Djedidi, R., Aufaure, M-A.: Ontology Change Management. In: A. Paschke, H. Weigand, W. Behrendt, K. Tochtermann, . Pellegrini (Eds.), I-Semantics 2009, Proceedings of IKNOW ’09 and I-SEMANTICS ’09, ISBN 978-3-85125- 060-2, pp. 611--621, Verlag der Technischen Universitt Graz. (2009).
[6] Stojanovic, L. 2004. Methods and tools for ontology evolution. Thesis of the Karlsruhe University. Germany.
[7] Klein, M., (2004). Change management for distributed ontologies. Phd thesis, department of computer science. Vrije Amesterdam University.
[8] Natalya F. Noy , Michel Klein, Ontology Evolution: Not the Same as Schema Evolution, Knowledge and Information Systems, v.6 n.4, p.428-440, July 2004 [doi>10.1007/s10115-003-0137-2suntisrivaraporn, B., Qi, G., Ji, Q., Haase,
[9] P.A Modularization-based Approach to Finding All Justifications for OWL DL Entailments. ASWC’08. (2008).
[10] Noy, N.F., Kunnatur, S., Klein, M., & Musen, M.A. (2004). Tracking changes during ontology evolution. In S.A. McIlraith & D. Plexousakis (Eds.), 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’04), Hiroshima, Japan, (LNCS 3298, pp. 259-273). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
[11] Rim Djedidi and Marie-Aude Aufaure Change Management Patterns (CMP) for Ontology Evolution Process. International Workshop on Ontology Dynamics IWOD-2009. Washington DC, USA
[12] Klein, S.B., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Chance, S. (2002). Decisions and the evolution of memory: Multiple systems, multiple functions. Psychological Review, 109, 306–329.
[13] Noy, N., and Musen, M., (2003). Ontology Versionning as an element of an ontology management framework. IEEE Intelligent systemd, in press.
[14] Noy, N., and Musen, M., (2002). Promptdiff: A fixed point algorithm for comparing ontology versions. Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence.
[15] Haridimos Kondylakis, Dimitris Plexousakis, Yannis Tzitzikas Ontology Evolution in Data Integration. IWOD-2010 4th International Workshop on Ontology Dynamics. Shangai, China, November 8, 2010.
[16] Noy, N. F., Chugh, A., Liu, W., & Musen, M. A. (2006). A framework for ontology evolution in collaborative environments. In I.F. Cruz, S. Decker, D. Allemang, C. Preist, D. Schwabe, P. Mika, M. Uschold&L. Aroyo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international semantic web conference (ISWC 2006). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4273, pp. 544-558). Springer.
[17] Philip H.P. Nguyen, Ken Kaneiwa and Minh-Quang Nguyen. Ontology Inferencing Rules and Operations in Conceptual Structure Theory. AOW 2010. The Sixth Australasian Ontology Workshop.
Citations:
APA:
Taleb, N. (2021). CVO: Comparison of the Ontologies Versions. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology (IJAST), ISSN: 2005-4238(Print); 2207-6360 (Online), NADIA, 147, 37-46. doi: 10.33832/ijast.2021.147.04.
MLA:
Taleb, Nora “CVO: Comparison of the Ontologies Versions.” International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, ISSN: 2005-4238(Print); 2207-6360 (Online), NADIA, vol. 147, 2021, pp. 37-46. IJAST, http://article.nadiapub.com/IJAST/Vol147/4.html.
IEEE:
[1] N. Taleb, "CVO: Comparison of the Ontologies Versions." International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology (IJAST), ISSN: 2005-4238(Print); 2207-6360 (Online), NADIA, vol. 147, pp. 37-46, April 2021.
