Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lightweight Ontologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the notion of lightweight ontologies. First defining what we mean by ontology in our sense, we proceed to relate ontology to other related knowledge organisation structures, formal and less formal. We then consider the notion of lightweight ontology, principally based on the expressivity of the ontology description, rather than other possible aspects such as scope, depth or computational tractability, though as we discuss, these other aspects are not entirely unrelated. We then look at ontologies and the semantic web, the emergence of which over the past 10–15 years has seen increased interest in ontologies and associated topics. We proceed to examine 3 key areas where ontologies are being used in IT systems today and briefly discuss the centrality of ontologies and semantic technology to computer science in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We define an entity to be that which has a distinct separate existence.

  2. 2.

    Note that while advocating a logic-based approach we are not advocating any specific logic (such as description logic, for example). Indeed, currently available logics lack some of the properties which would seem to be required for representing and reasoning at the scale and lack of precision found on the web. [Fensel and van Harmelen 2007] discuss new, more appropriate inference mechanisms.

  3. 3.

    http://www.cs.vassar.edu/faculty/welty/aaai-99/

  4. 4.

    http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

  5. 5.

    Taxonomy is also sometimes used loosely (and incorrectly) to denote any set of categories against which electronic content has been classified.

  6. 6.

    Though note that we do not necessarily exclude non-logical but formal accounts (e.g. in the case where the knowledge is probabilistic in nature).

  7. 7.

    The OWL web ontology language, for example, allows a set of ground facts to be defined as an ontology. Strictly speaking, this is inadmissible.

  8. 8.

    ‘Deeper’ in the sense more elaborate and offering a more precise model of the domain at hand.

  9. 9.

    http://www.flickr.com/

  10. 10.

    http://del.icio.us/

  11. 11.

    http://www.dmoz.org/

  12. 12.

    http://www.oclc.org/dewey/

  13. 13.

    http://www.w3c.org/

  14. 14.

    http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide1-0.html

  15. 15.

    Strictly, RDF and its sister language RDF Schema

  16. 16.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/

  17. 17.

    http://www.ontoprise.de/

  18. 18.

    Wordnet is a lexical reference system in which English nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs are organised into synonym sets, with relations linking the sets. Wordnet provides both a web-based user interface for the casual user and also a programming interface to enable incorporation into other systems, e.g. software for mapping between different terminologies.

  19. 19.

    In general a graph, but frequently a tree where the product classification is organised as a strict hierarchy.

  20. 20.

    It is not our intention to discuss the definition of knowledge management here but a broad definition could be “the management by an organisation of its intellectual assets to deliver more efficient and effective ways of working.” Better access to and management of unstructured information is a key part of this endeavour.

  21. 21.

    Out of a total of 143,726 queries submitted to the search engine, there were 251,192 occasions where a user clicked to view more than the first page of results. Ten results per page are returned by default.

  22. 22.

    Statistical techniques employ algorithms with well-defined mathematical properties, usually derived based on certain assumptions about the datasets being used. Machine learning techniques are generally heuristic techniques with no formally derived mathematical properties, e.g. iterative techniques for which no proof of convergence exists. The two approaches may suit different circumstances, or can be used together in a complementary fashion.

  23. 23.

    The use of pronouns and other short words in place of longer words or phrases is called anaphora. Hence, the matching of such short words with their longer equivalent is called anaphora resolution.

  24. 24.

    http://proton.semanticweb.org/

  25. 25.

    http://lucene.apache.org/

  26. 26.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/

  27. 27.

    http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/

  28. 28.

    Gartner Group, 2004.

  29. 29.

    Operational Support Systems: systems that support the daily operation of an organisation’s business including, for example, billing, ordering, delivery, customer support.

  30. 30.

    See, for example, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0TLC/is_5_36/ai_86708476

  31. 31.

    http://www.opencalais.com/

References

  • Alonso, O. 2006. Building semantic-based applications using Oracle. Developer’s Track at WWW2006, Edinburgh. http://www2006.org/programme/item.php?id=d16. Accessed May 2006.

  • Assem, M., V. Malaise, A. Miles, and G. Schreiber. 2006. A method to convert thesauri to SKOS. In Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference 2006 (ESWC 2006), Budva, Montenegro. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baader, F., D. Calvanese, D. McGuiness, D. Nardi, and P. Patel-Schneider. 2003. The description logic handbook. Cambridge, UK: Camridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett, D. 2004. RDF/XML syntax specification (revised). http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/.

  • Berners-Lee, T. 1999. Weaving the web. London: Orion Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontcheva, K., J. Davies, A. Duke, T. Glover, N. Kings, and I. Thurlow. 2006. Semantic information access. In Semantic web technologies: Trends and research in ontology-based systems, eds. J. Davies, R. Studer, and P. Warren, Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickley, D., and Guha, R.V, eds. 2000. Resource description framework (RDF) schemas, W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/.

  • Bernstein, A., E. Kaufmann, A. Goehring, and C. Kiefer. 2005. Querying ontologies: A controlled english interface for end-users, Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC2005, Galway, Ireland, November 2005. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borst, P., and H. Akkermans. 1997. Engineering ontologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46:365–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinchor, N., and P. Robinson. 1998. MUC-7 named entity task definition (version 3.5). In Proceedings of the 7th Message Understanding Conference (MUC-7), Fairfax, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, H. 2000. Software architecture for language engineering. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, H. 1999. Information extraction: A user guide (revised version). Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, May 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J., D. Fensel, and F. van Harmelen. 2003. Towards the semantic web. Chicester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J., R. Weeks, and U. Krohn. 2003. QuizRDF: Search technology for the semantic web. In Towards the semantic web, eds. J. Davies, D. Fensel, and F. van Harmelen. Chicester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J., R. Studer, Y. Sure, and P. Warren. 2005. Next generation knowledge management. BT Technology Journal 23(3):175–190, July 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J., R. Studer, and P. Warren. 2006. Semantic web technology: Trends & research. Chicester: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J., et al. 2007. NESSI semantic technologies working group research roadmap 2007–2010 Version 1.2. http://www.nessi-europe.com/Nessi/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Ja5zTnzK4%2fM%3d&tabid=241&mid=694. Accessed 10th June 2007.

  • DCMI Usage Board. 2005. DCMI metadata terms. http://dublincore.org/documents/2005/06/13/dcmi-terms/.

  • Dean, M., and G. Schreiber, eds.; Bechhofer, S., F. van Harmelen, J. Hendler, I. Horrocks, D.L. McGuinness, P.F. Patel-Schneider, and L.A. Stein, 2004. OWL web ontology language reference. W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/. Accessed 10 February 2004.

  • Domingue, J., M. Dzbor, and E. Motta. 2004. Collaborative semantic web browsing with magpie. In The semantic web: Research and applications, Proceedings of ESWS, 2004, LNCS 3053, eds. J. Davies, C. Bussler, D. Fensel, and R. Studer, 388–401. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumais, S., E. Cutrell, J. Cadiz, G. Jancke, R. Sarin, and D. Robbins. 2003. Stuff I’ve Seen: A system for personal information retrieval and re-use. In Proceedings of SIGIR’03, Toronto. New York, NY: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, S., N. Eiron, D. Gibson, D. Gruhl, R. Guha, A. Jhingran, T. Kanungo, K.S. McCurley, S. Rajagopalan, A. Tomkins, J.A. Tomlin, and J.Y. Zienberer. 2003. A case for automated large scale semantic annotation. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1):115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, L., T. Finin, A. Joshi, R. Pan, R.S. Cost, Y. Peng, P. Reddivari, V. Doshi, and J. Sachs. 2004. Swoogle: A search and metadata engine for the semantic web, Conference on Information and Knowledge Management CIKM04, Washington, DC, November 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrig, M., P. Haase, M. Hefke, and N. Stojanovic. 2005. Similarity for ontologies – A comprehensive framework. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, May 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensel, D., and F. van Harmelen. 2007. Unifying reasoning and search to web scale. IEEE Internet Computing 11(2):94–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensel, D., and M. Musen. 2001. The semantic web: A brain for humankind. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2):24–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giunchiglia, F., M. Marchese, and I. Zaihrayeu. 2005. Encoding classification into lightweight ontologies. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference ESWC05, Heraklion, Crete, May 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, H., H. Alani, L. Carr, S. Chapman, F. Ciravegna, A. Dingli, N. Gibbins, S. Harris, M.C. Schraefel, and N. Shadbolt. 2004. CS AKTiveSpace: Building a semantic web application. In The semantic web: Research and applications, Proceedings of ESWS, 2004, LNCS 3053, eds. J. Davies, C. Bussler, D. Fensel, and R. Studer, 388–401. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grishman, R. 1997. TIPSTER architecture design document version 2.3. Technical report, DARPA. http://www.itl.nist.gov/iaui/894.02/related_projects/tipster/.

  • Gruber, T.R. 1992. A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2):199–220. http://ksl-web.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-92-71.html. Accessed 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T.R. 1993. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In International Workshop on Formal Ontology, Padova, Italy, eds. N. Guarino and R. Poli. http://ksl-web.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-93-04.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N., and P. Giaretta. 1995. Ontologies and knowledge bases: Towards a terminological clarification. In Towards very large knowledge bases: Knowledge building and knowledge sharing, ed. N. Mars, 25–32. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N. 1998. Formal ontology in information systems. In Proceedings of FOIS’98, Trento, Italy, 6–8 June 1998, ed. N. Guarino, 3–15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guha, R., and R. McCool. 2003. Tap: A semantic web platform. Computer Networks 42:557–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guha, R., R. McCool, and E. Miller. 2003. Semantic search. In WWW2003, Budapest, Hungary, 20–24 May 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iosif, V., P. Mika, R. Larsson, and H. Akkermans. 2003. Field experimenting with semantic web tools in a virtual organisation. In Towards the semantic web, eds. J. Davies, D. Fensel, and F. van Harmelen. Chicester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, B.J., A. Spink, and T. Saracevic. 2000. Real life, real users, and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the web. Information Processing and Management 36(2):207–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiryakov, A. 2006. Ontologies for knowledge management. In Semantic web technologies: Trends and research in ontology-based systems, Chapter 7, eds. J. Davies, R. Studer, and P. Warren. Chicester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiryakov A., and K.Iv. Simov. 1999. Ontologically supported semantic matching. In Proceedings of the “NODALIDA’99: Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics”, Trondheim, 9–10 Dec 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiryakov, A., B. Popov, D. Ognyanov, D. Manov, A. Kirilov, and M. Goranov. 2004. Semantic annotation, indexing, and retrieval. Elsevier’s Journal of Web Semantics 1, ISWC2003 special issue (2). http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/.

  • Kiryakov, A., D. Ognyanov, and D. Manov. 2005. OWLIM – A pragmatic semantic repository for OWL. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems (SSWS 2005), WISE, 20 Nov 2005, New York City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klyne, G., and J.J. Carroll. 2004. Resource description framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax. W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/. Accessed 10 Feb 2004.

  • Landauer T., and S. Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104(2):211–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. 1980. Circumscription – A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13:27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahesh, K., J. Kud, and P. Dixon. 1999. Oracle at TREC8: A lexical approach. In Proceedings of the 8th Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-8) Gaithersburg, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangold, C. 2007. A survey and classification of semantic search approaches. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 2(1):23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, D. (1978). Tarskian semantics, or no notation without denotation! Cognitive Science 2:277–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, A., and D. Brickley, eds. 2005. SKOS core guide. WorldWideWeb consortium. Latest version. http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide.

  • Pollock, J., and R. Hodgson. 2004. Adaptive information: Improving business through semantic interoperability, grid computing, and enterprise integration. Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popov, B., A. Kiryakov, A. Kirilov, D. Manov, D. Ognyanoff, and M. Goranov. 2003. KIM – Semantic annotation platform. In Proceedings of 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003), Florida, 20–23 Oct 2003, LNAI Vol. 2870, 834–849. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, C., D. Schwabe, M.P., and de Aragao. 2004. A hybrid approach for searching in the semantic web. WWW 2004, New York, 17–22 May 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salton, G., A. Wong, and C.S. Yang. 1997. A vector space model for automatic indexing. In Readings in information retrieval, eds. K. Sparck-Jones, and P. Willett. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan-Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. 2003. Ontology. In Blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing and information, ed. L. Floridi, 155–166. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B., and C. Welty. 2001. Ontology: Towards a new synthesis. In Proceedings of the FOIS’01, Ogunquit, ME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparck-Jones, K., and P. Willett. 1997. Readings in information retrieval. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan-Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spark Jones, K. 2004. What’s new about the semantic web? Some questions. SIGIR Forum 38(2). http://www.sigir.org/forum/2004D-TOC.html. Accessed Dec 2004.

  • Specia, L., and E. Motta. 2007. Integrating folksonomies with the semantic web. In Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference 2007 (ESWC 2007), Innsbruck, Austria. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terziev, I., A. Kiryakov, and D. Manov. 2004. D1.8.1. Base upper-level ontology (BULO) guidance, report EU-IST integrated project (IP) IST-2003-506826 (SEKT). http://proton.semanticweb.org/D1_8_1.pdf.

  • Vallet, D., M. Fernandez, and P. Castells. 2005. An ontology-based information retrieval model. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC2005, Heraklion, Crete, May/June 2005, LNCS 3532/2005, eds. A. Gómez-Pérez, and J. Euzenat. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Damme, C., M. Hepp, and K. Siorpaes. 2007. FolksOntology: An integrated approach for turning folksonomies into ontologies. Bridging the Gap Between Semantic Web and Web 2.0 Workshop, 4th European Semantic Web Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, June 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Damme, C., T. Cornen, and E. Vandijck. 2008. Turning a corporate folksonomy into a lightweight corporate ontology. 11th International Business Information Systems Conference, BIS 2008, Innsbruck, Austria, May 2008. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ossenbruggen, J., L. Hardman, and L. Rutledge. 2002. Hypermedia and the semantic web: A research agenda. Journal of Digital Information 3(1), May 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitvar, T., M. Zaremba, M. Moran, and D. Fensel. 2007. SESA: Emerging technology for service-centric environments. IEEE Software 24(6):56–67, Nov/Dec 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voorhees, E. 1998. Using WordNet for text retrieval. In WordNet: An electronic lexical database, ed. C. Fellbaum. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, P., and J. Davies. 2007. Managing the risks from information through semantic information management. BT Technology Journal 25(1):178–191, Jan 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W3C Member Submission. 2004. OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Céline van Damme is thanked for insightful discussions about folksonomies and informal ontolgoies in the enterprise. Section 9.4 is based partly on Warren and Davies (2007), while Section 9.6 is based partly on Davies et al. (2006).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BT Innovate, British Telecommunications plc, London, UK

    John Davies

Authors
  1. John Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Davies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipto. Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Universita di Trento, Via Verdi 26, Trento, 38100, Italy

    Roberto Poli

  2. 23rd Place NE., 13544, Seattle, 98125-3325, Washington, USA

    Michael Healy

  3. Computer Technology Institute, Hellenic Open University &, N. Kazantzaki Str., Patras, 265 00, Greece

    Achilles Kameas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davies, J. (2010). Lightweight Ontologies. In: Poli, R., Healy, M., Kameas, A. (eds) Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation