Additional initial ontologies include: search was used, queries were expanded to include (4) single part issues--relate to only one more words to search for, and thus, relevant vehicle component, such as a ding in a fender; documents could be found. Since the documents (5) multiple part issues--relate to two or more being searched were in a limited parts, especially misalignments, unsatisfactory domain, there were few problems with multiple gaps, malformations of joints between parts; senses of words introducing problems that (6) data analysis--results of analysis of measurement hurt precision. In our database, case entries are data generated by optical and mechanical similar--the textual fields do not contain long gages; and (7) plant locations--zones descriptions, and the content is limited to and stations organized topologically or functionally.

We present a novel approach to the automatic acquisition of taxonomies or concept hierarchies from a text corpus. The approach is based on Formal Concept Analysis (FCA), a method mainly used for the analysis of data, i.e. for investigating and processing explicitly given information. We follow Harris' distributional hypothesis and model the context of a certain term as a vector representing syntactic dependencies which are automatically acquired from the text corpus with a linguistic parser. On the basis of this context information, FCA produces a lattice that we convert into a special kind of partial order constituting a concept hierarchy. The approach is evaluated by comparing the resulting concept hierarchies with hand-crafted taxonomies for two domains: tourism and finance. We also directly compare our approach with hierarchical agglomerative clustering as well as with Bi-Section-KMeans as an instance of a divisive clustering algorithm. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of using different measures weighting the contribution of each attribute as well as of applying a particular smoothing technique to cope with data sparseness.

Although this is to be based on use of shared ontologies published on the semantic web, services produced and described by different developers may well use different, perhaps partly overlapping, sets of ontologies. Interoperability will depend on ontology mappings and architectures supporting the associated translation processes. This article reviews some of the processing assumptions that were made in the development of the semantic web service modeling ontology OWL-S and argues that, as a practical matter, the translation function cannot always be isolated in mediators. The translation for service discovery, service process model interpretation, task negotiation, service invocation, and response interpretation may then be distributed to various places in the architecture so that translation can be done in the specific goal-oriented informational contexts of the agents performing these processes.

We propose the use of application semantics to enhance the process of semantic reconciliation. Application semantics involves those elements of business reasoning that affect the way concepts are presented to users: their layout, and so on. Existing matching algorithms use either syntactic means (such as term matching and domain matching) or model semantic means, the use of structural information that is provided by the specific data model to enhance the matching process. The novelty of our approach lies in proposing a class of matching techniques that takes advantage of ontological structures and application semantics.

A semantics-preserving exchange of information between two software applications requires mappings between logically equivalent concepts in the ontology of each application. The challenge of semantic integration is therefore equivalent to the problem of generating such mappings, determining that they are correct, and providing a vehicle for executing the mappings, thus translating terms from one ontology into another. This article presents an approach toward this goal using techniques that exploit the model-theoretic structures underlying ontologies. With these as inputs, semiautomated and automated components may be used to create mappings between ontologies and perform translations.

Semantic integration has been a long-standing challenge for the database community. It has received steady attention over the past two decades, and has now become a prominent area of database research. In this article, we first review database applications that require semantic integration and discuss the difficulties underlying the integration process. We then describe recent progress and identify open research issues. We focus in particular on schema matching, a topic that has received much attention in the database community, but also discuss data matching (for example, tuple deduplication) and open issues beyond the match discovery context (for example, reasoning with matches, match verification and repair, and reconciling inconsistent data values). For previous surveys of database research on semantic integration, see Rahm and Bernstein (2001); Ouksel and Seth (1999); and Batini, Lenzerini, and Navathe (1986).

A semantics-preserving exchange of information between two software applications requires mappings between logically equivalent concepts in the ontology of each application. The challenge of semantic integration is therefore equivalent to the problem of generating such mappings, determining that they are correct, and providing a vehicle for executing the mappings, thus translating terms from one ontology into another. This article presents an approach toward this goal using techniques that exploit the model-theoretic structures underlying ontologies. With these as inputs, semiautomated and automated components may be used to create mappings between ontologies and perform translations.

Research on semantic web services promises greater interoperability among software agents and web services by enabling content-based automated service discovery and interaction and by utilizing . Although this is to be based on use of shared ontologies published on the semantic web, services produced and described by different developers may well use different, perhaps partly overlapping, sets of ontologies. Interoperability will depend on ontology mappings and architectures supporting the associated translation processes. The question we ask is, does the traditional approach of introducing mediator agents to translate messages between requestors and services work in such an open environment? This article reviews some of the processing assumptions that were made in the development of the semantic web service modeling ontology OWL-S and argues that, as a practical matter, the translation function cannot always be isolated in mediators. Ontology mappings need to be published on the semantic web just as ontologies themselves are. The translation for service discovery, service process model interpretation, task negotiation, service invocation, and response interpretation may then be distributed to various places in the architecture so that translation can be done in the specific goal-oriented informational contexts of the agents performing these processes. We present arguments for assigning translation responsibility to particular agents in the cases of service invocation, response translation, and matchmaking.

Data integration is the problem of combining data residing at different autonomous, heterogeneous sources and providing the client with a unified, reconciled global view of the data. We discuss dataintegration systems, taking the abstract viewpoint that the global view is an ontology expressed in a class-based formalism. We resort to an expressive description logic, ALCQI, that fully captures classbased representation formalisms, and we show that query answering in data integration, as well as all other relevant reasoning tasks, is decidable. However, when we have to deal with large amounts of data, the high computational complexity in the size of the data makes the use of a fullfledged expressive description logic infeasible in practice. This leads us to consider DL-Lite, a specifically tailored restriction of ALCQI that ensures tractability of query answering in data integration while keeping enough expressive power to capture the most relevant features of class-based formalisms.

We propose the use of application semantics to enhance the process of semantic reconciliation. Application semantics involves those elements of business reasoning that affect the way concepts are presented to users: their layout, and so on. In particular, we pursue in this article the notion of precedence, in which temporal constraints determine the order in which concepts are presented to the user. Existing matching algorithms use either syntactic means (such as term matching and domain matching) or model semantic means, the use of structural information that is provided by the specific data model to enhance the matching process. The novelty of our approach lies in proposing a class of matching techniques that takes advantage of ontological structures and application semantics. As an example, the use of precedence to reflect business rules has not been applied elsewhere, to the best of our knowledge. We have tested the process for a variety of web sites in domains such as car rentals and airline reservations, and we share our experiences with precedence and its limitations.