Abstract

Semantic conflicts detection is considered to be one of the essential steps that should be carried out effectively, in order to pave the way towards establishing semantic interoperability between heterogeneous Web services. To achieve that, ontology plays the backbone of the detection process, which required to be implemented in a high quality manner. However, choosing a methodology to build this ontology is very difficult, since a considerable number of methodologies have been emerged to guide the ontology development process. Therefore, this study aims at reviewing and comparing the most accepted and used methodologies, with the aim of choosing an effective methodology from ontology engineering perspective to be recommended and used for building semantic conflicts detection ontology. Furthermore, to provide some useful insights for both theoretical and practical purposes to help ontology developers to choose the right methodology and to advance the state of the art. The comparison was performed against the common ontology development life cycle. The result of this survey and comparison recommend a methodology called METHONTOLOGY to be used for implementing semantic conflicts detection ontology.

Keywords:

Ontology development life cycle, ontology engineering, semantic conflicts detection, semantic interoperability,

References

1. Alamgir, M. and M. Mohayidin, 2009. Data mediation to message level conflict in heterogeneous web services. Proceeding of the International Conference on IT to Celebrate S. Charmonman's 72nd Birthday.Thailand, Bangkok Metro, March 2009, pp: 41.41-41.47.
   
2. Azmeh, Z., M. Huchard, C. Tibermacine, C. Urtado and S. Vauttier, 2010. Using concept lattices to support web service compositions with backup services. Proceeding of the 5th International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services. Barcelona, Spain, May 9-15, pp: 363-368.
   CrossRef    
3. Borst, W.N., 1997. Construction of engineering ontologies for knowledge sharing and reuse. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiteit Twente.
   
4. Brusa, G., M.L. Caliusco and O. Chiotti, 2008. Towards ontological engineering: a process for building a domain ontology from scratch in public administration. Expert Syst., 25(5): 484-503.
   CrossRef    
5. Chandrasekaran, B., J.R. Josephson and V.R. Benjamins, 1999. What are ontologies and why do we need them? IEEE Intell. Syst. Appl., 14(1): 20-26.
   CrossRef    
6. Cheng, Z., H. Keqing and L. Bing, 2009. A framework to support interoperability among web service registries. Proceeding of the 8th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS'9). Shanghai, China, June 1-3, pp: 891-896.
   
7. Commission, E., 2009. European Interoperability Framework for European Public Services (EIF). Version 2.0. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
   Direct Link
8. Corcho, O., M. Fern�ndez-L�pez and A. G�mez-P�rez, 2003. Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point? Data Knowl. Eng., 46(1): 41-64.
   CrossRef    
9. Cristani, M. and R. Cuel, 2005. A survey on ontology creation methodologies. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf., 1(2): 49-69.
   CrossRef    
10. De Nicola, A., M. Missikoff and R. Navigli, 2009. A software engineering approach to ontology building. Inform. Syst., 34(2): 258-275.
    CrossRef    
11. Della Valle, E., D. Cerizza, V. Bicer, Y. Kabak, G. Laleci, H. Lausen and S.M.S.M. DERI-Innsbruck, 2005. The need for semantic web service in the eHealth. Proceeding of the W3C Workshop on Frameworks for Semantics in Web Services. Innsbruck, Austria, June 9-10.
    
12. Ensan, F. and W. Du, 2013. A semantic metrics suite for evaluating modular ontologies. Inform. Syst., 38(5): 745-770.
    CrossRef    
13. Fensel, D., 2003. Ontologies: A Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and Electronic Commerce. 2nd Edn., Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg.
    
14. Fensel, D., F. van Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D.L. McGuinness and P.F. Patel-Schneider, 2001. Oil: An ontology infrastructure for the semantic web. IEEE Intell. Syst., 16(2): 38-45.
    CrossRef    
15. Fern�ndez-L�pez, M., 1999. Overview of methodologies for building ontologies. Proceeding of the IJCAI-99 Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods (KRR5). Stockholm, Sweden, August 2, pp: 4-1-4-13.
    
16. Fern�ndez-L�pez, M., A. G�mez-P�rez and N. Juristo, 1997. Methontology: From ontological art towards ontological engineering. Proceeding of the AAAI-97 Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering. Stanford University, March 24-26th.
    PMCid:PMC1218678    
17. Gruber, T.R., 1993. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquisit., 5(2): 199-220.
    CrossRef    
18. Gruninger, M. and M.S. Fox, 1995. Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. Proceeding of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing (IJCAI).
    
19. Gustavo, A., C. Fabio, K. Harumi and V. Machiraju, 2004. Web Services-concepts, Architectures and Applications. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
    PMid:15504079    
20. Hajmoosaei, A. and S. Abdul-Kareem, 2007. An ontology-based approach for resolving semantic schema conflicts in the extraction and integration of query-based information from heterogeneous web data sources. Proceeding of the 3rd Australasian Ontology Workshop (AOW'07). Gold Coast, Australia, pp: 35-43.
    
21. Han, T. and H.Q. Guo, 2005. An evaluation model for web services. Proceeding of the International Conference on Neural Networks and Brain (ICNN&B '05), Oct. 13-15, pp: 529-532.
    CrossRef    
22. Hepp, M., 2008. Ontologies: State of the Art, Business Potentialand Grand Challenges Ontology Management. In: Hepp, M., P. Leenheer, A. Moor and Y. Sure (Eds.), Ontology Management: Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services and Business. Springer, US, pp: 3-22.
    CrossRef    
23. Hu, H., Y. Zhao, Y. Wang, M. Li, D. Wang, W. Wu, J. He, X. Du and S. Wang, 2005. Cooperative Ontology Development Environment (CODE) and a Demo Semantic Web on Economics. In: Zhang, Y., K. Tanaka, J. Yu, S. Wang and M. Li (Eds.), Web Technologies Research and Development-APWeb 2005. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 1049-1052.
    CrossRef    
24. IEEE, 1996. 1074-1995-IEEE Standard for Developing Software Life Cycle Processes. 10.1109/IEEESTD. 1996.79663.
    
25. Jones, D., T. Bench-Capon and P. Visser, 1998. Methodologies for ontology development. Proceeding of the IT&KNOWS Conference of the 15th IFIP World Computer Congress. Vienna, Austria, pp: 20-35.
    
26. Li, C. and T.W. Ling, 2004. OWL-based Semantic Conflicts Detection and Resolution for Data Interoperability. In: Wang, S., K. Tanaka, S. Zhou, T.W. Ling, J. Guan, D. Yang, F. Grandi, E. Mangina, I.Y. Song and H.C. Mayr (Eds.), Conceptual Modeling for Advanced Application Domains. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 266-277.
    CrossRef    
27. Liu, Q., T. Huang, S.H. Liu and H. Zhong, 2007. An ontology-based approach for semantic conflict resolution in database integration. J. Comput. Sci. Technol., 22(2): 218-227.
    CrossRef    
28. Lopez, M.F., A. Gomez-Perez, J.P. Sierra and A.P. Sierra, 1999. Building a chemical ontology using methontology and the ontology design environment. IEEE Intell. Syst. Appl., 14(1): 37-46.
    CrossRef    
29. L�pez, M., A. P�rez and M. Amaya. 2000. Ontology's Crossed Life Cycles. In: Dieng and O. Corby (Eds.), Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management Methods, Models and Tools. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 155-179.
    CrossRef    
30. Mustafa Taye, M., 2010. Understanding semantic web and ontologies: Theory and applications. J. Comput., 2(6): 182-192.
    
31. �zacar, T., �. �zt�rk and M.O. �nalir, 2011. ANEMONE: An environment for modular ontology development. Data Knowl. Eng., 70(6): 504-526.
    CrossRef    
32. Pinto, H.S. and J.P. Martins, 2004. Ontologies: How can they be built? Knowl. Inform. Syst., 6(4): 441-464.
    CrossRef    
33. Siew Poh, L., C. Lai Peng and L. Eng Wah, 2006. Web services implementation methodology for soa application. Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics. Singapore, August 16-18, pp: 335-340.
    
34. Studer, R., V.R. Benjamins and D. Fensel, 1998. Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. Data Knowl. Eng., 25(1-2): 161-197.
    CrossRef    
35. Sudha, R. and P. Jinsoo, 2004. Semantic Conflict Resolution Ontology (SCROL): An ontology for detecting and resolving data and schema-level semantic conflicts. IEEE T. Knowl. Data En.,16(2): 189-202.
    CrossRef    
36. Terzi, E., A. Vakali and M.S. Hacid, 2003. Knowledge Representation, Ontologies and the Semantic Web. In: Zhou, X., M. Orlowska and Y. Zhang (Eds.), Web Technologies and Applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 382-387.
    CrossRef    
37. Uschold, M. and M. King, 1995. Towards a methodology for building ontologies. Proceeding of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing. Montreal, Canada.
    
38. Xex�o, G., A. Vivacqua, J.M. de Souza, B. Braga, J.N. D'Almeida Jr, B.K. Almentero, R. Castilho and B. Miranda, 2005. COE: A collaborative ontology editor based on a peer-to-peer framework. Adv. Eng. Inform., 19(2): 113-121.
    CrossRef    
39. Yahia, E., J. Yang, A. Aubry and H. Panetto, 2009. On the Use of Description Logic for Semantic Interoperability of Enterprise Systems. In: Meersman, R., P. Herrero and T. Dillon (Eds.), OTM 2009 Workshops, LNCS 5872, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 205-215.
    CrossRef    
40. Yee, G., 2007. Visual analysis of privacy risks in web services. Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services(ICWS 2007), July 9-13, pp: 671-678.
    CrossRef    
41. Yu, Q., X. Liu, A. Bouguettaya and B. Medjahed, 2008. Deploying and managing web services: Issues, solutions and directions. VLDB J., 17(3): 537-572.
    CrossRef    
42. Zhu, H. and S.E. Madnick, 2006. A lightweight ontology approach to scalable interoperability. Proceeding of the VLDB Workshop on Ontologies-based techniques or DataBases and Information Systems (ODBIS'06). Seoul, Korea, September 11.
    CrossRef    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.