Theoretical Strategies to devise Structural Semantics of Ontology Inferencing Graph Techniques
Keywords:
ontology, semantic, rdf, owl, GDRAbstract
Ontology reprocess offers nice edges by measure and scrutiny ontologies. However, the state of art approaches for measure ontologies neglects the issues of each the polymorphism of metaphysics illustration and therefore the addition of implicit linguistics information. a technique to tackle these issues is to plan a mechanism for metaphysics measure that's stable, the essential criteria for automatic measure. during this paper, we tend to gift a graph derivation illustration primarily based approach (GDR) for stable linguistics measure, that captures structural linguistics of ontologies and addresses those issues that cause unstable measure of ontologies. This paper makes 3 original contributions. First, we tend to introduce and outline the idea of linguistics measure and therefore the idea of stable measure. We tend to gift the GDR primarily based approach, a three-phase method to rework associate metaphysics to its GDR. Second, we tend to formally analyze necessary properties of GDRs supported that stable linguistics measure and comparison will be achieved with success. Third however not the smallest amount, we tend to compare our GDR {based|based mostly|primarily primarily based} approach with existing graph based ways employing a dozen world model ontologies. Our experimental comparison is conducted supported 9 metaphysics measurement entities and distance metric, that stably compares the similarity of 2 ontologies in terms of their GDRs.
References
[1] D. Fensel, “Ontology-based knowledge
management,†IEEE Comput., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 56–59, Nov. 2002.
[2] L. Chen, N. R. Shadbolt, and C. A. Goble, “A
semantic web-based approach to knowledge management for grid applications,â€
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 283–296, Feb. 2007.
[3] L. Razmerita, “An ontology-based framework for
modeling user behavior-A case study in knowledge management,†IEEE Trans.
Syst., Man, Cybern. A, Syst., Humans, vol. 41, no. 4, pp.
772–783, Jul. 2011.
[4] N. Shadbolt, T. Berners-Lee, and W. Hall, “The
semantic web revisited,†IEEE Intell. Syst., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 96–101,
Jan./Feb.2006.
[5] S. Philippi and J. Kohler, “Using XML
technology for the ontology-based semantic integration of life science
databases,â€IEEE Trans. Info. Tech. Biomed., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 154–160, Jun.
2004.
[6] S. Kraines, W. Guo, B. Kemper, and Y. Nakamura,
“EKOSS: A knowledge-user centered to knowledge sharing, discovery, and
integration on the semantic Web,†in Proc. 5th ISWC, Athens, GA,USA, 2006, pp.
833–846.
[7] M. Nagy and M. Vargas-Vera, “Multiagent
ontology mapping framework for the semantic web,†IEEE Trans. Syst., Man,
Cybern.A, Syst., Humans, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 693–704, Jul. 2011.
[8] D. Vallet, M. Fernandez, and P. Castells, “An
ontology-based information retrieval model,†in Proc. 2nd ESWC,
Heraklion,Greece, 2005, pp. 455–470.
[9] A.
Maguitman, F. Menczer, H. Roinestad, and A. Vespignani,“Algorithmic desemantic
similarity,†in Proc. 14th Int.Conf. WWW, 2005, pp. 107–116.Â
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) IJSRSET

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.