Back

Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges

P. ShvaikoJ. Euzenat

article2013TKDE1,325 citations

Evaluates modern ontology matching techniques against recent evaluation campaigns and outlines critical research directions, such as large-scale evaluation, background knowledge integration, and matcher tuning, needed to advance semantic data integration.

Listen

Modern organizations and web applications rely heavily on vast amounts of distributed data. However, integrating these disparate resources remains difficult because different systems use conflicting vocabularies and structures, a challenge known as semantic heterogeneity. Ontology matching—the automated identification of correspondences between related concepts across different conceptual models—is critical to enabling data integration, query answering, and information exchange across domains such as biomedical informatics, cultural heritage, and geographic information systems.

The article evaluates the state of the art in ontology matching and demonstrates whether recent scientific progress is sufficient to justify continued research. It analyzes multi-year evaluation benchmarks and outlines eight key strategic challenges required to advance the field from incremental improvements toward practical, high-performance applications.

To establish these insights, the authors conducted an analytical review of prominent matching systems and analyzed empirical data from the 2004–2010 campaigns of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative. The evaluation examined three core benchmark tracks—synthetic bibliographic references, web directories, and biomedical anatomy models—measuring system effectiveness through standard quality metrics of precision and recall (combined as an F-measure) alongside execution runtimes.

The findings show that ontology matching technology has achieved measurable progress, but the rate of improvement is slowing down. Across the long-running evaluations, participant systems improved their overall accuracy by an average of approximately 30 percent (around 10 percentage points on the F-measure score), with top-performing individual systems registering improvements of up to 108 percent. Furthermore, computational efficiency advanced dramatically; for example, in the complex anatomy benchmark, average execution times decreased 37-fold from nearly 11 hours in 2007 to just 18 minutes in 2009. Most modern tools successfully combine terminological and structural matching techniques, but semantic and data-instance methods remain underutilized.

These results indicate that while foundational matching algorithms are maturing, continued fine-tuning of existing similarity algorithms will yield only diminishing returns. Meeting the strict performance, timeline, and accuracy demands of operational environments—such as dynamic query answering and real-time data integration—requires a shift in focus. Research must expand beyond basic algorithmic combinations toward integrating external context and improving execution architectures.

To accelerate progress, future efforts should target eight key areas: establishing large-scale evaluation benchmarks exceeding 10,000 entities, developing efficient runtime techniques such as parallelization and ontology modularization, utilizing web-scale background knowledge, enabling automatic matcher selection and self-tuning, designing burden-free user interaction, generating clear explanations for proposed matches, supporting collaborative crowdsourcing, and building standardized sharing infrastructures.

While confidence in the empirical trend data is high due to multi-year comparative tracking, current benchmarks remain limited by moderate ontology sizes and a lack of standardized tests for relational database schemas. Decision-makers should recognize that existing tools perform well for design-time tasks but require human validation and tailored configurations before deployment in fully automated, real-time settings.

Informatica TrentinaINRIAmatching algorithmmatching methodsontology matchingontology matchingOntology Alignment Evaluation Initiativeontology alignment methods
Shvaiko et al (2013).pdf
Cover for Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges

Abstract

After years of research on ontology matching, it is reasonable to consider several questions: is the field of ontology matching still making progress? Is this progress significant enough to pursue further research? If so, what are the particularly promising directions? To answer these questions, we review the state of the art of ontology matching and analyze the results of recent ontology matching evaluations. These results show a measurable improvement in the field, the speed of which is albeit slowing down. We conjecture that significant improvements can be obtained only by addressing important challenges for ontology matching. We present such challenges with insights on how to approach them, thereby aiming to direct research into the most promising tracks and to facilitate the progress of the field.

Topics

matching algorithmmatching methodsontology matching

Keywords

ontology matchingOntology Alignment Evaluation Initiativeontology alignment methodssemantic matchingontology mappingontology mergingschema matcherslarge-scale matching evaluationheterogeneous ontologiesSemantic Web

Table of Contents

  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 The Ontology Matching Problem
  • 2.1 Motivating Example
  • 2.2 Problem Statement
  • 3 Applications
  • 4 Recent Matching Systems
  • 4.1 SAMBO (Linköpings U.)
  • 4.2 Falcon (Southeast U.)
  • 4.3 DSSim (Open U., Poznan U. of Economics)
  • 4.4 RiMOM (Tsinghua U., Hong Kong U. of Science and Technology)
  • 4.5 ASMOV (INFOTECH Soft, Inc., U. of Miami)
  • 4.6 Anchor-Flood (Toyohashi U. of Technology)
  • 4.7 AgreementMaker (U. of Illinois at Chicago)
  • 4.8 Analytical Summary
  • 5 Recent Matching Evaluations
  • 5.1 Benchmarks
  • 5.2 Directory
  • 5.3 Anatomy
  • 5.4 Experimental Summary
  • 6 Toward the Challenges
  • 7 Large-Scale Matching Evaluation
  • 8 Efficiency of Matching Techniques
  • 9 Matching with Background Knowledge
  • 10 Matcher Selection, Combination and Tuning
  • 11 User Involvement
  • 12 Explanation of Matching Results
  • 13 Social and Collaborative Matching
  • 14 Alignment Management: Infrastructure and Support
  • 15 Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • References

Knowls

  1. Knowl 1 — Formalization of Ontology Matching, Alignments, and Correspondences

    definition

    Ontology matching is the process of discovering semantic correspondences between entities belonging to two or more ontologies to resolve semantic heterogeneity.

    Given two ontologies O1O_1 and O2O_2, an optional input alignment AA to be extended, matching parameters pp (such as weights or similarity thresholds), and optional external resources rextr_{ext} (such as domain thesauri, upper ontologies, or common knowledge bases), the matching operation determines an output alignment A′A'.

    An alignment A′A' is a set of correspondences. The cardinality of an alignment can be 1:11:1 (one-to-one), 1:m1:m (one-to-many), n:1n:1 (many-to-one), or n:mn:m (many-to-many).

    A correspondence is formally defined as a 4-tuple: ⟨id,e1,e2,r⟩\langle id, e_1, e_2, r \rangle where:

    • idid is a unique identifier for the correspondence;
    • e1e_1 is an entity (class, property, or individual) belonging to the first ontology O1O_1;
    • e2e_2 is an entity belonging to the second ontology O2O_2;
    • rr is a semantic relation asserting how e1e_1 and e2e_2 relate, including equivalence (==), subsumption / more general (⊒\sqsupseteq) or less general (⊑\sqsubseteq), and disjointness (⊥\bot).

    Correspondences can additionally be associated with metadata, notably an assessed confidence score c∈[0,1]c \in [0, 1] indicating the likelihood that relation rr holds, as well as author, provenance, or trust annotations.

  2. Knowl 2 — Classification of Contemporary Ontology Matching Systems

    data/table

    Contemporary ontology matching systems are characterized by the ontology formats they accept, output alignment cardinalities, user interface support, operational goals, and the categories of matching algorithms they combine:

    • Terminological (lexical/string): analyzes entity labels, names, comments, and glosses (e.g., n-grams, edit distances, TF-IDF vectors, WordNet).
    • Structural: analyzes hierarchy topology (is-a, part-of), domain and range constraints, and graph similarity propagation (e.g., Similarity Flooding).
    • Extensional (instance-based): inspects data instance populations and document attachments (e.g., Naive Bayes classifiers, instance vector distances).
    • Semantic (model-based): leverages formal logics and satisfiability reasoning to deduce relations or check consistency.
    System Input Output GUI Operation Terminological Structural Extensional Semantic
    SAMBO OWL 1:1 Yes Ontology merging n-gram, edit distance, UMLS, WordNet Iterative structural similarity on is-a/part-of Naive Bayes over documents –
    Falcon RDFS, OWL 1:1 No – I-SUB, Virtual documents Structural proximities, clustering, GMO Object similarity –
    DSSim OWL, SKOS 1:1 AQUA Q/A Question answering Tokenization, Monge-Elkan, Jaccard, WordNet Graph similarity based on leaves – Rule-based fuzzy inference
    RiMOM OWL 1:1 No – Edit distance, vector distance, WordNet Similarity propagation Vector distance –
    ASMOV OWL n:m No – Tokenization, string equality, Levenshtein, WordNet, UMLS Iterative fixed point, hierarchical, restriction similarities Object similarity Rule-based inference
    Anchor-Flood RDFS, OWL 1:1 No – Tokenization, string equality, Winkler, WordNet Internal/external similarities, anchor-based propagation – –
    AgreementMaker XML, RDFS, OWL, N3 n:m Yes – TF-IDF, edit distance, substrings, WordNet Descendant/sibling similarities – –

    Most state-of-the-art systems rely primarily on combining and adapting terminological and structural techniques, while extensional and semantic reasoning methods remain less commonly utilized. Most focus on 1:1 equivalence matching, with only select systems producing complex n:mn:m alignments or non-equivalence relations (such as subsumption).

  3. Knowl 3 — Empirical Progress and Efficiency Trends in OAEI Evaluations (2006-2010)

    data/table

    Systematic evaluation campaigns organized by the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) across three standard benchmark tracks demonstrate the longitudinal performance and efficiency trends of matching engines:

    • Benchmarks: Systematically generated synthetic variations of a bibliographic OWL-DL ontology (>80>80 entities).
    • Directory: Matching thousands of web directory taxonomy paths (Google, Yahoo, Looksmart) characterized by open-web modeling noise and terminological ambiguity.
    • Anatomy: Real-world biomedical ontologies comprising the NCI Thesaurus (3,304 classes) and the Adult Mouse Anatomical Dictionary (2,744 classes).
    System Benchmarks Directory Anatomy Average
    2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007 2008 2009 2010 Progress (±Δ\pm \Delta%)
    SAMBO – 0.71 0.88 – – – – – – – 0.82 0.85 – – +14%
    Falcon 0.89 0.89 – – 0.73 0.43 0.58 – – – 0.74 – – – +8%
    DSSim 0.70 0.77 0.92 0.91 – – 0.41 0.49 0.49 – 0.20 0.62 0.75 – +108%
    RiMOM 0.92 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.40 0.55 0.26 – – 0.48 0.82 0.79 – +10%
    ASMOV – 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.93 – 0.20 0.63 0.63 – 0.75 0.71 0.75 0.79 +11%
    Anchor-Flood – – 0.94 0.95 – – – – – – – 0.77 0.75 – -1%
    AgreementMaker – – – 0.93 0.89 – – – – – – – 0.83 0.88 +56%

    Key empirical outcomes:

    1. Overall matching quality improved over time by an average of ∼30%\sim 30\% in relative F-measure (corresponding to an absolute gain of ∼10\sim 10 percentage points).
    2. Quality gains on mature testbeds exhibited diminishing returns, with top anatomy F-measures stabilizing around 0.860.86.
    3. Computational efficiency improved dramatically: on the anatomy benchmark, average execution runtime reduced 37-fold from 692 minutes in 2007 to 18 minutes in 2009 (with Anchor-Flood completing the task in 15 seconds in 2009).

  4. Knowl 4 — Application Modes and Matching Challenge Impact

    model/method

    Ontology matching applications divide into two primary operational paradigms:

    1. Design-Time Applications: Traditional systems (such as database schema integration, data warehousing, ontology merging, and museum collection integration) where matching is conducted offline prior to system execution, prioritizing alignment completeness, correctness, and human verification.
    2. Runtime Applications: Dynamic and open systems (such as peer-to-peer resource discovery, dynamic web service composition, on-the-fly query answering, and query expansion in geographic information systems) where alignments must be computed automatically under strict latency and memory bounds.

    The core technical challenges in ontology matching impact these application categories differently:

    Challenge Design-Time Runtime
    Large-scale matching evaluation ✓
    Efficiency of ontology matching techniques ✓
    Matching with background knowledge ✓ ✓
    Matcher selection, combination, and self-configuration ✓ ✓
    User involvement ✓
    Explanation of ontology matching results ✓
    Collaborative and social ontology matching ✓
    Alignment management infrastructure and support ✓ ✓

    Algorithmic efficiency is essential for runtime settings, while human interaction, result explanations, collaborative curation, and formal benchmarking primarily govern design-time integration. Methods that improve alignment quality (background knowledge, matcher ensemble selection, and lifecycle infrastructure) are equally vital across both domains.

  5. Knowl 5 — Challenge of Large-Scale Ontology Matching Evaluation

    model/method

    Empirically validating ontology matching algorithms requires scaling evaluation benchmarks to datasets involving 10410^4, 10510^5, and 10610^6 entities per ontology.

    Key technical dimensions for advancing large-scale evaluation include:

    • Automated and Semi-Automated Reference Alignment Acquisition: Because the search space of entity comparisons grows quadratically (O(∣O1∣⋅∣O2∣)O(|O_1| \cdot |O_2|)), manual construction of reference alignments is impossible at scale. Semi-automated acquisition methods (such as the TaxMe2 methodology) must be developed to build gold standards with minimal human labor.
    • Application-Specific and Semantic Evaluation Metrics: Moving beyond syntactic precision and recall to semantic metrics that evaluate reasoning consequences, as well as task-based metrics that assess downstream application utility (e.g., query answering accuracy, search expansion gain).
    • Hardness Characterization: Formulating quantitative definitions of matching problem hardness to automatically synthesize test cases with targeted difficulty profiles.
    • Interoperability and Instance Matching: Constructing formal benchmarks that assess data exchange fidelity across heterogeneous matching tools and provide standardized testbeds for linked open data instance coreference resolution.

  6. Knowl 6 — Challenge of Matching Efficiency and Scalability

    model/method

    In dynamic and resource-constrained environments (e.g., mobile devices, runtime query expansion), ontology matchers must minimize computational runtime, memory consumption, and network bandwidth without sacrificing correspondence quality.

    Scalable matching solutions encompass five principal strategies:

    • Ontology Partitioning and Segment-Based Matching: Decomposing large ontologies into localized clusters or fragments via structural proximities or anchor-guided expansion, matching only similar fragments rather than performing global exhaustive pairwise comparisons.
    • Anytime and Approximation Algorithms: Developing iterative procedures (such as divide-conquer-swap frameworks) that return rapid initial approximate alignments and monotonically converge toward completeness over time.
    • Parallel and Distributed Computation: Distributing matching sub-tasks across multi-core clusters or peer-to-peer networks.
    • Target Space Reduction: Utilizing clustering techniques (e.g., PORSCHE, XClust) to restrict the target search space for any given source entity.
    • Algorithmic Optimizations: Exploiting tractable fragments of logic, such as encoding propositional semantic matching into Horn formulas to enable linear-time satisfiability solving rather than quadratic or exponential general SAT solving.

  7. Knowl 7 — Challenge of Matching with Background Knowledge

    model/method

    Because ontologies reflect implicit domain assumptions that are often omitted from their formal specifications, matching systems must automatically discover, select, and integrate external background knowledge to infer missing correspondences.

    Core architectural aspects of background-knowledge-based matching include:

    • Knowledge Source Selection: Dynamically querying external resources, including universal lexical databases (WordNet), upper foundational ontologies (SUMO, DOLCE, PROTON), domain-specific ontologies (UMLS, TAP), web search engine query probing, and Web-scale Linked Open Data (LOD).
    • Anchor Discovery and Semantic Path Inference: Mapping entities from input ontologies to corresponding concepts within the background knowledge graph, then traversing relationships in the background model to deduce non-trivial relations (e.g., establishing a subsumption relation Beef⊑Food\text{Beef} \sqsubseteq \text{Food} via intermediate classifications in an external ontology).
    • Precision-Recall Balancing: Managing the trade-off where importing broader contextual knowledge increases recall but risks introducing semantic drift, ambiguity, and false positives that degrade precision.
    • Knowledge Maintenance: Incrementally extending local repositories or publishing discovered background alignments back to the public Linked Open Data cloud.

  8. Knowl 8 — Challenge of Matcher Selection, Combination, and Self-Tuning

    model/method

    No single matching algorithm performs optimally across all ontology structures and domains. Achieving robust matching requires dynamic ensemble selection, combination, and parameter self-configuration.

    Key methodologies for addressing this multi-criteria decision problem include:

    • Feature-Driven Dynamic Selection: Preprocessing input ontologies to measure structural and lexical characteristics (e.g., label availability, hierarchy depth, instance richness) to dynamically determine which linguistic, structural, or semantic matchers to trigger.
    • Non-Linear Aggregation via Decision Trees: Replacing static weighted sums with structured aggregation plans, such as decision trees where internal nodes evaluate specific similarity algorithms and branches apply individualized threshold conditions.
    • Machine Learning and Meta-Matching: Applying machine learning (e.g., boosting with AdaBoost, linear regression, meta-level learning) or multi-agent utility maximization (e.g., max-sum algorithms, argumentation schemes) to optimize the weights and selection of matchers.
    • Runtime Parameter Self-Tuning: Automatically tuning similarity thresholds, propagation weights, and filtering coefficients on the fly to meet application-specific execution and precision constraints.

  9. Knowl 9 — Challenge of User Involvement and Interactive Alignment Design

    model/method

    Because fully automatic matching cannot guarantee complete correctness in complex domains, human user interaction is indispensable for validating and refining alignments.

    Key strategies for effective user involvement include:

    • Cognitive and Ergonomic Visualization: Developing interfaces that present connected perspectives of matched fragments, visually emphasizing relevant entities while suppressing non-critical structures to reduce cognitive load.
    • Active Learning and Minimal Querying: Using active learning algorithms to pose targeted, high-impact queries to the user (e.g., validating critical ambiguous correspondences or confirming domain integrity rules), thereby maximizing quality gains while minimizing human effort.
    • Lead-User Customization: Providing flexible environments where domain specialists can tailor matcher configurations, supply background knowledge, and critique intermediate alignments.
    • Unobtrusive Runtime Interaction: In dynamic applications, capturing implicit user feedback embedded in daily task workflows (e.g., analyzing query logs or search clickstreams) instead of requiring manual alignment inspection.

  10. Knowl 10 — Challenge of Explaining Matching Results

    model/method

    To build user trust and enable meaningful human editing, matching systems must produce clear, symbolic, and actionable explanations of how alignments were computed, particularly when using opaque machine learning or discrete optimization methods.

    Technical mechanisms for generating matching explanations include:

    • Matchability Scoring and Defect Reporting: Calculating synthetic matchability scores to quantify how easily entities match other schemas, categorizing typical errors (such as false positives or omissions), and generating structured reports that detail the underlying cause, provide illustrative examples, and suggest specific revisions.
    • Example-Driven Explanations: Presenting concrete instance data examples within mapping wizards and translating subtle correspondence semantics into simple binary (yes/no) questions for domain engineers.
    • Provenance and Argumentation Tracing: Revealing the underlying evidence trail, including matcher confidence contributions, background ontology paths, and competing hypotheses evaluated during alignment selection.

  11. Knowl 11 — Challenge of Social and Collaborative Matching

    model/method

    Social and collaborative ontology matching leverages collective intelligence to distribute the labor of alignment generation, verification, and curation across user communities.

    Key structural components include:

    • Community Mapping Repositories: Web-based platforms allowing users to share, search, discuss, edit, and annotate ontology correspondences with rich metadata.
    • Provenance, Trust, and Reputation Systems: Tracking author identities, domain expertise, and community trust scores to weight correspondences, manage inconsistencies, and filter malicious contributions.
    • Crowdsourcing and Micro-Tasks: Partitioning alignment curation into micro-questions (e.g., via Mechanical Turk or volunteer schemes) to verify intermediate predictions, learn domain constraints, or evaluate final candidate links, using voting schemes to aggregate community consensus.
    • Network Effect Curation: Exploiting community network effects to ensure that small individual contributions incrementally improve alignments and maintain alignment validity as ontologies evolve.

  12. Knowl 12 — Challenge of Alignment Management Infrastructure and Lifecycle Support

    model/method

    The sharing, reuse, and dynamic consumption of alignments across heterogeneous systems requires standardized infrastructure services and lifecycle management frameworks.

    Key architecture and lifecycle requirements include:

    • Two-Tier System Architecture: A decoupled structure consisting of:
      1. Infrastructure Middleware: Persistent servers (e.g., Alignment Server) providing alignment storage, correspondence annotation, query retrieval, and standard communication interfaces (HTTP, REST, SOAP, FIPA ACL).
      2. Support Environments: Client-side tools embedded in ontology engineering platforms for interactive alignment manipulation, editing, and workflow integration.
    • Standardized Exchange Formats: Adopting extensible, ontology-independent alignment formats (such as the Alignment API format) that identify entities via universal resource identifiers (URIs) across diverse conceptual models (OWL, RDFS, SKOS, XML).
    • Alignment Evolution and Composition: Tracking changes across ontology versions as delta alignments and automatically composing version deltas with existing alignments to maintain updated mappings without recomputing alignments from scratch.

Coverage note — None was omitted; all major contributions—including the formal definitions, analytical and empirical comparisons across OAEI systems, and the eight grand challenges with their technical solution strategies—have been comprehensively captured.

References

  1. 1.R. Agrawal, A. Ailamaki, P.A. Bernstein, E.A. Brewer, M.J. Carey, S. Chaudhuri, A. Doan, D. Florescu, M.J. Franklin, H. Garcia-Molina, J. Gehrke, L. Gruenwald, L.M. Haas, A.Y. Halevy, J.M. Hellerstein, Y.E. Ioannidis, H.F. Korth, D. Kossmann, S. Madden, R. Magoulas, B.C. Ooi, T. O'Reilly, R. Ramakrishnan, S. Sarawagi, M. Stonebraker, A.S. Szalay, and G. Weikum, "The Claremont Report on Database Research," SIGMOD Record, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 9-19, 2008.
  2. 2.J. Euzenat and P. Shvaiko, Ontology Matching. Springer, 2007.
  3. 3.J. Madhavan, P. Bernstein, and E. Rahm, "Generic Schema Matching with Cupid," Proc. 27th Int'l Conf. Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pp. 48-58, 2001.
  4. 4.D. Aumüller, H.-H. Do, S. Maßmann, and E. Rahm, "Schema and Ontology Matching with COMA++," Proc. 24th ACM SIGMOD Int'l Conf. Management of Data (SIGMOD), Demo Track, pp. 906-908, 2005.
  5. 5.F. Giunchiglia, M. Yatskevich, and P. Shvaiko, "Semantic Matching: Algorithms and Implementation," J. on Data Semantics, vol. 9, pp. 1-38, 2007.
  6. 6.P.A. Bernstein, J. Madhavan, and E. Rahm, "Generic Schema Matching, Ten Years Later," Proc. VLDB, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 695-701, 2011.
  7. 7.Schema Matching and Mapping, Z. Bellahsene, A. Bonifati, and E. Rahm, eds. Springer, 2011.
  8. 8.C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. Navathe, "A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration," ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 323-364, 1986.
  9. 9.S. Spaccapietra and C. Parent, "Conflicts and Correspondence Assertions in Interoperable Databases," SIGMOD Record, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 49-54, 1991.
  10. 10.E. Rahm and P. Bernstein, "A Survey of Approaches to Automatic Schema Matching," The VLDB J., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 334-350, 2001.
  11. 11.Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer, "Ontology Mapping: The State of the Art," The Knowledge Eng. Rev., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1-31, 2003.
  12. 12.N. Noy, "Semantic Integration: A Survey of Ontology-Based Approaches," SIGMOD Record, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 65-70, 2004.
  13. 13.A. Doan and A. Halevy, "Semantic Integration Research in the Database Community: A Brief Survey," AI Magazine, vol. 26, no. 1, special issue on semantic integration, pp. 83-94, 2005.
  14. 14.P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat, "A Survey of Schema-Based Matching Approaches," J. Data Semantics, vol. 4, pp. 146-171, 2005.
  15. 15.N. Choi, I.-Y. Song, and H. Han, "A Survey on Ontology Mapping," SIGMOD Record, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 34-41, 2006.
  16. 16.A. Gal and P. Shvaiko, "Advances in Ontology Matching," Advances in Web Semantics I, T.S. Dillon, E. Chang, R. Meersman, and K. Sycara, eds., pp. 176-198, Springer, 2009.
  17. 17.P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat, "Ten Challenges for Ontology Matching," Proc. Seventh Int'l Conf. Ontologies, DataBases, and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE), pp. 1163-1181, 2008.
  18. 18.R. Fagin, L.M. Haas, M.A. Hernández, R.J. Miller, L. Popa, and Y. Velegrakis, "Clio: Schema Mapping Creation and Data Exchange," Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications, pp. 198-236, Springer, 2009.
  19. 19.P. Bernstein, A. Halevy, and R. Pottinger, "A Vision of Management of Complex Models," SIGMOD Record, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 55-63, 2000.
  20. 20.M. Lenzerini, "Data Integration: A Theoretical Perspective," Proc. 21st Symp. Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 233-246, 2002.
  21. 21.A. Zimmermann, M. Krötzsch, J. Euzenat, and P. Hitzler, "Formalizing Ontology Alignment and its Operations with Category Theory," Proc. Fourth Int'l Conf. Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), pp. 277-288, 2006.
  22. 22.B. He and K. Chang, "Automatic Complex Schema Matching Across Web Query Interfaces: A Correlation Mining Approach," ACM Trans. Database Systems, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 346-395, 2006.
  23. 23.N.F. Noy, A. Chugh, W. Liu, and M.A. Musen, "A Framework for Ontology Evolution in Collaborative Environments," Proc. Fifth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 544-558, 2006.
  24. 24.A. Isaac, S. Wang, C. Zinn, H. Matthezing, L. van der Meij, and S. Schlobach, "Evaluating Thesaurus Alignments for Semantic Interoperability in the Library Domain," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 76-86, Mar./Apr. 2009.
  25. 25.P.P. Talukdar, Z.G. Ives, and F. Pereira, "Automatically Incorporating New Sources in Keyword Search-Based Data Integration," Proc. 29th ACM SIGMOD Int'l Conf. Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 387-398, 2010.
  26. 26.S. Dessloch, M.A. Hernández, R. Wisnesky, A. Radwan, and J. Zhou, "Orchid: Integrating Schema Mapping and ETL," Proc. 24th Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 1307-1316, 2008.
  27. 27.M. Atencia, J. Euzenat, G. Pirrò, and M.-C. Rousset, "Alignment-Based Trust for Resource Finding in Semantic p2p Networks," Proc. 10th Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 51-66, 2011.
  28. 28.L. Vaccari, P. Shvaiko, and M. Marchese, "A Geo-Service Semantic Integration in Spatial Data Infrastructures," J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, vol. 4, pp. 24-51, 2009.
  29. 29.Y. Kitamura, S. Segawa, M. Sasajima, S. Tarumi, and R. Mizoguchi, "Deep Semantic Mapping Between Functional Taxonomies for Interoperable Semantic Search," Proc. Third Asian Semantic Web Conf. (ASWC), pp. 137-151, 2008.
  30. 30.M. van Gendt, A. Isaac, L. van der Meij, and S. Schlobach, "Semantic Web Techniques for Multiple Views on Heterogeneous Collections: A Case Study," Proc. 10th European Conf. Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL), pp. 426-437, 2006.
  31. 31.V. Lopez, M. Pasin, and E. Motta, "AquaLog: An Ontology-Portable Question Answering System for the Semantic Web," Proc. Second European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 546-562, 2005.
  32. 32.I.F. Cruz, W. Sunna, N. Makar, and S. Bathala, "A Visual Tool for Ontology Alignment to Enable Geospatial Interoperability," J. Visual Languages and Computing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 230-254, 2007.
  33. 33.I.F. Cruz and W. Sunna, "Structural Alignment Methods with Applications to Geospatial Ontologies," Trans. in Geographic Information Science, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 683-711, 2008.
  34. 34.L. Vaccari, P. Shvaiko, J. Pane, P. Besana, and M. Marchese, "An Evaluation of Ontology Matching in Geo-Service Applications," GeoInformatica, vol. 16, pp. 31-66, 2011.
  35. 35.C. Parent, S. Spaccapietra, and E. Zimányi, Conceptual Modeling for Traditional and Spatio-Temporal Applications: The MADS Approach. Springer, 2006.
  36. 36.A. Schwering, "Approaches to Semantic Similarity Measurement Between Geo-Spatial Data - A Survey," Trans. in Geographic Information Science, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 5-29, 2008.
  37. 37.P. Lambrix and H. Tan, "SAMBO - A System for Aligning and Merging Biomedical Ontologies," J. Web Semantics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 196-206, 2006.
  38. 38.O. Bodenreider, "The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): Integrating Biomedical Terminology," Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 32, pp. 267-270, 2004.
  39. 39.P. Lambrix and H. Tan, "A Tool for Evaluating Ontology Alignment Strategies," J. Data Semantics, vol. 8, pp. 182-202, 2007.
  40. 40.W. Hu, Y. Qu, and G. Cheng, "Matching Large Ontologies: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach," Data and Knowledge Eng., vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 140-160, 2008.
  41. 41.S. Guha, R. Rastogi, and K. Shim, "Rock: A Robust Clustering Algorithm for Categorical Attributes," Proc. 15th Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 512-521, 1999.
  42. 42.G. Stoilos, G. Stamou, and S. Kollias, "A String Metric for Ontology Alignment," Proc. Fourth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 624-637, 2005.
  43. 43.G. Shafer, A Math. Theory of Evidence. Princeton Univ. Press, 1976.
  44. 44.M. Nagy and M. Vargas-Vera, "Towards an Automatic Semantic Data Integration: Multi-Agent Framework Approach," Semantic Web, G. Wu, ed., chapter 7, pp. 107-134, InTech, 2010.
  45. 45.M. Nagy, M. Vargas-Vera, and P. Stolarski, "Dssim Results for OAEI 2009," Proc. Fourth Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 160-169, 2009.
  46. 46.G. Miller, "WordNet: A Lexical Database for English," Comm. ACM, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 39-41, 1995.
  47. 47.J. Li, J. Tang, Y. Li, and Q. Luo, "Rimom: A Dynamic Multistrategy Ontology Alignment Framework," IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng., vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1218-1232, Aug. 2009.
  48. 48.J. Tang, J. Li, B. Liang, X. Huang, Y. Li, and K. Wang, "Using Bayesian Decision for Ontology Mapping," J. Web Semantics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 243-262, 2006.
  49. 49.S. Melnik, H. Garcia-Molina, and E. Rahm, "Similarity Flooding: A Versatile Graph Matching Algorithm," Proc. 18th Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 117-128, 2002.
  50. 50.Y.R. Jean-Mary, E.P. Shironoshita, and M.R. Kabuka, "Ontology Matching with Semantic Verification," J. Web Semantics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 235-251, 2009.
  51. 51.M.S. Hanif and M. Aono, "An Efficient and Scalable Algorithm for Segmented Alignment of Ontologies of Arbitrary Size," J. Web Semantics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 344-356, 2009.
  52. 52.I.F. Cruz, F.P. Antonelli, and C. Stroe, "Agreementmaker: Efficient Matching for Large Real-World Schemas and Ontologies," Proc. VLDB, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1586-1589, 2009.
  53. 53.J. Euzenat, C. Meilicke, P. Shvaiko, H. Stuckenschmidt, and C. Trojahn dos Santos, "Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative: Six Years of Experience," J. Data Semantics, vol. 15, pp. 158-192, 2011.
  54. 54.Proc. K-CAP Workshop Integrating Ontologies, B. Ashpole, M. Ehrig, J. Euzenat, and H. Stuckenschmidt, eds., 2005.
  55. 55.J. Euzenat, M. Mochol, P. Shvaiko, H. Stuckenschmidt, O. Svab, V. Svatek, W. van Hage, and M. Yatskevich, "Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2006," Proc. First Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 73-95, 2006.
  56. 56.J. Euzenat, A. Isaac, C. Meilicke, P. Shvaiko, H. Stuckenschmidt, O. Šváb, V. Svátek, W.R. van Hage, and M. Yatskevich, "Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2007," Proc. Second Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC) and Asian Semantic Web Conf. (ASWC), pp. 96-132, 2007.
  57. 57.C. Caracciolo, J. Euzenat, L. Hollink, R. Ichise, A. Isaac, V. Malaisé, C. Meilicke, J. Pane, P. Shvaiko, H. Stuckenschmidt, O. Šváb Zamazal, and V. Svátek, "Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2008," Proc. Third Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 73-119, 2008.
  58. 58.J. Euzenat, A. Ferrara, L. Hollink, A. Isaac, C. Joslyn, V. Malaisé, C. Meilicke, A. Nikolov, J. Pane, M. Sabou, F. Scharffe, P. Shvaiko, V. Spiliopoulos, H. Stuckenschmidt, O. Šváb-Zamazal, V. Svátek, C.T. dos Santos, G.A. Vouros, and S. Wang, "Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2009," Proc. Fourth Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 73-126, 2009.
  59. 59.J. Euzenat, A. Ferrara, C. Meilicke, J. Pane, F. Scharffe, P. Shvaiko, H. Stuckenschmidt, O. Šváb Zamazal, V. Svatek, and C. Trojahn, "Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2010," Proc. Fifth Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 85-125, 2010.
  60. 60.P. Wang and B. Xu, "Lily: Ontology Alignment Results for OAEI 2009," Proc. Fourth Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 186-192, 2009.
  61. 61.F. Giunchiglia, M. Yatskevich, P. Avesani, and P. Shvaiko, "A Large Scale Dataset for the Evaluation of Ontology Matching Systems," The Knowledge Eng. Rev., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 137-157, 2009.
  62. 62.M. Mao, Y. Peng, and M. Spring, "An Adaptive Ontology Mapping Approach with Neural Network Based Constraint Satisfaction," J. Web Semantics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 14-25, 2010.
  63. 63.J. Euzenat and P. Valtchev, "Similarity-Based Ontology Alignment in OWL-Lite," Proc. 15th European Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 333-337, 2004.
  64. 64.S. Zhang and O. Bodenreider, "Experience in Aligning Anatomical Ontologies," Int'l J. Semantic Web and Information Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-26, 2007.
  65. 65.P. Xu, H. Tao, T. Zang, and Y. Wang, "Alignment Results of SOBOM for OAEI 2009," Proc. Fourth Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 216-223, 2009.
  66. 66.D. Kensche, C. Quix, X.L. 0002, Y. Li, and M. Jarke, "Generic Schema Mappings for Composition and Query Answering," Data and Knowledge Eng., vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 599-621, 2009.
  67. 67.P. Mork, L. Seligman, A. Rosenthal, J. Korb, and C. Wolf, "The Harmony Integration Workbench," J. Data Semantics, vol. 11, pp. 65-93, 2008.
  68. 68.C. Ghidini and L. Serafini, "Reconciling Concepts and Relations in Heterogeneous Ontologies," Proc. Third European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 50-64, 2006.
  69. 69.P. Shvaiko, F. Giunchiglia, and M. Yatskevich, "Semantic Matching with S-Match," Semantic Web Information Management, R. D. Virgilio, F. Giunchiglia, and L. Tanca, eds., pp. 183-202, Springer, 2009.
  70. 70.V. Spiliopoulos, G.A. Vouros, and V. Karkaletsis, "On the Discovery of Subsumption Relations for the Alignment of Ontologies," J. Web Semantics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 69-88, 2010.
  71. 71.B. Fu, R. Brennan, and D. O'Sullivan, "Using Pseudo Feedback to Improve Cross-Lingual Ontology Mapping," Proc. Eighth Extended Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 336-351, 2011.
  72. 72.D. Spohr, L. Hollink, and P. Cimiano, "A Machine Learning Approach to Multilingual and Cross-Lingual Ontology Matching," Proc. 10th Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 665-680, 2011.
  73. 73.A. Gal, Uncertain Schema Matching. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2011.
  74. 74.R. Tournaire, J.-M. Petit, M.-C. Rousset, and A. Termier, "Discovery of Probabilistic Mappings Between Taxonomies: Principles and Experiments," J. Data Semantics, vol. 15, pp. 66-101, 2011.
  75. 75.L. Serafini and A. Tamilin, "DRAGO: Distributed Reasoning Architecture for the Semantic Web," Proc. Second European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 361-376, 2005.
  76. 76.C. Meilicke, H. Stuckenschmidt, and A. Tamilin, "Reasoning Support for Mapping Revision," J. Logic and Computation, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 807-829, 2009.
  77. 77.T. Heath and C. Bizer, Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space, series Synthesis Lectures on the Semantic Web: Theory and Technology. Morgan & Claypool, 2011.
  78. 78.A. Nikolov, V. Uren, E. Motta, and A. de Roeck, "Overcoming Schema Heterogeneity between Linked Semantic Repositories to Improve Coreference Resolution," Proc. Fourth Asian Semantic Web Conf. (ASWC), pp. 332-346, 2009.
  79. 79.H.-H. Do and E. Rahm, "Matching Large Schemas: Approaches and Evaluation," Information Systems, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 857-885, 2007.
  80. 80.X. Chai, M. Sayyadian, A. Doan, A. Rosenthal, and L. Seligman, "Analyzing and Revising Mediated Schemas to Improve Their Matchability," Proc. VLDB, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 773-784, 2008.
  81. 81.A. Marie and A. Gal, "Boosting Schema Matchers," Proc. 16th Int'l Conf. Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS), pp. 283-300, 2008.
  82. 82.A. Ghazvinian, N.F. Noy, C. Jonquet, N.H. Shah, and M.A. Musen, "What Four Million Mappings can Tell You About Two Hundred Ontologies," Proc. Eighth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 229-242, 2009.
  83. 83.J. Euzenat, "Semantic Precision and Recall for Ontology Alignment Evaluation," Proc. 20th Int'l Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 248-253, 2007.
  84. 84.D. Fleischhacker and H. Stuckenschmidt, "A Practical Implementation of Semantic Precision and Recall," Proc. Fourth Int'l Conf. Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS), pp. 986-991, 2010.
  85. 85.J. Euzenat, "An API for Ontology Alignment," Proc. Third Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 698-712, 2004.
  86. 86.J. David, J. Euzenat, F. Scharffe, and C.T. dos Santos, "The Alignment Api 4.0," Semantic Web J., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3-10, 2011.
  87. 87.R. Porzel and R. Malaka, "A Task-Based Approach for Ontology Evaluation," Proc. Workshop Ontology Learning and Population at the 16th Eureopean Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), 2004.
  88. 88.E. Zavitsanos, G. Paliouras, and G.A. Vouros, "Gold Standard Evaluation of Ontology Learning Methods through Ontology Transformation and Alignment," IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1635-1648, Nov. 2011.
  89. 89.Y. Lee, M. Sayyadian, A. Doan, and A. Rosenthal, "eTuner: Tuning Schema Matching Software Using Synthetic Scenarios," The VLDB J., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 97-122, 2007.
  90. 90.M. Ehrig, S. Staab, and Y. Sure, "Bootstrapping Ontology Alignment Methods with APFEL," Proc. Fourth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 186-200, 2005.
  91. 91.J. Euzenat, C. Meilicke, H. Stuckenschmidt, and C. Trojahn dos Santos, "A Web-Based Evaluation Service for Ontology Matching," Proc. Ninth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), Demo Track, pp. 93-96, 2010.
  92. 92.A. Doan, J. Madhavan, R. Dhamankar, P. Domingos, and A. Halevy, "Learning to Match Ontologies on the Semantic Web," The VLDB J., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 303-319, 2003.
  93. 93.J. Wang, J.-R. Wen, F. Lochovsky, and W.-Y. Ma, "Instance-Based Schema Matching for Web Databases by Domain-Specific Query Probing," Proc. 30th Int'l Conf. Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pp. 408-419, 2004.
  94. 94.A. Bilke and F. Naumann, "Schema Matching Using Duplicates," Proc. 21st Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 69-80, 2005.
  95. 95.H. Nottelmann and U. Straccia, "A Probabilistic, Logic-Based Framework for Automated Web Directory Alignment," Soft Computing in Ontologies and the Semantic Web, series Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, Z. Ma, ed. Springer, vol. 204, pp. 47-77, Springer, 2006.
  96. 96.A. Ferrara, S. Montanelli, J. Noessner, and H. Stuckenschmidt, "Benchmarking Matching Applications on the Semantic Web," Proc. Eighth Extended Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 108-122, 2011.
  97. 97.I. Gent and T. Walsh, "Easy Problems are Hard," Artificial Intelligence, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 335-345, 1994.
  98. 98.E. Oren, S. Kotoulas, G. Anadiotis, R. Siebes, A. Ten Teije, and F. Van Harmelen, "Marvin: Distributed Reasoning Over Large-Scale Semantic Web Data," J. Web Semantics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 305-316, 2009.
  99. 99.M. Ehrig and S. Staab, "QOM - Quick Ontology Mapping," Proc. Third Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 683-697, 2004.
  100. 100.K. Saleem, Z. Bellahsene, and E. Hunt, "Porsche: Performance Oriented Schema Mediation," Information Systems, vol. 33, nos. 7/8, pp. 637-657, 2008.
  101. 101.M.L. Lee, L.H. Yang, W. Hsu, and X. Yang, "XClust: Clustering XML Schemas for Effective Integration," Proc. 11th Int'l Conf. Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pp. 292-299, 2002.
  102. 102.F. Giunchiglia, A. Autayeu, and J. Pane, "S-Match: An Open Source Framework for Matching Lightweight Ontologies," Semantic Web J., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 307-317, 2012.
  103. 103.E. Jiménez-Ruiz and B.C. Grau, "Logmap: Logic-Based and Scalable Ontology Matching," Proc. 10th Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 273-288, 2011.
  104. 104.H.-H. Do and E. Rahm, "COMA - A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches," Proc. 28th Int'l Conf. Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pp. 610-621, 2002.
  105. 105.S. Duan, A. Fokoue, K. Srinivas, and B. Byrne, "A Clustering-Based Approach to Ontology Alignment," Proc. 10th Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 146-161, 2011.
  106. 106.P. Lambrix and Q. Liu, "Using Partial Reference Alignments to Align Ontologies," Proc. Sixth European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 188-202, 2009.
  107. 107.Z. Aleksovski, "Using Background Knowledge in Ontology Matching," PhD dissertation, Vrije U. Amsterdam, 2008.
  108. 108.P. Jain, P. Hitzler, A. Sheth, K. Verma, and P. Yeh, "Ontology Alignment for Linked Open Data," Proc. Ninth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 402-417, 2010.
  109. 109.W. Hu, J. Chen, H. Zhang, and Y. Qu, "How Matchable are Four Thousand Ontologies on the Semantic Web," Proc. Eighth Extended Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 290-304, 2011.
  110. 110.R. Gligorov, W. ten Kate, Z. Aleksovski, and F. van Harmelen, "Using Google Distance to Weight Approximate Ontology Matches," Proc. 16th Int'l World Wide Web Conf. (WWW), pp. 767-776, 2007.
  111. 111.J. Madhavan, P. Bernstein, A. Doan, and A. Halevy, "Corpus-Based Schema Matching," Proc. 21st Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 57-68, 2005.
  112. 112.B. Saha, I. Stanoi, and K.L. Clarkson, "Schema Covering: A Step Towards Enabling Reuse in Information Integration," Proc. 27th Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 285-296, 2010.
  113. 113.V. Mascardi, A. Locoro, and P. Rosso, "Automatic Ontology Matching via Upper Ontologies: A Systematic Evaluation," IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 609-623, May 2010.
  114. 114.P. Jain, P.Z. Yeh, K. Verma, R.G. Vasquez, M. Damova, P. Hitzler, and A.P. Sheth, "Contextual Ontology Alignment of LOD with an Upper Ontology: A Case Study with Proton," Proc. Eighth Extended Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 80-92, 2011.
  115. 115.M. Sabou, M. d'Aquin, and E. Motta, "Exploring the Semantic Web as Background Knowledge for Ontology Matching," J. Data Semantics, vol. 11, pp. 156-190, 2008.
  116. 116.F. Giunchiglia, P. Shvaiko, and M. Yatskevich, "Discovering Missing Background Knowledge in Ontology Matching," Proc. 17th European Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 382-386, 2006.
  117. 117.F. Giunchiglia, P. Shvaiko, and M. Yatskevich, "Semantic Matching," Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 2561-2566, Springer, 2009.
  118. 118.F. Giunchiglia, P. Shvaiko, and M. Yatskevich, "Semantic Schema Matching," Proc. 13rd Int'l Conf. Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS), pp. 347-365, 2005.
  119. 119.J. Shamdasani, T. Hauer, P. Bloodsworth, A. Branson, M. Odeh, and R. McClatchey, "Semantic Matching Using the UMLS," Proc. Sixth European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 203-217, 2009.
  120. 120.M. Mochol, A. Jentzsch, and J. Euzenat, "Applying an Analytic Method for Matching Approach Selection," Proc. First Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 37-48, 2006.
  121. 121.M. Huza, M. Harzallah, and F. Trichet, "OntoMas: A Tutoring System Dedicated to Ontology Matching," Proc. First Int'l Workshop Ontology Matching (OM) at the Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 228-323, 2006.
  122. 122.M. Mochol and A. Jentzsch, "Towards a Rule-Based Matcher Selection," Proc. 16th Int'l Conf. Knowledge Eng.: Practice and Patterns (EKAW), pp. 109-119, 2008.
  123. 123.E. Peukert, J. Eberius, and E. Rahm, "Amc - A Framework for Modelling and Comparing Matching Systems as Matching Processes," Proc. 27th Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 1304-1307, 2011.
  124. 124.A. Algergawy, R. Nayak, N. Siegmund, V. Köppen, and G. Saake, "Combining Schema and Level-Based Matching for Web Service Discovery," Proc. 10th Int'l Conf. Web Eng. (ICWE), pp. 114-128, 2010.
  125. 125.K. Eckert, C. Meilicke, and H. Stuckenschmidt, "Improving Ontology Matching Using Meta-Level Learning," Proc. Sixth European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 158-172, 2009.
  126. 126.A. Doan, P. Domingos, and A. Halevy, "Reconciling Schemas of Disparate Data Sources: A Machine-Learning Approach," Proc. 20th ACM SIGMOD Int'l Conf. Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 509-520, 2001.
  127. 127.V. Spiliopoulos and G.A. Vouros, "Synthesizing Ontology Alignment Methods Using the Max-Sum Algorithm," IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng., vol. 24, no. 5, rapid post, pp. 940-951, May 2012.
  128. 128.C. Trojahn dos Santos, J. Euzenat, V. Tamma, and T. Payne, "Argumentation for Reconciling Agent Ontologies," Semantic Agent Systems, A. Eli, M. Kon, and M. Orgun, eds., chapter 5, pp. 89-111, Springer, 2011.
  129. 129.C. Domshlak, A. Gal, and H. Roitman, "Rank Aggregation for Automatic Schema Matching," IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 538-553, Apr. 2007.
  130. 130.F. Duchateau, Z. Bellahsene, and R. Coletta, "A Flexible Approach for Planning Schema Matching Algorithms," Proc. 16th Int'l Conf. Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS), pp. 249-264, 2008.
  131. 131.H. Elmeleegy, M. Ouzzani, and A.K. Elmagarmid, "Usage-Based Schema Matching," Proc. 24th Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 20-29, 2008.
  132. 132.A. Nandi and P.A. Bernstein, "Hamster: Using Search Clicklogs for Schema and Taxonomy Matching," Proc. VLDB, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 181-192, 2009.
  133. 133.N. Noy and M. Musen, "The PROMPT Suite: Interactive Tools for Ontology Merging and Mapping," Int'l J. Human-Computer Studies, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 983-1024, 2003.
  134. 134.F. Shi, J. Li, J. Tang, G.T. Xie, and H. Li, "Actively Learning Ontology Matching via User Interaction," Proc. Eighth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 585-600, 2009.
  135. 135.S. Duan, A. Fokoue, and K. Srinivas, "One Size Does not Fit All: Customizing Ontology Alignment Using User Feedback," Proc. Ninth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 177-192, 2010.
  136. 136.S.M. Falconer and M.-A. D. Storey, "A Cognitive Support Framework for Ontology Mapping," Proc. Sixth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC) and Second Asian Semantic Web Conf. (ASWC), pp. 114-127, 2007.
  137. 137.A. Mocan, E. Cimpian, and M. Kerrigan, "Formal Model for Ontology Mapping Creation," Proc. Fifth Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 459-472, 2006.
  138. 138.A. Raffio, D. Braga, S. Ceri, P. Papotti, and M.A. Hernández, "Clip: A Visual Language for Explicit Schema Mappings," Proc. 24th Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 30-39, 2008.
  139. 139.G.G. Robertson, M.P. Czerwinski, and J.E. Churchill, "Visualization of Mappings between Schemas," Proc. 12th Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pp. 431-439, 2005.
  140. 140.P.A. Bernstein and S. Melnik, "Model Management 2.0: Manipulating Richer Mappings," Proc. 26th ACM SIGMOD Int'l Conf. Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 1-12, 2007.
  141. 141.E. von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, 2005.
  142. 142.P. Shvaiko, F. Giunchiglia, P. Pinheiro da Silva, and D. McGuinness, "Web Explanations for Semantic Heterogeneity Discovery," Proc. Second European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 303-317, 2005.
  143. 143.R. Dhamankar, Y. Lee, A. Doan, A. Halevy, and P. Domingos, "iMAP: Discovering Complex Semantic Matches Between Database Schemas," Proc. 23rd ACM SIGMOD Int'l Conf. Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 383-394, 2004.
  144. 144.B. Alexe, L. Chiticariu, R.J. Miller, and W.C. Tan, "Muse: Mapping Understanding and Design by Example," Proc. 24th Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 10-19, 2008.
  145. 145.N. Tintarev and J. Masthoff, "A Survey of Explanations in Recommender Systems," Proc. 23rd Int'l Conf. Data Eng. Workshops (ICDE Workshops), pp. 801-810, 2007.
  146. 146.A. Zhdanova and P. Shvaiko, "Community-Driven Ontology Matching," Proc. Third European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 34-49, 2006.
  147. 147.N. Noy, N. Griffith, and M. Musen, "Collecting Community-Based Mappings in an Ontology Repository," Proc. Seventh Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 371-386, 2008.
  148. 148.R. McCann, W. Shen, and A. Doan, "Matching Schemas in Online Communities: A Web 2.0 Approach," Proc. 24th Int'l Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE), pp. 110-119, 2008.
  149. 149.N. Noy, A. Chugh, and H. Alani, "The CKC Challenge: Exploring Tools for Collaborative Knowledge Construction," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 64-68, Jan./Feb. 2008.
  150. 150.T. Tudorache, N. Noy, S.W. Tu, and M.A. Musen, "Supporting Collaborative Ontology Development in Protégé," Proc. Seventh Int'l Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), pp. 17-32, 2008.
  151. 151.S. Pinto, C. Tempich, and S. Staab, "Ontology Engineering and Evolution in a Distributed World Using DILIGENT," Handbook on Ontologies, S. Staab and R. Studer, eds., pp. 153-176, Springer, 2009.
  152. 152.A. Doan, P. Bohannon, R. Ramakrishnan, X. Chai, P. DeRose, B.J. Gao, and W. Shen, "User-Centric Research Challenges in Community Information Management Systems," IEEE Data Eng. Bull., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 32-40, June 2007.
  153. 153.L. van der Meij, A. Isaac, and C. Zinn, "A Web-Based Repository Service for Vocabularies and Alignments in the Cultural Heritage Domain," Proc. Seventh Extended Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), pp. 394-409, 2010.
  154. 154.J. Euzenat, "Alignment Infrastructure for Ontology Mediation and Other Applications," Proc. Int'l Workshop Mediation in Semantic Web Services (MEDIATE), pp. 81-95, 2005.
  155. 155.M. Ehrig, Ontology Alignment: Bridging the Semantic Gap. Springer, 2007.
  156. 156.M. d'Aquin and H. Lewen, "Cupboard - a Place to Expose Your Ontologies to Applications and the Community," Proc. Sixth European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC), Demo Track, pp. 913-918, 2009.

Citation

MLA
Shvaiko, P., and J. Euzenat. “Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges”. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 25, no. 1, 2013, pp. 158–76, https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2011.253.
APA
Shvaiko, P., & Euzenat, J. (2013). Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 25(1), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2011.253
Chicago
Shvaiko, P., and J. Euzenat. 2013. “Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges”. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 25 (1): 158–76. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2011.253.
Harvard
Shvaiko, P. and Euzenat, J. (2013) “Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges”, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 25(1), pp. 158–176. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2011.253.
Vancouver
1. Shvaiko P, Euzenat J (2013) Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 25:158–176

BibTeX

@article{Shvaiko_2013, title={Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges}, volume={25}, ISSN={1041-4347}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2011.253}, DOI={10.1109/tkde.2011.253}, number={1}, journal={IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering}, publisher={Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)}, author={Shvaiko, P. and Euzenat, J.}, year={2013}, month=Jan, pages={158–176} }
Metadata:Crossref

Access the Paper

This paper is available from its original source. Click below to access the PDF.

Open PDF