Christophe Debruyne, Brian Walshe, Declan O'Sullivan: Towards a Project Centric Metadata Model and Lifecycle for Ontology Mapping Governance. Paper presented at iiWAS 2015 on the 13th of December 2015, Brussels, Belgium.

1. Towards a Project Centric Metadata Model and
Lifecycle for Ontology Mapping Governance
Christophe Debruyne, Brian Walshe and Declan O’Sullivan
ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin
The ADAPT Centre is funded under the SFI Research Centres Programme (Grant 13/RC/2106) and is co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund.

2. www.adaptcentre.ieContext
• Seman@c heterogeneity on the Linked Data Web. How can
this problem be tackled? With ontology matching and
mapping.
• Ontology Matching: detec@ng the correspondences that
cons@tute an alignment.
• Ontology Mapping: interpre@ng these correspondences to
create an executable mapping (wrt requirements)
Image from Shvaiko and Euzenat’s "Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges", IEEE
Transac@ons on Knowledge & Data Engineering, vol.25, no. 1, pp. 158-176, Jan. 2013.

3. www.adaptcentre.ieContext
• Though the field of ontology matching and mapping is
around for over a decade, Euzenat and Shvaiko iden@fied
several challenges that s@ll have to be tackled (2013).
• Infrastructure and support for ontology alignment
management: “[t]he challenge is to provide convenient and
interoperable support, on which tools and, more
importantly, on which applica@ons, can rely in order to
store and share alignments. This involves using standard
ways to communicate alignments and retrieve them. Hence
alignment metadata and annota@ons should be properly
taken into account.”
• But…

4. www.adaptcentre.ieProblem
• Management ac@vi@es are artefact-centric and concerned
with storing and sharing. Related work is ofen limited to
(annota@ons of) produced ar@facts.
• We argue a project-centric approach should be adopted.
• Mappings are created for a purpose
• Progress is the result of agreement processes between
the community of stakeholders
• Generate metadata as the project progresses
• Not only formulate queries about alignment, mappings,
AND projects: “What are the most debated aspects in a
par@cular ontology mapping project?”

5. www.adaptcentre.ieRelated work
Ontology Mapping Metadata [AF, EDEOL, OM2R, …]
• Focuses on represen@ng alignments or designed to facilitate
discovery and reuse.
• Metadata models inappropriately represent the domain; for
instance, “requirements are part of a mapping project” and “a
mapping project results in a mapping” instead of “requirements
are part of a mapping”.
Ontology Mapping Lifecycles [OISIN, Thomas et al, …]
• Likle related work.
• Artefact-centric and most contain no feedback loop.
• Reuse, sharing and publica@on of alignments (or mappings) are
considered separate ac@vi@es not integrated in a mapping’s
lifecycle or workflow.
Provenance informaMon of generated data via mappings
• Not covered in this presenta@on.

6. www.adaptcentre.ieRelated work
Provenance
• Provides insights on a
resource’s origin, such as who
created it, when it was
modified or how it was created
(Zhao & Har@g, 2012).
• Some ini@a@ves exist to capture
provenance informa@on (in
part also covered by ontology
mapping metadata
vocabularies). But, PROV-O – a
W3C Recommenda@on – is an
important resource.
Core concepts and rela@ons in PROV-O,
Copyright © 2011-2013 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM,
Keio, Beihang).

7. www.adaptcentre.ieApproach
Our proposed approach
• Adopt a project-centric view that
• takes into account all mapping project phases and
• adequately records the ac@vi@es by the stakeholders
• resul@ng in a traceable and transparent process.
• Many more artefacts can be related to mapping projects,
including scopes, requirements, decisions, discussions, etc.
• How?
1. Propose an ontology mapping lifecycle
2. Propose an ontology mapping metadata model
3. Elaborate on ontology mapping governance ac@vi@es

8. www.adaptcentre.ieOntology Mapping Lifecycle
ReuseCharacterizationStaging
Scope
Data
Discovery
Requirements
Analysis
Data
Analysis
Discover
Evaluate
Reuse?
Matching
Evaluate Execute Plan
No
Align and Map
Create
Alignment
Prepare
Render
Mapping
Application
Yes
Source
Data
Target
Data
Candidate
Correspondences
Alignments
Mapping
Stakeholders
Staging
Need for communi@es
CharacterizaMon
Analyze ontologies wrt to
scope and requirements
Reuse
Par@al or complete reuse?
Matching
Discovering
correspondences
Mapping
Refine correspondences
for alignment and create
mapping
ApplicaMon
Monitor mappings

9. www.adaptcentre.ieOntology Mapping Metadata Model
Ontology Mapping Metadata Model
• First conceptualized with Object Role Modelling.
• In this paper and presenta@on, we adopted a “UML-like”
graphical presenta@on.
• The ontology adopts PROV-O and is available as an OWL 2
ontology.
hkps://raw.githubusercontent.com/CNGL-repo/mapping-
provenance-published/master/mapping-provenance.owl

10. www.adaptcentre.ieOntology Mapping Metadata Model
OR
rdfs:subClassOf
0..1 prov:wasInformedBy 1..1
mg:Ontology
Analysis
0..* prov:used 1..1
mg:Evaluation
mg:Plan
mg:Requirement
mg:Reuse
Evaluation
mg:Matcher
Configuration
1..* prov:generated 1..*
0..* prov:used 1..*
prov:Entity
mg:Matcher
0..* mg:withMatcher 1..1
prov:SoftwareAgent
rdfs:subClassOf
mg:Reuse
0..* prov:used 1..1
xsd:string
0..* mg:withParameter 1..1
mg:Resource
0..* mg:withResource 1..1
rdfs:subClassOf
Planning the matching phase

11. www.adaptcentre.ieMapping Governance
• Data Governance is defined as “a control that ensures that
the data entry […] meets precise standards, such as […]
data integrity constraints in the data model. The data
governor uses data quality monitoring […] to communicate
errors in data […]” (Wikipedia)
• OWL 2 is good for publishing data on the LD Web and
adopts the Open World Assump@on. However, our
platorm would need to adopt a close(r) world assump@on
as to meet our constraints.
• For our tools, this is covered by our database schema and
applica@on logic.
• What if data comes from elsewhere?

12. www.adaptcentre.ieMapping Governance
• Because of the OWA, OWL axioms do not work.
• We thus adopt an approach proposed by Tao et al. (2010),
where basically constraints are translated into SPARQL
SELECT or ASK queries to detect problems
!"#$% ⊓ ¬ 1!"#ℎ!
. !"#$%&' ⊑⊥
∃!"#ℎ. !ℎ!"!#$%"&'% ⊓ ¬ ∃!"#ℎ. !"#$% ⊑⊥
ASK WHERE {
?s a mg:Stage.
NOT EXISTS { ?project mg:with ?s. }
}
ASK WHERE {
?p a mg:Project.
?p mg:with ?c.
?c a mg:Characterize.
NOT EXISTS { ?p mg:with ?s. ?s a mg:Stage. }
}

13. www.adaptcentre.ieConclusions and Future Work
Conclusions
• Crea@on and management of
ontology mappings is far from
trivial. Metadata models focus
on the representa@on of
artefacts, on the support for
discovery and reuse and are of
limited expressivity.
• We proposed a new ontology
mapping lifecycle and metadata
model that adopts a project-
centric view and relates
artefacts, stakeholders and an
ontology mapping project.
Facilita@ng mapping governance.
Future Work
• Build tool support for the
method and gather data for
evalua@on.
• Structure the discussions,
adop@ng SIOC and IBIS
• Leverage user involvement of
the mul@ple different
stakeholders (Ramy et al., 2015)
• Adopt the Design Intent
Ontology (Solanki, 2015), which
is an Ontology Design Pakern to
structure and “reason” over the
requirements.

14. www.adaptcentre.ieReferences
T. R. Gruber. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? Int. J. Hum.-
Comput. Stud., 43(5-6):907–928, 1995.
R. Shosha, C. Debruyne, and D. O’Sullivan. Towards an adap@ve tool and method for collabora@ve
ontology map-ping. In I. Ciuciu, H. Paneko, C. Debruyne, A. Aubry, P. Bollen, R. Valencia-Garcia, A.
Mishra, A. Fensel, and F. Ferri, editors, On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2015
Workshops, volume 9416 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 319–328. Springer, 2015.
P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat. Ontology matching: State of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans. Knowl.
Data Eng., 25(1):158–176, 2013.
M. Solanki. DIO: A pakern for capturing the intents underlying designs. In E. Blomqvist, P. Hitzler, A.
Krisnadhi, T. Narock, and M. Solanki, editors, Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Ontology and
Seman@c Web Pakerns (WOP 2015) co-located with the 14th Interna@onal Seman@c Web Conference
(ISWC 2015), Bethlehem, Pensylvania, USA, October 11, 2015, volume 1461 of CEUR Workshop
Proceed-ings. CEUR-WS.org, 2015.
J. Tao, E. Sirin, J. Bao, and D. L. McGuinness. Extending OWL with integrity constraints. In V. Haarslev, D.
Toman, and G. E. Weddell, eds, Proceedings of the 23rd Interna@onal Workshop on Descrip@on Logics
(DL 2010), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, May 4-7, 2010, volume 573 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
CEUR-WS.org, 2010.
H. Thomas, R. Brennan, and D. O’Sullivan. Using the OM2R meta-data model for ontology mapping
reuse for the ontology alignment challenge - a case study. In P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat, A. Kementsietsidis,
M. Mao, N. F. Noy, and H. Stuckenschmidt, eds, Proceedings of the 7th Interna@onal Workshop on
Ontology Matching, Boston, MA, USA, November 11, 2012, volume 946 of CEUR Workshop
Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2012.
J. Zhao and O. Har@g. Towards interoperable provenance publica@on on the linked data web. In C. Bizer,
T. Heath, T. Berners-Lee, and M. Hausenblas, eds, WWW2012 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web,
Lyon, France, 16 April, 2012, volume 937 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2012.