Ontology (information science)

In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definition of the
categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that substantiate one, many, or all domains.

Every field creates ontologies to limit complexity and organize information into data and knowledge. As new ontologies are made, their
use hopefully improves problem solving within that domain. Translating research papers within every field is a problem made easier
when experts from different countries maintain a controlled vocabulary of jargon between each of their languages.[1]

Since Google started an initiative called Knowledge Graph, a substantial amount of research has gone on using the phrase knowledge
graph as a generalized term. Although there is no clear definition for the term knowledge graph, it is sometimes used as synonym for
ontology.[2] One common interpretation is that a knowledge graph represents a collection of interlinked descriptions of entities – real-
world objects, events, situations or abstract concepts.[3] Unlike ontologies, knowledge graphs, such as Google's Knowledge Graph and
DBpedia, often contain large volumes of factual information with less formal semantics. In some contexts, the term knowledge graph is
used to refer to any knowledge base that is represented as a graph.

Contents
Etymology
Overview
History
Components
Types
Domain ontology
Upper ontology
Hybrid ontology
Visualization
Engineering
Editors
Learning
Languages
Published examples
Libraries
Examples of applications
See also
References
Further reading
External links

Etymology
The compound word ontology combines onto-, from the Greek ὄν, on (gen. ὄντος, ontos), i.e. "being; that which is", which is the
present participle of the verb εἰμί, eimí, i.e. "to be, I am", and -λογία, -logia, i.e. "logical discourse", see classical compounds for this
type of word formation.[4][5]

While the etymology is Greek, the oldest extant record of the word itself, the New Latin form ontologia, appeared in 1606 in the work
Ogdoas Scholastica by Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus) and in 1613 in the Lexicon philosophicum by Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius).

The first occurrence in English of ontology as recorded by the OED (Oxford English Dictionary, online edition, 2008) came in
Archeologia Philosophica Nova or New Principles of Philosophy by Gideon Harvey.

Overview
What ontologies in both information science and philosophy have in common is the attempt to represent entities, ideas, and events,
with all their interdependent properties and relations, according to a system of categories. In both fields, there is considerable work on
problems of ontology engineering (e.g., Quine and Kripke in philosophy, Sowa and Guarino in computer science),[6] and debates
concerning to what extent normative ontology is possible (e.g., foundationalism and coherentism in philosophy, BFO and Cyc in
artificial intelligence). Applied ontology is considered a spiritual successor to prior work in philosophy, however many current efforts
are more concerned with establishing controlled vocabularies of narrow domains than first principles, the existence of fixed essences,
or whether enduring objects (e.g., perdurantism and endurantism) may be ontologically more primary than processes.

Every field uses ontological assumptions to frame explicit theories, research, and applications. For instance, the definition and ontology
of economics is a primacy concern in Marxist economics[7], but also in other subfields of economics.[8] An example of economics relying
on information science occurs in cases where a simulation or model is intended to enable economic decisions, such as determining
what capital assets are at risk and by how much (see risk management).

Artificial intelligence has retained the most attention regarding applied ontology in subfields like natural language processing within
machine translation and knowledge representation, but ontology editors are being used often in a range of fields like education without
the intent to contribute to AI.[9]

History
Ontologies arise out of the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, which deals with questions like "what exists?" and "what is the
nature of reality?" One of five traditional branches of philosophy, metaphysics is concerned with exploring existence through
properties, entities, and relations such as those between particulars and universals, intrinsic and extrinsic properties, or essence and
existence. Metaphysics has been an ongoing topic of discussion since recorded history.

Since the mid-1970s, researchers in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) have recognized that knowledge engineering is the key to
building large and powerful AI systems. AI researchers argued that they could create new ontologies as computational models that
enable certain kinds of automated reasoning, which was only marginally successful. In the 1980s, the AI community began to use the
term ontology to refer to both a theory of a modeled world and a component of knowledge-based systems. Some researchers, drawing
inspiration from philosophical ontologies, viewed computational ontology as a kind of applied philosophy.[10]

In the early 1990s, the widely cited Web page and paper "Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing"
by Tom Gruber[11] is credited with a deliberate definition of ontology as a technical term in computer science. Gruber introduced the
term as a specification of a conceptualization:

An ontology is a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can formally
exist for an agent or a community of agents. This definition is consistent with the usage of ontology as set of concept
definitions, but more general. And it is a different sense of the word than its use in philosophy.[12]

Attempting to distance ontologies from taxonomies and similar efforts in knowledge modeling that rely on classes and inheritance,
Gruber stated (1993):

Ontologies are often equated with taxonomic hierarchies of classes, class definitions, and the subsumption relation, but
ontologies need not be limited to these forms. Ontologies are also not limited to conservative definitions — that is,
definitions in the traditional logic sense that only introduce terminology and do not add any knowledge about the
world.[13] To specify a conceptualization, one needs to state axioms that do constrain the possible interpretations for the
defined terms.[14]

As refinement of Gruber's definition Feilmayr and Wöß (2016) stated: "An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared
conceptualization that is characterized by high semantic expressiveness required for increased complexity."[15]

Components
Contemporary ontologies share many structural similarities, regardless of the language in which they are expressed. Most ontologies
describe individuals (instances), classes (concepts), attributes, and relations. In this section each of these components is discussed in
turn.

Common components of ontologies include:

Individuals
Instances or objects (the basic or "ground level" objects)
Classes
Sets, collections, concepts, classes in programming, types of objects, or kinds of things
Attributes
Aspects, properties, features, characteristics, or parameters that objects (and classes) can have
Relations
Ways in which classes and individuals can be related to one another
Function terms
Complex structures formed from certain relations that can be used in place of an individual term in a
statement
Restrictions
Formally stated descriptions of what must be true in order for some assertion to be accepted as input
Rules
Statements in the form of an if-then (antecedent-consequent) sentence that describe the logical inferences
that can be drawn from an assertion in a particular form
Axioms
Assertions (including rules) in a logical form that together comprise the overall theory that the ontology
describes in its domain of application. This definition differs from that of "axioms" in generative grammar
and formal logic. In those disciplines, axioms include only statements asserted as a priori knowledge. As
used here, "axioms" also include the theory derived from axiomatic statements
Events
The changing of attributes or relations

Ontologies are commonly encoded using ontology languages.

Types

Domain ontology
A domain ontology (or domain-specific ontology) represents concepts which belong to a part of the world, such as biology or politics.
Each domain ontology typically models domain specific definitions of terms. For example, the word card has many different meanings.
An ontology about the domain of poker would model the "playing card" meaning of the word, while an ontology about the domain of
computer hardware would model the "punched card" and "video card" meanings.

Since domain ontologies are written by different people, they represent concepts in very specific and unique ways, and are often
incompatible within the same project. As systems that rely on domain ontologies expand, they often need to merge domain ontologies
by hand-tuning each entity or using a combination of software merging and hand-tuning. This presents a challenge to the ontology
designer. Different ontologies in the same domain arise due to different languages, different intended usage of the ontologies, and
different perceptions of the domain (based on cultural background, education, ideology, etc.).

At present, merging ontologies that are not developed from a common upper ontology is a largely manual process and therefore time-
consuming and expensive. Domain ontologies that use the same upper ontology to provide a set of basic elements with which to specify
the meanings of the domain ontology entities can be merged with less effort. There are studies on generalized techniques for merging
ontologies,[16] but this area of research is still ongoing, and it's a recent event to see the issue sidestepped by having multiple domain
ontologies using the same upper ontology like the OBO Foundry.

Upper ontology
An upper ontology (or foundation ontology) is a model of the common relations and objects that are generally applicable across a wide
range of domain ontologies. It usually employs a core glossary that contains the terms and associated object descriptions as they are
used in various relevant domain ontologies.

Standardized upper ontologies available for use include BFO, BORO method, Dublin Core, GFO, OpenCyc/ResearchCyc, SUMO,
UMBEL, the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO),[17] and DOLCE.[18][19] WordNet has been considered an upper ontology by some
and has been used as a linguistic tool for learning domain ontologies.[20]

Hybrid ontology
The Gellish ontology is an example of a combination of an upper and a domain ontology.

Visualization
A survey of ontology visualization methods is presented by Katifori et al.[21] An updated survey of ontology visualization methods and
tools was published by Dudás et al.[22] The most established ontology visualization methods, namely indented tree and graph
visualization are evaluated by Fu et al.[23] A visual language for ontologies represented in OWL is specified by the Visual Notation for
OWL Ontologies (VOWL).[24]

Engineering
Ontology engineering (also called ontology building) is a set of tasks related to the development of ontologies for a particular
domain.[25] It is a subfield of knowledge engineering that studies the ontology development process, the ontology life cycle, the
methods and methodologies for building ontologies, and the tools and languages that support them.[26][27]

Ontology engineering aims to make explicit the knowledge contained in software applications, and organizational procedures for a
particular domain. Ontology engineering offers a direction for overcoming semantic obstacles, such as those related to the definitions
of business terms and software classes. Known challenges with ontology engineering include:

1. Ensuring the ontology is current with domain knowledge and term use
2. Providing sufficient specificity and concept coverage for the domain of interest, thus minimizing the content completeness problem
3. Ensuring the ontology can support its use cases

Editors
Ontology editors are applications designed to assist in the creation or manipulation of ontologies. It's common for ontology editors
to use one or more ontology languages.

Aspects of ontology editors include: the visual navigation possibilities within the knowledge model, inference engines and information
extraction, support for modules, import & export foreign knowledge representation languages for ontology matching, and the support
of meta-ontologies such as OWL-S, Dublin Core, etc.[28]
 Written
Name License Features Publisher/Creator
in

Ontology, taxonomy and thesaurus

a.k.a. software The Synercon Group
management software

Includes an RDFS and OWL ontology

Anzo for Excel editor within Excel; generates Cambridge Semantics
ontologies from Excel spreadsheets

tool for building large ontology based

Be Informed applications. Includes visual editors,
Commercial
Suite inference engines, export to standard
formats

Chimaera Other web service Stanford University

Ontology Editor (COE) ontology Florida Institute for Human

CmapTools Java based
editor Supports numerous formats and Machine Cognition

ontology editor for data compliant to

engineering ontology standard ISO
dot15926 Editor Python? Open source 15926. Allows Python scripting and
pattern-based data analysis.
Supports extensions.

EMFText OWL2
Eclipse-
Manchester open-source Pellet integration
based
Editor[29]

along with UML modeling, supports

Enterprise OMG's Ontology Definition
Sparx Systems
Architect MetaModel which includes OWL and
RDF

ontology editor for OWL and SWRL

with Controlled Natural Language
(Controlled English). Supports OWL,
Fluent Editor
RDF, DL and Functional rendering,
unlimited imports and built-in
reasoning services.

A visual, collaborative and real time

ontology and knowledge graph
schema editor. Features include
sharing documents, commenting,
Gra.fo[30] Free and Commercial Capsenta
search and tracking history. Support
W3C Semantic Web standards: RDF,
RDFS, OWL and also Property Graph
schemas.

graphical editor especially created to

Osaka University and Enegate
HOZO Java produce heavy-weight and well
Co, ltd.
thought out ontologies

Java Ontology
(1998)
Editor (JOE)

single user and server based

KAON open source FZI/AIFB Karlsruhe
solutions possible

Ontology editor for the KM

KMgen language. km: The Knowledge
Machine

web application/service that is an

ontology editor, wiki, and ontology
registry. Supports creation of
communities where members can
Knoodl Free Revelytix, Inc..
collaboratively import, create,
discuss, document and publish
ontologies. Supports OWL, RDF,
RDFS, and SPARQL queries.

An ontology engineering tool for

dealing with OntoUML. It also
includes OntoUML syntax validation,
Menthor Editor Alloy simulation, Anti-Pattern
verification, and transformations from
OntoUML to OWL, SBVR and Natural
Language (Brazilian Portuguese)
 Written
Name License Features Publisher/Creator
in

A plug-in for Enterprise Architect] that

Model Futures
free allows IDEAS Group 4D ontologies to
IDEAS AddIn
be developed using a UML profile

Able to work with very large OWL

files (e.g. Cyc) and has extensive
Model Futures import and export capabilities (inc.
Free
OWL Editor UML, Thesaurus Descriptor, MS
Word, CA ERwin Data Modeler, CSV,
etc.)

mySQL connection, bundled with

myWeb Java applet that allows online browsing of
ontologies (including OBO))

built on Web-based, supports RDFS and a

Neologism open source
Drupal subset of OWL

OWL support, several import

Eclipse- mechanisms, support for reuse and
NeOn Toolkit open source NeOn Project
based management of networked
ontologies, visualization, etc.

Web based user interface that allows

users to input ontology instances that
OBIS
can be accessed via SPARQL
endpoint

downloadable, developed by the

OBO-Edit Java open source Gene Ontology Consortium for editing
biological ontologies

downloadable,
support for RDF(S),
OWL and
OntoStudio Eclipse ObjectLogic (derived semafora systems
from F-Logic),
graphical rule editor,
visualizations

Ontolingua Web service Stanford University

Collaborative web application for

managing ontologies and knowledge
engineering, web-browser-based
ONTOLIS graphical rules editor, sophisticated
search and export interface. Web
service available to link ontology
information to existing data

an integrated software stack using

Open Semantic
semantic technologies for knowledge
Framework
management, which includes an
(OSF)
ontology editor

A graphical ontology editor, easy-to-

OWLGrEd
use

ontology, taxonomy and thesaurus

PoolParty management software, fully based on
Thesaurus Commercial standards like RDFS, SKOS and Semantic Web Company
Server SPARQL, integrated with Virtuoso
Universal Server

downloadable, supports OWL, many

Protégé Java open source Stanford University
sample ontologies

net-centric representations of
ScholOnto[31]
research

Firefox
for managing ontologies and
Semantic extension - developed at University of
acquiring new knowledge from the
Turkey[32][33] based on Rome, Tor Vergata
Web
Java

Sigma
is a system primarily for development
knowledge
of the Suggested Upper Merged
engineering
Ontology
environment
 Written
Name License Features Publisher/Creator
in

downloadable, OWL Ontology

Swoop[34] Java open source University of Maryland
browser and editor

ontology, taxonomy and thesaurus

Semaphore
management software. Tool to Smartlogic Semaphore
Ontology Commercial
manage the entire "build - enhance - Limited
Manager
review - maintain" ontology lifecycle.

Ontology, taxonomy and thesaurus

Synaptica management software. Web based, Synaptica, LLC.
supports OWL and SKOS.

downloadable, full support for RDFS

TopBraid Eclipse- and OWL, built-in inference engine,
TopQuadrant
Composer based SWRL editor and SPARQL queries,
visualization, import of XML and UML

Editor especially designed for

Transinsight creating text mining ontologies and
part of GoPubMed.org

WebODE[35][36] Web service Technical University of Madrid

model-driven ontology editing

Eclipse-
TwoUse Toolkit open source environment especially designed for
based
software engineers

Manages creation and use of

ontologies for use in data
Thesaurus management and semantic
Master enrichment by enterprise,
government, and scholarly
publishers.

Tool for Ontology Development and

TODE .Net
Editing

Collaborative Web Platform for

originally developed on a joint
Management of SKOS thesauri, OWL
effort between University of
ontologies and OntoLex lexicons,
Rome Tor Vergata and the
VocBench[37] now in its third incarnation supported
Food and the Agriculture
by the ISA2 program
Organization of the United
(https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/solutions
Nations: FAO
/vocbench3) of the EU

Learning
Ontology learning is the automatic or semi-automatic creation of ontologies, including extracting a domain's terms from natural
language text. As building ontologies manually is extremely labor-intensive and time consuming, there is great motivation to automate
the process. Information extraction and text mining have been explored to automatically link ontologies to documents, for example in
the context of the BioCreative challenges.[38]

Languages
An ontology language is a formal language used to encode an ontology. There are a number of such languages for ontologies, both
proprietary and standards-based:

Common Algebraic Specification Language is a general logic-based specification language developed within the IFIP working
group 1.3 "Foundations of System Specifications" and is a de facto standard language for software specifications. It is now being
applied to ontology specifications in order to provide modularity and structuring mechanisms.
Common logic is ISO standard 24707, a specification of a family of ontology languages that can be accurately translated into each
other.
The Cyc project has its own ontology language called CycL, based on first-order predicate calculus with some higher-order
extensions.
DOGMA (Developing Ontology-Grounded Methods and Applications) adopts the fact-oriented modeling approach to provide a
higher level of semantic stability.
The Gellish language includes rules for its own extension and thus integrates an ontology with an ontology language.
IDEF5 is a software engineering method to develop and maintain usable, accurate, domain ontologies.
KIF is a syntax for first-order logic that is based on S-expressions. SUO-KIF is a derivative version supporting the Suggested
Upper Merged Ontology.
MOF and UML are standards of the OMG
Olog is a category theoretic approach to ontologies, emphasizing translations between ontologies using functors.
OBO, a language used for biological and biomedical ontologies.
 OntoUML is an ontologically well-founded profile of UML for conceptual modeling of domain ontologies.
OWL is a language for making ontological statements, developed as a follow-on from RDF and RDFS, as well as earlier ontology
language projects including OIL, DAML, and DAML+OIL. OWL is intended to be used over the World Wide Web, and all its
elements (classes, properties and individuals) are defined as RDF resources, and identified by URIs.
Rule Interchange Format (RIF) and F-Logic combine ontologies and rules.
Semantic Application Design Language (SADL)[39] captures a subset of the expressiveness of OWL, using an English-like
language entered via an Eclipse Plug-in.
SBVR (Semantics of Business Vocabularies and Rules) is an OMG standard adopted in industry to build ontologies.
TOVE Project, TOronto Virtual Enterprise project

Published examples
AURUM - Information Security Ontology,[40] An ontology for information security knowledge sharing, enabling users to
collaboratively understand and extend the domain knowledge body. It may serve as a basis for automated information security risk
and compliance management.
BabelNet, a very large multilingual semantic network and ontology, lexicalized in many languages
Basic Formal Ontology,[41] a formal upper ontology designed to support scientific research
BioPAX,[42] an ontology for the exchange and interoperability of biological pathway (cellular processes) data
BMO,[43] an e-Business Model Ontology based on a review of enterprise ontologies and business model literature
SSBMO,[44] a Strongly Sustainable Business Model Ontology based on a review of the systems based natural and social science
literature (including business). Includes critique of and significant extensions to the Business Model Ontology (BMO).
CCO and GexKB,[45] Application Ontologies (APO) that integrate diverse types of knowledge with the Cell Cycle Ontology (CCO)
and the Gene Expression Knowledge Base (GexKB)
CContology (Customer Complaint Ontology),[46] an e-business ontology to support online customer complaint management
CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model, an ontology for cultural heritage[47]
COSMO,[48] a Foundation Ontology (current version in OWL) that is designed to contain representations of all of the primitive
concepts needed to logically specify the meanings of any domain entity. It is intended to serve as a basic ontology that can be
used to translate among the representations in other ontologies or databases. It started as a merger of the basic elements of the
OpenCyc and SUMO ontologies, and has been supplemented with other ontology elements (types, relations) so as to include
representations of all of the words in the Longman dictionary defining vocabulary.
Cyc, a large Foundation Ontology for formal representation of the universe of discourse
Disease Ontology,[49] designed to facilitate the mapping of diseases and associated conditions to particular medical codes
DOLCE, a Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering[18][19]
Drammar, ontology of drama
Dublin Core, a simple ontology for documents and publishing
Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO), a business conceptual ontology for the financial industry[50]
Foundational, Core and Linguistic Ontologies[51]
Foundational Model of Anatomy,[52] an ontology for human anatomy
Friend of a Friend, an ontology for describing persons, their activities and their relations to other people and objects
Gene Ontology for genomics
Gellish English dictionary, an ontology that includes a dictionary and taxonomy that includes an upper ontology and a lower
ontology that focusses on industrial and business applications in engineering, technology and procurement.
Geopolitical ontology, an ontology describing geopolitical information created by Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO). The
geopolitical ontology includes names in multiple languages (English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Italian); maps
standard coding systems (UN, ISO, FAOSTAT, AGROVOC, etc.); provides relations among territories (land borders, group
membership, etc.); and tracks historical changes. In addition, FAO provides web services of geopolitical ontology and a module
maker to download modules of the geopolitical ontology into different formats (RDF, XML, and EXCEL). See more information at
FAO Country Profiles.
GAO (General Automotive Ontology) - an ontology for the automotive industry that includes 'car' extensions[53]
GOLD,[54] General Ontology for Linguistic Description
GUM (Generalized Upper Model),[55] a linguistically motivated ontology for mediating between clients systems and natural
language technology
IDEAS Group,[56] a formal ontology for enterprise architecture being developed by the Australian, Canadian, UK and U.S. Defence
Depts.
Linkbase,[57] a formal representation of the biomedical domain, founded upon Basic Formal Ontology.
LPL, Lawson Pattern Language
NCBO Bioportal,[58] biological and biomedical ontologies and associated tools to search, browse and visualise
NIFSTD Ontologies from the Neuroscience Information Framework: a modular set of ontologies for the neuroscience domain.
OBO-Edit,[59] an ontology browser for most of the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies
OBO Foundry,[60] a suite of interoperable reference ontologies in biology and biomedicine
OMNIBUS Ontology,[61] an ontology of learning, instruction, and instructional design
Ontology for Biomedical Investigations, an open-access, integrated ontology of biological and clinical investigations
ONSTR,[62] Ontology for Newborn Screening Follow-up and Translational Research, Newborn Screening Follow-up Data
Integration Collaborative, Emory University, Atlanta.
Plant Ontology[63] for plant structures and growth/development stages, etc.
POPE, Purdue Ontology for Pharmaceutical Engineering
 PRO,[64] the Protein Ontology of the Protein Information Resource, Georgetown University
ProbOnto, knowledge base and ontology of probability distributions.[65][66]
Program abstraction taxonomy
Protein Ontology[67] for proteomics
RXNO Ontology, for name reactions in chemistry
Sequence Ontology,[68] for representing genomic feature types found on biological sequences
SNOMED CT (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms)
Suggested Upper Merged Ontology, a formal upper ontology
Systems Biology Ontology (SBO), for computational models in biology
SWEET,[69] Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology
ThoughtTreasure ontology
TIME-ITEM, Topics for Indexing Medical Education
Uberon,[70] representing animal anatomical structures
UMBEL, a lightweight reference structure of 20,000 subject concept classes and their relationships derived from OpenCyc
WordNet, a lexical reference system
YAMATO,[71] Yet Another More Advanced Top-level Ontology
The W3C Linking Open Data community project coordinates attempts to converge different ontologies into worldwide Semantic Web.

Libraries
The development of ontologies has led to the emergence of services providing lists or directories of ontologies called ontology libraries.

The following are libraries of human-selected ontologies.

COLORE[72] is an open repository of first-order ontologies in Common Logic with formal links between ontologies in the repository.
DAML Ontology Library[73] maintains a legacy of ontologies in DAML.
Ontology Design Patterns portal[74] is a wiki repository of reusable components and practices for ontology design, and also
maintains a list of exemplary ontologies.
Protégé Ontology Library[75] contains a set of OWL, Frame-based and other format ontologies.
SchemaWeb[76] is a directory of RDF schemata expressed in RDFS, OWL and DAML+OIL.
The following are both directories and search engines.

OBO Foundry is a suite of interoperable reference ontologies in biology and biomedicine.[77][78]

Bioportal (ontology repository of NCBO)
OntoSelect[79] Ontology Library offers similar services for RDF/S, DAML and OWL ontologies.
Ontaria[80] is a "searchable and browsable directory of semantic web data" with a focus on RDF vocabularies with OWL
ontologies. (NB Project "on hold" since 2004).
Swoogle is a directory and search engine for all RDF resources available on the Web, including ontologies.
Open Ontology Repository initiative
ROMULUS is a foundational ontology repository aimed at improving semantic interoperability. Currently there are three
foundational ontologies in the repository: DOLCE, BFO and GFO.

Examples of applications
In general, ontologies can be used beneficially in several fields.

Enterprise applications.[81] A more concrete example is SAPPHIRE (Health care) or Situational Awareness and Preparedness for
Public Health Incidences and Reasoning Engines which is a semantics-based health information system capable of tracking and
evaluating situations and occurrences that may affect public health.
Geographic information systems bring together data from different sources and benefit therefore from ontological metadata which
helps to connect the semantics of the data.[82]

See also
Commonsense knowledge bases
Controlled vocabulary
Folksonomy
Formal concept analysis
Formal ontology
Lattice
Ontology
Ontology alignment
Ontology chart
Open Semantic Framework
 Soft ontology
Terminology extraction
Weak ontology
Web Ontology Language

Related philosophical concepts

Alphabet of human thought

Characteristica universalis
Interoperability
Metalanguage
Natural semantic metalanguage

References
1. G Budin (2005), "Ontology-driven translation management", in Helle V. Dam, Knowledge Systems and Translation
(https://books.google.com/books?id=IL2E9xuJLAAC&pg=PA113), Jan Engberg, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Walter de Gruyter,
p. 113, ISBN 978-3-11-018297-2
2. Ehrlinger, Lisa; Wöß, Wolfram (2016). "Towards a Definition of Knowledge Graphs" (http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1695/paper4.pdf) (PDF).
3. "What is a Knowledge Graph?" (https://ontotext.com/knowledgehub/fundamentals/what-is-a-knowledge-graph/). 2018.
4. "ontology" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/ontology). Online Etymology Dictionary.
5. εἰμί (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=ei)mi/1). Liddell, Henry George; Scott,
Robert; A Greek–English Lexicon at the Perseus Project
6. Sowa, J. F. (1995). "Top-level ontological categories". International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 43 (5-6
(November/December)): 669–85. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1068 (https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fijhc.1995.1068).
7. Palermo, Giulio (10 January 2007). "The ontology of economic power in capitalism: mainstream economics and Marx"
(http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/4/539.short). Cambridge Journal of Economics. 31 (4): 539–561. doi:10.1093/cje/bel036
(https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fcje%2Fbel036). Retrieved 16 June 2013 – via Oxford Journals.
8. Zuniga, Gloria L. (1999-02-02). "An Ontology Of Economic Objects" (https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/5566.html).
Ideas.repec.org. Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
9. Musen, Mark. "The Protégé Project: A Look Back and a Look Forward" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4883684).
doi:10.1145/2757001.2757003 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2757001.2757003). PMC 4883684 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
/pmc/articles/PMC4883684).
10. Gruber, T. (2008). Liu, Ling; Özsu, M. Tamer, eds. Ontology (http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-definition-2007.htm).
Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-49616-0.
11. Gruber, T. (1995). "Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing". International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies. 43 (5–6): 907–928. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081 (https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fijhc.1995.1081).
12. Gruber, T. (2001). "What is an Ontology?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100716004426/http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-
an-ontology.html). Stanford University. Archived from the original (http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html) on
2010-07-16. Retrieved 2009-11-09.
13. Enderton, H. B. (1972-05-12). A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (1 ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. p. 295.
ISBN 978-0-12-238450-9 2nd edition; January 5, 2001, ISBN 978-0-12-238452-3 templatestyles stripmarker in |postscript= at
position 37 (help)
14. Gruber, Thomas R. (June 1993). "A translation approach to portable ontology specifications" (http://tomgruber.org/writing
/ontolingua-kaj-1993.pdf) (PDF). Knowledge Acquisition. 5 (2): 199–220. doi:10.1006/knac.1993.1008 (https://doi.org
/10.1006%2Fknac.1993.1008).
15. Feilmayr, Christina; Wöß, Wolfram (2016). "An analysis of ontologies and their success factors for application to business"
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169023X1500110X). Data & Knowledge Engineering: 1–23.
doi:10.1016/j.datak.2015.11.003 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.datak.2015.11.003). Retrieved 23 May 2017.
16. "Project: Dynamic Ontology Repair" (http://dream.inf.ed.ac.uk/projects/dor/). University of Edinburgh Department of Informatics.
Retrieved 2 January 2012.
17. Giancarlo Guizzardi & Gerd Wagner. "A Unified Foundational Ontology and some Applications of it in Business Modeling"
(http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-125/paper2.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 31 March 2014.
18. "Laboratory for Applied Ontology - DOLCE" (http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html). Laboratory for Applied Ontology (LOA). Retrieved
10 February 2011.
19. "OWL version of DOLCE+DnS" (http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl). Semantic Technology Lab. Retrieved
21 February 2013.
20. Navigli, Roberto; Velardi, Paola (2004). "Learning Domain Ontologies from Document Warehouses and Dedicated Web Sites"
(http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/089120104323093276) (PDF). Computational Linguistics. MIT Press. 30 (2):
151–179. doi:10.1162/089120104323093276 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2F089120104323093276).
21. Katifori, A.; Halatsis, C.; Lepouras, G.; Vassilakis, C.; Giannopoulou, E. (2007). "Ontology Visualization Methods - A Survey"
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160304203317/http://entrezneuron.googlecode.com/svn-history/r2/trunk/references/12-onto-vis-
survey-final.pdf) (PDF). ACM Computing Surveys. 39 (4): 10. doi:10.1145/1287620.1287621 (https://doi.org
/10.1145%2F1287620.1287621). Archived from the original (http://entrezneuron.googlecode.com/svn-history/r2/trunk/references
/12-onto-vis-survey-final.pdf) (PDF) on 4 March 2016.
22. Dudás, M.; Lohmann, S.; Svátek, V.; Pavlov, D. (2018). "Ontology Visualization Methods and Tools: a Survey of the State of the
Art" (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/knowledge-engineering-review/article/ontology-visualization-methods-and-tools-
a-survey-of-the-state-of-the-art/5EA8C64D7DF60A84F6D2B7B9A09B6E6A). Knowledge Engineering Review. 33 (e10).
doi:10.1017/S0269888918000073 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0269888918000073).
23. Fu, Bo; Noy, Natalya F.; Storey, Margaret-Anne (2013). "Indented Tree or Graph? A Usability Study of Ontology Visualization
Techniques in the Context of Class Mapping Evaluation" (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-41335-3_8). The
Semantic Web – ISWC 2013: 12th International Semantic Web Conference, Sydney, NSW, Australia, October 21–25, 2013,
Proceedings, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 8218. Berlin: Springer. pp. 117–134. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41335-3_8
(https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-642-41335-3_8). ISBN 978-3-642-41335-3 – via SpringerLink.
24. Negru, Stefan; Lohmann, Steffen; Haag, Florian (7 April 2014). "VOWL: Visual Notation for OWL Ontologies: Specification of
Version 2.0" (http://vowl.visualdataweb.org/v2/). Visual Data Web.
25. Pouchard, Line; Ivezic, Nenad; Schlenoff, Craig (March 2000). "Ontology Engineering for Distributed Collaboration in
Manufacturing" (http://www.mel.nist.gov/msidlibrary/doc/AISfinal2.pdf) (PDF). Proceedings of the AIS2000 conference.
26. Gómez-Pérez, Ascunion; Fernández-López, Mariano; Corcho, Oscar (2004). Ontological Engineering: With Examples from the
Areas of Knowledge Management, E-commerce and the Semantic Web (1 ed.). Springer. p. 403. ISBN 978-1-85233-551-9.
27. De Nicola, Antonio; Missikoff, Michele; Navigli, Roberto (2009). "A Software Engineering Approach to Ontology Building"
(http://www.dsi.uniroma1.it/~navigli/pubs/De_Nicola_Missikoff_Navigli_2009.pdf) (PDF). Information Systems. Elsevier. 34 (2):
258–275. doi:10.1016/j.is.2008.07.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.is.2008.07.002).
28. Alatrish, Emhimed. "A comparison of some ontology editors" (http://www.ef.uns.ac.rs/mis/archive-pdf/2013%20-%20No2
/MIS2013-2-4.pdf) (PDF).
29. "EMFText" (https://web.archive.org/web/20171005010448/http://www.emftext.org/index.php/EMFText). Emftext.org. 5 October
2017. Archived from the original (http://www.emftext.org/index.php/EMFText) on 5 October 2017. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
30. "Gra.fo, a visual collaborative and real time ontology and knowledge graph schema editor" (https://gra.fo). Retrieved 7 Nov 2018.
31. "Scholarly Ontologies Project: Knowledge Media Inst., Open U. (UK)" (http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/scholonto/).
Projects.kmi.open.ac.uk. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
32. "Semantic Turkey: A Semantic Web Knowledge Management and Acquisition Platform based on the Firefox Web Browser"
(http://semanticturkey.uniroma2.it/). Ssemanticturkey.uniroma2.it. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
33. "Semantic Turkey – Add-ons for Firefox" (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/semantic-turkey/). Addons.mozilla.org.
Retrieved 4 June 2018.
34. "SWOOP - Semantic Web Standards" (https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SWOOP). W3.org. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
35. "WebODE" (http://mayor2.dia.fi.upm.es/oeg-upm/index.php/en/old-technologies/60-webode/). Mayor2.dia.fi.upm.es. Retrieved
4 June 2018.
36. "WebODE: an integrated workbench for ontology representation, reasoning and exchange" (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org
/2832/8cb29b0e7f2e1dd298012cdb754116a6ece3.pdf) (PDF). Pdfs.semanticscholar.org. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
37. "VocBench: A Collaborative Management System for SKOS-XL Thesauri" (http://vocbench.uniroma2.it). Vocbench.uniroma2.it.
Retrieved 4 June 2018.
38. Krallinger, M; Leitner, F; Vazquez, M; Salgado, D; Marcelle, C; Tyers, M; Valencia, A; Chatr-Aryamontri, A (2012). "How to link
ontologies and protein-protein interactions to literature: Text-mining approaches and the Bio Creative experience"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309177). Database. 2012: bas017. doi:10.1093/database/bas017 (https://doi.org
/10.1093%2Fdatabase%2Fbas017). PMC 3309177 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309177). PMID 22438567
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22438567).
39. "SADL" (http://sadl.sourceforge.net/sadl.html). Sourceforge. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
40. "AURUM - Information Security Ontology" (http://www.securityontology.com). Retrieved 29 January 2016.
41. "Basic Formal Ontology (BFO)" (http://www.ifomis.org/bfo/). Institute for Formal Ontology and Medical Information Science
(IFOMIS).
42. "BioPAX" (http://biopax.org). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
43. Osterwalder, Alexander; Pigneur, Yves (June 17–19, 2002). "An e-Business Model Ontology for Modeling e-Business"
(https://web.archive.org/web/20110419183256/http://129.3.20.41/eps/io/papers/0202/0202004.pdf) (PDF). 15th Bled eConference,
Slovenia. Archived from the original (http://129.3.20.41/eps/io/papers/0202/0202004.pdf) (PDF) on 2011-04-19.
44. Upward, Antony; Jones, Peter (2016). "An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework
Compatible with Natural and Social Science" (https://www.academia.edu/14461116). Organization & Environment. 29 (1): 97–123.
doi:10.1177/1086026615592933 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1086026615592933).
45. "About CCO and GexKB" (https://archive.is/20120730222759/http://www.semantic-systems-biology.org/apo/). Semantic Systems
Biology. Archived from the original (http://www.semantic-systems-biology.org/apo/) on 2012-07-30.
46. "CContology" (http://www.jarrar.info/CContology/). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
47. "The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM)" (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
48. "COSMO" (http://micra.com/COSMO/). MICRA Inc. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
49. Osborne, JD; Flatow, J; Holko, M; Lin, SM; Kibbe, WA; Zhu, LJ; Danila, MI; Feng, G; Chisholm, RL (2009). "Annotating the human
genome with Disease Ontology" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709267). BMC Genomics. 10 Suppl 1: S6.
doi:10.1186/1471-2164-10-S1-S6 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2164-10-S1-S6). PMC 2709267 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
/pmc/articles/PMC2709267). PMID 19594883 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19594883).
50. "Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO)" (http://www.omg.org/hot-topics/finance.htm). Retrieved 15 March 2017.
51. "Foundational, Core and Linguistic Ontologies" (http://www.loa-cnr.it/Ontologies.html). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
52. "Foundational Model of Anatomy" (http://sig.biostr.washington.edu/projects/fm/AboutFM.html). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
53. "Car Extension" (https://makolab.com/en/innovation/schema-org-automotive-extension). Retrieved 15 June 2017.
54. "GOLD" (http://www.linguistics-ontology.org/gold.html). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
55. "Generalized Upper Model" (http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/langpro/webspace/jb/gum/index.htm). Retrieved 10 February
2011.
56. "The IDEAS Group Website" (http://www.ideasgroup.org). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
57. "Linkbase" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080918063746/http://www.landcglobal.com/pages/linkbase.php). Archived from the
original (http://www.landcglobal.com/pages/linkbase.php) on 18 September 2008. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
58. "Bioportal" (http://www.bioontology.org/tools/portal/bioportal.html). National Center for Biological Ontology (NCBO).
59. "Ontology browser for most of the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies" (http://oboedit.org/?page=index). Berkeley
Bioinformatics Open Source Project (BBOP).
60. "The Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies" (http://www.obofoundry.org/). Berkeley Bioinformatics Open Source Project
(BBOP).
61. "OMNIBUS Ontology" (https://archive.is/20120719151539/http://edont.qee.jp/omnibus/). Archived from the original
(http://edont.qee.jp/omnibus/) on 19 July 2012. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
62. "ONSTR" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140416231158/https://nbsdc.org/onstr.php). Archived from the original (https://nbsdc.org
/onstr.php) on 16 April 2014. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
63. "Plant Ontology" (http://www.plantontology.org/). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
64. "PRO" (http://pir.georgetown.edu/pro/). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
65. "ProbOnto" (http://www.probonto.org). Retrieved 1 July 2017.
66. Swat, MJ; Grenon, P; Wimalaratne, S (2016). "ProbOnto: ontology and knowledge base of probability distributions"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5013898). Bioinformatics. 32: 2719. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btw170
(https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fbioinformatics%2Fbtw170). PMC 5013898 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5013898).
PMID 27153608 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27153608).
67. "Protein Ontology" (http://pir.georgetown.edu/pro/). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
68. Eilbeck K, Lewis SE, Mungall CJ, Yandell M, Stein L, Durbin R, Ashburner M (2005). "The Sequence Ontology: a tool for the
unification of genome annotations" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1175956). Genome Biology. 6 (5): R44.
doi:10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r44 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fgb-2005-6-5-r44). PMC 1175956 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
/pmc/articles/PMC1175956). PMID 15892872 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15892872).
69. "SWEET" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110411120413/http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/). Archived from the original
(http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/) on 2011-04-11. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
70. Mungall, CJ; Torniai, C; Gkoutos, GV; Lewis, SE; Haendel, MA (2012). "Uberon, an integrative multi-species anatomy ontology"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334586). Genome Biol. 13: R5. doi:10.1186/gb-2012-13-1-r5 (https://doi.org
/10.1186%2Fgb-2012-13-1-r5). PMC 3334586 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334586). PMID 22293552
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293552).
71. "YAMATO" (http://www.ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp/hozo/onto_library/upperOnto.htm). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
72. "COLORE" (http://stl.mie.utoronto.ca/colore/). Retrieved 4 May 2011.
73. "DAML Ontology Library" (http://www.daml.org/ontologies/). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
74. "ODP Library" (http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org). Retrieved 21 February 2013.
75. "Protege Ontology Library" (http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/index.php/Protege_Ontology_Library). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
76. "SchemaWeb" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110810084028/http://www.schemaweb.info/). Archived from the original
(http://www.schemaweb.info/) on 10 August 2011. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
77. "OBO Foundry" (http://www.obofoundry.org/). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
78. Smith, B.; Ashburner, M.; Rosse, C.; Bard, J.; Bug, W.; Ceusters, W.; Goldberg, L. J.; Eilbeck, K.; Ireland, A.; Mungall, C. J.;
Leontis, N.; Rocca-Serra, P.; Ruttenberg, A.; Sansone, S. A.; Scheuermann, R. H.; Shah, N.; Whetzel, P. L.; Lewis, S. (2007). "The
OBO Foundry: Coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
/pmc/articles/PMC2814061). Nature Biotechnology. 25 (11): 1251–1255. doi:10.1038/nbt1346 (https://doi.org
/10.1038%2Fnbt1346). PMC 2814061 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2814061). PMID 17989687
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17989687).
79. "OntoSelect" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101111053552/http://olp.dfki.de/ontoselect/). Archived from the original
(http://olp.dfki.de/OntoSelect/) on 11 November 2010. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
80. "Ontaria" (http://www.w3.org/2004/ontaria/). Retrieved 10 February 2011.
81. Oberle, Daniel (2014). "How ontologies benefit enterprise applications" (http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files
/swj212_2.pdf) (PDF). Semantic Web Journal. IOS Press. 5 (6): 473–491. doi:10.3233/SW-130114 (https://doi.org
/10.3233%2FSW-130114).
82. Frank, Andrew U. (2001). "Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems". International
Journal of Geographical Information Science. 15 (7): 667–678. doi:10.1080/13658810110061144 (https://doi.org
/10.1080%2F13658810110061144).

Further reading
Oberle, D., Guarino, N., & Staab, S. (2009) What is an ontology? (http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~staab/Research/Publications
/2009/handbookEdition2/what-is-an-ontology.pdf). In: "Handbook on Ontologies". Springer, 2nd edition, 2009.
Fensel, D., van Harmelen, F., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D. L., & Patel-Schneider, P. F. (2001). "OIL: an ontology infrastructure for
the Semantic Web" (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=920598). In: Intelligent Systems. IEEE, 16(2): 38–45.
Gangemi A., Presutti V. (2009). Ontology Design Patterns (http://hem.hj.se/~blev/HandbookChapter_ODPs.pdf). In Staab S. et al.
(eds.): Handbook on Ontologies (2nd edition), Springer, 2009.
Maria Golemati, Akrivi Katifori, Costas Vassilakis, George Lepouras, Constantin Halatsis (2007). "Creating an Ontology for the
User Profile: Method and Applications" (https://web.archive.org/web/20081217030517/http://oceanis.mm.di.uoa.gr/pened/papers
/11-onto-user-final.pdf). In: Proceedings of the First IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science
(RCIS), Morocco 2007.
Mizoguchi, R. (2004). "Tutorial on ontological engineering: part 3: Advanced course of ontological engineering"
(http://www.ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp/pub/miz/Part3V3.pdf). In: New Generation Computing. Ohmsha & Springer-Verlag,
22(2):198-220.
Gruber, T. R. (1993). "A translation approach to portable ontology specifications" (http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-
kaj-1993.pdf) (PDF). Knowledge Acquisition. 5: 199–199. doi:10.1006/knac.1993.1008 (https://doi.org
/10.1006%2Fknac.1993.1008).
Maedche, A. & Staab, S. (2001). "Ontology learning for the Semantic Web" (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org
/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=920602). In: Intelligent Systems. IEEE, 16(2): 72–79.
Natalya F. Noy and Deborah L. McGuinness. Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology
(https://web.archive.org/web/20100714172301/http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontology-tutorial-noy-mcguinness-
abstract.html). Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical
Report SMI-2001-0880, March 2001.
Chaminda Abeysiriwardana, Prabath; Kodituwakku, Saluka R (2012). "Ontology Based Information Extraction for Disease
Intelligence". International Journal of Research in Computer Science. 2 (6): 7–19. arXiv:1211.3497 (https://arxiv.org
/abs/1211.3497). doi:10.7815/ijorcs.26.2012.051 (https://doi.org/10.7815%2Fijorcs.26.2012.051).
Razmerita, L., Angehrn, A., & Maedche, A. 2003. "Ontology-Based User Modeling for Knowledge Management Systems"
(http://www.springerlink.com/index/THW9RMVMVKLX9HAC.pdf). In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science: 213–17.
Soylu, A., De Causmaecker, Patrick. 2009.Merging model driven and ontology driven system development approaches pervasive
computing perspective (https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISCIS.2009.5291915). in Proc 24th Intl Symposium on Computer and
Information Sciences. pp 730–735.
Smith, B. Ontology (Science) (http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2027/version/2), in C. Eschenbach and M. Gruninger
(eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Proceedings of FOIS 2008, Amsterdam/New York: ISO Press, 21–35.
Staab, S. & Studer, R. (2009). Handbook on Ontologies. 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Uschold, Mike & Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc
/download?doi=10.1.1.111.5903&rep=rep1&type=pdf). Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2).
W. Pidcock, What are the differences between a vocabulary, a taxonomy, a thesaurus, an ontology, and a meta-model?
(http://infogrid.org/wiki/Reference/PidcockArticle)
Yudelson, M., Gavrilova, T., & Brusilovsky, P. 2005. Towards User Modeling Meta-ontology (http://www.springerlink.com/index
/3n0ekp8dgm4v3pr2.pdf). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3538: 448.
Movshovitz-Attias, Dana and Cohen, William W. (2012) Bootstrapping Biomedical Ontologies for Scientific Text using NELL
(http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dmovshov/papers/dma_bioNELL_bioNLP2012.pdf). BioNLP in NAACL, Association for Computational
Linguistics, 2012.

External links
Knowledge Representation (http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Knowledge_Management/Knowledge_Representation/) at Open
Directory Project
Library of ontologies (http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Protege_Ontology_Library)
GoPubMed (http://www.GoPubMed.com) using Ontologies for searching
ONTOLOG (http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki) (a.k.a. "Ontolog Forum (http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/)") - an Open,
International, Virtual Community of Practice on Ontology, Ontological Engineering and Semantic Technology
Use of Ontologies in Natural Language Processing (http://trimc-nlp.blogspot.com/2013/08/nlp-driven-ontology-modeling-for.html)
Ontology Summit (http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit) - an annual series of events (first started in 2006) that
involves the ontology community and communities related to each year's theme chosen for the summit.
Standardization of Ontologies (http://kore-nordmann.de/talks/09_04_standardization_of_ontologies_paper.pdf)