Ontology versioning on the Semantic Web

By Michel C. A. Klein, Dieter A. Fensel. International Conference on Semantic Web & Web Services, 2001

372 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7a02ab5e20675ad066a5bec3a0109663b42c7779

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies: Where is their meeting point? (2003, methodology): “However, many other methods and methodologies have been proposed for other tasks, such as ontology reengineering [29], ontology learning [2] [45], ontology evaluation [25] [27] [35] [36] [41] [42], ontology evolution [47] [48] [58] [63], ontology merging [59], etc.”
Semantic integration: a survey of ontology-based approaches (2004, background): “In part summarizing earlier surveys, Klein [ 16 ] categorizes different types of mismatches between ontologies.”
Promptdiff: a fixed-point algorithm for comparing ontology versions (2002, background): “Examples include the emergence of the Semantic Web with formal ontologies as its backbone and the development of easy-to-use tools, which significantly lowered the barrier for ontology development.”
Methods and tools for ontology evolution (2004, background): “The ontology versioning is analysed in [66].”
Ontology Versioning and Change Detection on the Web (2002, background): “Hence, a change in the specification does not necessarily coincide with a change in the conceptualization [14], and changes in the specification of an ontology are not per definition ontological changes.”
User-Driven Ontology Evolution Management (2002, background): “A modification in one part of the ontology may generate subtle inconsistencies in other parts of the same ontology, in the ontology-based instances as well as in depending ontologies and applications [11].”
Ontology change: classification and survey (2008, methodology): “These facts raise the need to support and maintain different interoperable versions of the same ontology (Heﬂin et al. 1999), (Huang & Stuckenschmidt 2005), (Klein et al. 2002), a problem greatly interwoven with ontology change (Klein & Fensel 2001).”