<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Proposal of New Approach for Ontology Modularization</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Amir Souissi</string-name>
          <email>Amir.souissi@planet.tn</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Walid Chainbi</string-name>
          <email>Walid.chainbi@gmail.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Khaled Ghedira</string-name>
          <email>Khaled.ghedira@isg.rnu.tn</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Ecole Nationale des Sciences de l'Informatique /SOIE - Manouba -</institution>
          <country country="TN">Tunisia</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Institut supérieur de gestion de Tunis /SOIE -</institution>
          <country country="TN">Tunisia</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Sousse National School of Engineers /SOIE</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Sousse 4054 -</addr-line>
          <country country="TN">Tunisia</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Ontologies have established themselves as a powerful tool to enable knowledge sharing, and a growing number of applications have benefited from the use of ontologies as a means to achieve semantic interoperability among heterogeneous, distributed systems [1]. With the evolution of cooperative and distributed systems, and the emergence of the semantic Web, ontologies have become an indispensable resource. The number of ontologies available on the Web has also increased due to the appearance of several tools that assist users in creating their ontologies. This has posed problems of understanding and reuse of those resources already difficult to design. A solution was then proposed by the knowledge engineers namely modularization. Ontology modularization is crucial to support knowledge reuse on the ever increasing semantic Web [2]. However, modularization methods that serve the reuse goal are often intended for humans to assist them in building new ontologies, rather than for applications that need only a relevant part of an existing ontology. Moreover, modules obtained are always subject to verification and maintenance by humans to validate the semantic consistency of their contents. Unlike previous studies, we investigate in this paper how a modularization based on semantic comparison, may provide a module directly reusable by the application that requests it. Our contribution is twofold. On the one hand, it allows an application to extract and use a module that covers a subdomain from an ontology that covers a wider knowledge area, regardless of its structure and the formalism with which it is expressed. On the other hand, the user is relieved from manually estimating the meaning of the components of the ontology, after the modularization process.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        The modularization approach we propose is part of the decomposition approaches
of monolithic ontologies [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3 ref4">3,4</xref>
        ]. It is an extraction method since
it aims to extract a relevant ontology module. The method should allow the user to
express its needs by entering the concepts which interest him. The result is a fragment
composed of concepts and relations that are relevant to the module i.e., which are in
strong semantic relationship with the concepts submitted by the user. We define a
strong semantic relationship between two concepts, as one of the six logic functions
as follows:
─ Identity relationship: it is a semantic relation between two concepts that have the
same syntax, the same attributes and operations. Example: Identity (Person,
Person).
─ Synonymy relationship: it is a semantic relation between two concepts that express
the same meaning. Example: Synonymy (Person, Individual).
─ Classification Is-a relationship: two concepts where one is expressing a particular
case of the other. Example: Is-a (Student, Person).
─ Homonymy relationship: the same concept can have two different meanings.
Example: Homonymy (Bug, Bug). The first one means an insect. The second one
means a fault in a computer system.
─ Equivalence relationship: a semantic relationship between two concepts that play
the same role. Example: Equivalence (Teacher, Professor).
─ Antonymy relationship: is used between two concepts totally disjoint. Example:
Antonymy (Registered, Visitor).
      </p>
      <p>For example, in an ontology that describes the human anatomy, the user is only
interested in the anatomy of the foot. The method should extract a coherent module,
semantically rich on the foot, from the ontology of departure.</p>
      <p>Our approach is based on two basic steps:
─ 1st step: Identifying concepts that are in strong semantic relationship with external
concepts.
─ 2nd step: composition of the module based on the concepts identified in Step 1. All
concepts that appear in the definition of the concepts identified are considered part
of the module.</p>
      <p>The goal is to allow a program to extract automatically a single part of an ontology
without human intervention and without restrictions on the ontology structure. This
will help programs to satisfy their requirements by reusing directly ontology portions.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chainbi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>An Ontology Based Multi-Agent System Conceptual Model</article-title>
          , In Special Issue of the International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, Inderscience Publishers, Vol.
          <volume>31</volume>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nos</surname>
          </string-name>
          . 1/2, pp.
          <fpage>35</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>44</lpage>
          , (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Cuenca</given-names>
            <surname>Grau</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Horrocks</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Kazakov</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Sattler</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>U.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Just the Right Amount: Extracting Modules from Ontologies</article-title>
          . In International World Wide Web conference, (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Seidenberg</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.: Web Ontology Segmentation: Extraction, Transformation, Evaluation. In Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Christine Parent, Stefano Spaccapietra (Eds.),
          <source>Modular Ontologies concepts</source>
          ,
          <source>Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization</source>
          , Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, LNCS
          <volume>5445</volume>
          , pages
          <fpage>211</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>243</lpage>
          , (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stuckenschmidt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Klein</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Strutured-based Partitioning of large concept hierarchies</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference</source>
          , (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>