Change and Version Management in Variability Models for Modular Ontologies

Melanie Langermeier, Thomas Driessen, Heiner Oberkampf, Peter Rosina, Bernhard Bauer


Modular ontology management tries to overcome the disadvantages of large ontologies regarding reuse and performance. A possibility for the formalization of the various combinations are variability models, which originate from the software product line domain. Similar to that domain, knowledge models can then be individualized for a specific application through selection and exclusion of modules. However, the ontology repository as well as the requirements of the domain are not stable over time. A process is needed, that enables knowledge engineers and domain experts to adapt the principles of version and change management to the domain of modular ontology management. In this paper, we define the existing change scenarios and provide support for keeping the repository, the variability model and also the configurations consistent using Semantic Web technologies. The approach is presented with a use case from the enterprise architecture domain as running example.


  1. Bao, J., Caragea, D., and Honavar, V. G. (2006). Modular ontologies - a formal investigation of semantics and expressivity. In Proceedings of the First Asian conference on The Semantic Web, ASWC'06, pages 616- 631, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.
  2. Beuche, D., Papajewski, H., and Schröder-Preikschat, W. (2004). Variability Management with Feature Models. Science of Computer Programming, 53(3).
  3. Borgida, A. and Serafini, L. (2003). Distributed Description Logics: Assimilating Information from Peer Sources. Journal on Data Semantics, 1:153-184.
  4. Chen, L., Babar, M. A., and Ali, N. (2009). Variability management in software product lines: a systematic review. In Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC'09, pages 81- 90.
  5. Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., and Sirin, E. (2009). Modular ontologies. chapter Ontology Integration Using E - Connections, pages 293-320. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  6. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., and Eisenecker, U. (2004). Staged Configuration Using Feature Models. In Nord, R. L., editor, Software Product Lines, volume 3154 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 266-283.
  7. Ensan, F. (2010). Semantic Interface-Based Modular Ontology Framework. PhD thesis, University of New Brunswick.
  8. Flouris, G., Manakanatas, D., Kondylakis, H., Plexousakis, D., and Antoniou, G. (2008). Ontology change: classification and survey. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 23(2).
  9. Kang, K., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Shin, E., and Huh, M. (1998). FORM: A feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Annals of Software Engineering, 5(1):143-168.
  10. Kang, K. C., Cohen, S. G., Hess, J. A., Novak, W. E., and Peterson, A. S. (1990). Feature-oriented domain analysis (foda) feasibility study. Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon University Software Engineering Institute.
  11. Klein, M. (2001). Combining and relating ontolgies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In IJCAI 2001 Workshop on ontologies and information sharing, pages 53-62.
  12. Langermeier, M., Rosina, P., Oberkampf, H., Driessen, T., and Bauer, B. (2013). Management of Variability in Modular Ontology Development. In International Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering, Berlin.
  13. Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and Parsia, B. (2012). OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (Second Edition). W3C Recommendation.
  14. Noy, N. F., Griffith, N., and Musen, M. A. (2008). Collecting community-based mappings in an ontology repository. The Semantic Web-ISWC 2008, pages 371-386.
  15. Plessers, P., De Troyer, O., and Casteleyn, S. (2007). Understanding ontology evolution: A change detection approach. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 5(1):39-49.
  16. Sinnema, M. and Deelstra, S. (2007). Classifying variability modeling techniques. Journal of Information and Software Technology, 49(7).
  17. Spaccapietra, S., Menken, M., Stuckenschmidt, H., Wache, H., Serafini, L., and Tamilin, A. (2005). Report on Modularization of Ontologies. Knowledge Web Consortium, (D2.1.3.1).
  18. Stojanovic, L., Maedche, A., Motik, B., and Stojanovic, N. (2002). User-driven ontology evolution management. In Knowledge engineering and knowledge management: ontologies and the semantic web, pages 285- 300. Springer.
  19. Stuckenschmidt, H. and Klein, M. (2007). Reasoning and change management in modular ontologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering, (63):200-233.
  20. Stuckenschmidt, H., Parent, C., and Spaccapietra, S., editors (2009). Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization, volume 5445 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Langermeier M., Driessen T., Oberkampf H., Rosina P. and Bauer B. (2014). Change and Version Management in Variability Models for Modular Ontologies . In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-028-4, pages 383-390. DOI: 10.5220/0004953603830390

in Bibtex Style

author={Melanie Langermeier and Thomas Driessen and Heiner Oberkampf and Peter Rosina and Bernhard Bauer},
title={Change and Version Management in Variability Models for Modular Ontologies},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,
TI - Change and Version Management in Variability Models for Modular Ontologies
SN - 978-989-758-028-4
AU - Langermeier M.
AU - Driessen T.
AU - Oberkampf H.
AU - Rosina P.
AU - Bauer B.
PY - 2014
SP - 383
EP - 390
DO - 10.5220/0004953603830390