论文标题
对本体和本体中多语言的评论
A Review of Multilingualism in and for Ontologies
论文作者
论文摘要
多语言语义网已经关注了十多年。链接数据和RDF中的多语言主义已显示出大量采用,但是自15年前上一篇评论以来,本体论尚不清楚。猫头鹰的设计目标之一是国际化,其目的是在语言和文化之间使用本体。同时,已经进行了许多改进多语言本体论的研究,并且大概是多语言链接的数据可以使用多语言本体。因此,这篇综述试图(i)阐明和比较多语言本体论的建模选项,(ii)检查其多语言主义的现存本体,(iii)评估本体论编辑者的多语言本体学的能力。确定了在本体论中建模多语言性的九种不同主要方法,这些方法属于以下方法中的一种:使用多语言标签,语言模型或基于映射的方法。通过临时可视化模式比较它们,以建模为本体论,缺点以及他们旨在解决哪些问题的多语言信息。对于本体论,我们从Bioportal和LOV存储库中提取了生产级别和可访问的本体,这些本体最多只有6.77%和15.74%的多语言本体论,其中大多数人只有部分翻译,并且它们仅使用基于标签的方法。基于一组九组用于管理多语言本体论的工具要求,对七个相关本体编辑的评估表明,工具支持方面存在很大的差距,而VOCBench 3最接近满足它们。这种库存可能是新的基线,并激发了多语言本体论的新研究方向。
The Multilingual Semantic Web has been in focus for over a decade. Multilingualism in Linked Data and RDF has shown substantial adoption, but this is unclear for ontologies since the last review 15 years ago. One of the design goals for OWL was internationalisation, with the aim that an ontology is usable across languages and cultures. Much research to improve on multilingual ontologies has taken place in the meantime, and presumably multilingual linked data could use multilingual ontologies. Therefore, this review seeks to (i) elucidate and compare the modelling options for multilingual ontologies, (ii) examine extant ontologies for their multilingualism, and (iii) evaluate ontology editors for their ability to manage a multilingual ontology. Nine different principal approaches for modelling multilinguality in ontologies were identified, which fall into either of the following approaches: using multilingual labels, linguistic models, or a mapping-based approach. They are compared on design by means of an ad hoc visualisation mode of modelling multilingual information for ontologies, shortcomings, and what issues they aim to solve. For the ontologies, we extracted production-level and accessible ontologies from BioPortal and the LOV repositories, which had, at best, 6.77% and 15.74% multilingual ontologies, respectively, where most of them have only partial translations and they all use a labels-based approach only. Based on a set of nine tool requirements for managing multilingual ontologies, the assessment of seven relevant ontology editors showed that there are significant gaps in tooling support, with VocBench 3 nearest of meeting them all. This stock-taking may function as a new baseline and motivate new research directions for multilingual ontologies.