The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Data modelling versus ontology engineering
Abstract
Ontologies in current computer science parlance are computer based resources that represent agreed domain semantics. Unlike data models, the fundamental asset of ontologies is their relative independence of particular applications, i.e. an ontology consists of relatively generic knowledge that can be reused by different kinds of applications/tasks. The first part of this paper concerns some aspects that help to understand the differences and similarities between ontologies and data models. In the second part we present an ontology engineering framework that supports and favours the genericity of an ontology. We introduce the DOGMA ontology engineering approach that separates "atomic" conceptual relations from "predicative" domain rules. A DOGMA ontology consists of an ontology base that holds sets of intuitive context-specific conceptual relations and a layer of "relatively generic" ontological commitments that hold the domain rules. This constitutes what we shall call the double articulation of a DOGMA ontology 1 .
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing?
Gruber, T. R. (1995) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081 · Cited by 7,753
Ontologies: principles, methods and applications
Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (1996) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888900007797 · Cited by 3,524
Ontologies and Knowledge Bases. Towards a Terminological Clarification
Guarino, N., Uniti, S., & Giaretta, P. (1995) · Cited by 824
Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean
Guarino, N., & Welty, C. (2002) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/503124.503150 · Cited by 760
Information Modeling and Relational Databases: From Conceptual Analysis to Logical Design
Halpin, T., & Morgan, T. (2001) · Cited by 353
Economie des changements phonetiques
Householder, F. W., & Martinet, A. (1957) · The American Journal of Philology · doi:10.2307/291731 · Cited by 245
Towards very large knowledge bases, knowledge building and knowledge sharing 1995
Mars, N. J. I. (1995) · University of Twente Research Information · Cited by 232
So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically)
Sheth, A., & Kashyap, V. (1993) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-89879-1.50022-1 · Cited by 218
Generic Tasks and Task Structures: History, Critique and New Directions
Chandrasekaran, B., & Johnson, T. R. (1993) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-77927-5_12 · Cited by 126
Formal Ontology Engineering in the DOGMA Approach
Jarrar, M., & Meersman, R. (2002) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-36124-3_78 · Cited by 107
Self-citation
Cited by
Sanchez-Morillo, D., Fernandez-Granero, M. A., & Leon-Jimenez, A. (2016) · Chronic Respiratory Disease · doi:10.1177/1479972316642365 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Spyns, P., Meersman, R., & Jarrar, M.
- Venue
- ACM SIGMOD Record
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 12-17
- ISSN
- 0163-5808 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2071816903
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 21.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Data modelling versus ontology engineering. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/637411.637413
- The paper
- Spyns, P., Meersman, R., & Jarrar, M. (2002). Data modelling versus ontology engineering. ACM SIGMOD Record. https://doi.org/10.1145/637411.637413
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.