Appl. Ontology最新文献

{"title":"Corpus-based terminological evaluation of ontologies","authors":"M. Rospocher, Sara Tonelli, L. Serafini, E. Pianta","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0114","url":null,"abstract":"We present a novel system for corpus-based terminological evaluation of ontologies. Starting from the assumption that a domain of interest can be represented through a corpus of text documents, we first extract a list of domain-specific key-concepts from the corpus, rank them by relevance, and then apply various evaluation metrics to assess the terminological coverage of a domain ontology with respect to the list of key-concepts.Among the advantages of the proposed approach, we remark that the framework is highly automatizable, requiring little human intervention. The evaluation framework is made available online through a collaborative wiki-based system, which can be accessed by different users, from domain experts to knowledge engineers.We performed a comprehensive experimental analysis of our approach, showing that the proposed ontology metrics allow for assessing the terminological coverage of an ontology with respect to a given domain, and that our framework can be effectively applied to many evaluation-related scenarios.","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122764220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond terminologies: Using psychometrics to validate shared ontologies","authors":"D. Linden, S. Hoppenbrouwers, Alina Lartseva, W. Molnar","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0115","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we present our vision of how the practice of ontology analysis and engineering could be used to support the integration of conceptual models capturing various different aspects of an enterprise, originating from different stakeholders. Creating an overall enterprise model or architecture requires a deep understanding not only of what the words used in models mean to their creators, but also how the various modelers interpret the meta-conceptual constructs they use i.e., categories in the modeling language. We argue this cannot be achieved by assuming a priori consensus on the used semantics as is common practice, but that we need to incorporate methods that let us discover the existing categorization tendencies of specialized discourse communities and their individual members. Thus, we propose that conceptual integration in enterprise modeling, and perhaps also in other fields, would strongly benefit from an approach to Ontology that is more concerned with figuring out how people actually categorize than with stipulating how they ought to categorize. To show the possibilities such an approach offers we describe how the semantic differential can be adapted to fit this need and demonstrate its application by investigating the categorization tendencies of some computing science students in regard to modeling notation constructs.","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132588265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A type-theoretical approach for ontologies: The case of roles","authors":"P. Barlatier, R. Dapoigny","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0113","url":null,"abstract":"In the domain of ontology design as well as in Knowledge Representation, modeling universals is a challenging problem. Most approaches that have addressed this problem rely on Description Logics DLs but many difficulties remain, due to under-constrained representation which reduces the inferences that can be drawn and further causes problems in expressiveness. In mathematical logic and program checking, type theories have proved to be appealing but, so far they have not been applied in the formalization of ontologies. To bridge this gap, we present in this paper a theory for representing ontologies in a dependently-typed framework which relies on strong formal foundations including both a constructive logic and a functional type system. The language of this theory defines in a precise way what ontological primitives such as classes, relations, properties, etc., and thereof roles, are. The first part of the paper details how these primitives are defined and used within the theory. In a second part, we focus on the formalization of the role primitive. A review of significant role properties leads to the specification of a role profile and most of the remaining work details through numerous examples, how the proposed theory is able to fully satisfy this profile. It is demonstrated that dependent types can model several non-trivial aspects of roles including a formal solution for generalization hierarchies, identity criteria for roles and other contributions. A discussion is given on how the theory is able to cope with many of the constraints inherent in a good role representation.","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"52 Pt 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126239756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ontological modelling of form and function for architectural design","authors":"M. Bhatt, J. Hois, O. Kutz","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0104","url":null,"abstract":"Form, function and the relationship between the two serve a crucial role in design. Within architectural design, key aspects of the anticipated function of buildings, or of spatial environments in general, are supposed to be supported by their structural form, i.e., their shape, layout, or connectivity. Whereas the philosophy of form and function is a well-researched topic, the practical relations and dependencies between form and function are only known implicitly by designers and architects. Specifically, the formal modelling of structural forms and resulting artefactual functions within design and design assistance systems remains elusive.In our work, we aim at making these definitions explicit by ontologically modelling respective domain entities, their properties and related constraints. We interpret “structural form” and “artefactual function” by specifying modular ontologies and their interplay for the architectural design domain. A key aspect in our modelling approach is the use of formal conceptual requirements and qualitative spatial calculi as a link between the structural form of a design and the differing functional capabilities that it affords or leads to. We demonstrate how our ontological modelling reflects types of architectural form and function, and how it facilitates the conceptual modelling of requirement constraints in architectural design.","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121127635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ontology for Big Systems: The Ontology Summit 2012 Communiqué","authors":"Todd Schneider, Ali Hashemi, Mike Bennett, Mary Brady, Cory Casanave, H. Graves, M. Grüninger, Nicola Guarino, Anatoly Levenchuk, Ernie Lucier, L. Obrst, S. Ray, Ram D. Sriram, Amanda Vizedom, M. West, Trish Whetzel, Peter Yim","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0111","url":null,"abstract":"The Ontology Summit 2012 explored the current and potential uses of ontology, its methods and paradigms, in big systems and big data: How ontology can be used to design, develop, and operate such systems. The systems addressed were not just software systems, although software systems are typically core and necessary components, but more complex systems that include multiple kinds and levels of human and community interaction with physical-software systems, systems of systems, and the socio-technical environments for those systems which can include cultural, legal, and economic components. The focus themes used for this exploration were Big Systems Engineering, Big Data Challenge, Large Scale Domain Applications, and cross-cutting aspects Ontology Quality, and Federation and Integration of Systems.The Ontology Summit 2012 consisted of over three months of intensive virtual collaborative elaboration of these issues in presentations, panels, and group email. The culmination of these activities was a face-to-face Symposium at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 12--13 April 2012. The primary product of this Ontology Summit is the communique reported here. But there are other products, some continuing as collaborative, more specifically focused analysis and modeling efforts aligned with various open standards activities.Behind all of these particular products, of course, is the real overriding purpose of the Ontology Summit 2012, which was: the joint collaboration of three distinct communities, the ontology, systems engineering and big systems stakeholder communities, who came together to address common problems, create common understanding and propose common solutions.","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128736378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A formal ontology for industrial maintenance","authors":"Mohamed-Hedi Karray, B. Chebel-Morello, N. Zerhouni","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0112","url":null,"abstract":"The rapid advancement of information and communication technologies has resulted in a variety of maintenance support systems and tools covering all sub-domains of maintenance. Most of these systems are based on different models that are sometimes redundant or incoherent and always heterogeneous. This problem has lead to the development of maintenance platforms integrating all of these support systems. The main problem confronted by these integration platforms is to provide semantic interoperability between different applications within the same environment. In this aim, we have developed an ontology for the field of industrial maintenance, adopting the METHONTOLOGY approach to manage the life cycle development of this ontology, that we have called IMAMO Industrial MAintenance Management Ontology. This ontology can be used not only to ensure semantic interoperability but also to generate new knowledge that supports decision making in the maintenance process. This paper provides and discusses some tests so as to evaluate the ontology and to show how it can ensure semantic interoperability and generate new knowledge within the platform.","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114452720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Engineering use cases for modular development of ontologies in OWL","authors":"A. Rector, S. Brandt, Nick Drummond, M. Horridge, Colin Puleston, R. Stevens","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0107","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents use cases for modular development of ontologies using the OWL imports mechanism. Many of the methods are inspired by work in modular development in software engineering. The approach is aimed at developers of large ontologies covering multiple subdomains that make use of OWL reasoners for inference. Such ontologies are common in biomedical sciences, but nothing in the paper is specific to biomedicine. There are four groups of use cases: (i) organisation and factoring of ontologies; (ii) maintaining stable interfaces and bindings between ontologies and between ontologies and software; (iii) localization of ontologies to the requirements of specific sites and (iv) extension of ontologies and encapsulation of modifications. OWL's axiom-oriented import mechanism has many similarities with import mechanisms in object-oriented software but also important differences - in particular, the effects of OWL imports are global, and the order in which modules are imported is irrelevant. The advantages and disadvantages of OWL's axiom-oriented approach are discussed, and suggestions are made for extensions to allow axioms to be filtered out as well as added - a mechanism that we term “adaptation” to distinguish it from the standard import mechanism. Finally we discuss possible alternatives and practical experience with the approaches presented.","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"8 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133169950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Towards ABox Modularization of semi-expressive Description Logics","authors":"S. Wandelt, Ralf Möller","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0105","url":null,"abstract":"In the last years, the vision of the Semantic Web fostered the interest in reasoning over large and very large sets of assertional statements in knowledge bases. Traditional tableau-based reasoning systems perform bad answering queries over large data sets, because these reasoning systems are based on efficient use of main memory data structures. Increasing expressivity and worst-case complexity further tighten the memory burden. The purpose of our work is to investigate how to release the main memory burden from tableau-based reasoning systems and perform efficient instance checking over SHI-knowledge bases. \u0000 \u0000The key idea is to reduce instance checking for an individual in a knowledge base to smaller subsets of relevant axioms. Modularization techniques are introduced and further refined in order to increase the granularity of modules. \u0000 \u0000For evaluation purposes, experiments on benchmark and real world knowledge bases are carried out. The principal conclusion is that the main memory burden for instance checking can be released from tableau-based reasoning systems for semi-expressive Description Logics, by using modularization techniques.","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130664603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Modularity in ontologies","authors":"O. Kutz, J. Hois","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0109","url":null,"abstract":"In the past 10 years, modularity has been established as a central research topic in ontology engineering. Several approaches and techniques have been investigated and developed in detail to characterise and deal with modularity [1]. Theoretical as well as practical aspects of modularity have become essential to the design of ontologies. They aim at reducing complexity, improving maintenance, and support reasoning over modules [2]. However, the field is still highly active and widely accepted solutions are yet to be determined. The 4 articles in this special issue present thoroughly investigated approaches that contribute to modularity in ontologies on quite distinct, but equally important layers, which we will sketch below in more detail. The number of ontologies available nowadays, as well as their size, is steadily increasing. There is a large variation in subject matter, level of specification and detail, intended purpose and application. Ontologies covering several domains at once are often developed in a distributed manner addressing the various aspects, but also such that contributions from distinct sources may be relevant for different parts of a single domain. Not only is it difficult to determine and define interrelations between such distributed ontologies, it is also challenging to reconcile ontologies which might be consistent on their own but jointly inconsistent. Further challenges include extracting the relevant parts of an ontology, re-combining independently developed ontologies in order to form new ones, determining the modular structure of an ontology for comprehension, and the use of ontology modules to facilitate incremental reasoning and version control. Still catching up with 40 years of related research in software engineering (cf. e.g. [3, 4]), modularity in ontologies is envisaged to allow mechanisms for easy and flexible reuse, generalisation, structuring, maintenance, collaboration, design patterns, and comprehension [5]. Applied to ontology engineering, modularity is central not only to reducing the complexity of understanding ontologies, but also to maintaining, querying and reasoning over modules. Distinctions between modules can be drawn on the basis of structural, semantic, or functional aspects, which can also be applied to compositions of ontologies or to indicate links between ontologies. In particular, reuse and sharing of information and resources across ontologies depend on purposespecific, logically versatile criteria. Such purposes include ‘tight’ logical integration of different ontologies (wholly or in part), ‘loose’ association and information exchange, the detection of overlapping parts, traversing through different ontologies, alignment of vocabularies, as well as module extraction possibly respecting privacy concerns and hiding of information, etc. Another important aspect of modularity in ontologies is the problem of evaluating the quality of single modules or of the achieved overall modularisation","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132904805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Common Logic and the Horatio problem","authors":"F. Neuhaus, P. Hayes","doi":"10.3233/AO-2012-0108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0108","url":null,"abstract":"Modules allow the reuse of an ontology as part of another ontology. If the ontologies do not share a common domain of discourse a simple ‘cut and paste’ approach to module reuse leads to unintended consequences, the Horatio problem. To solve this problem ISO/IEC 24707's Common Logic includes modules as a syntactic category. However, the semantics of modules is treated incongruently in ISO/IEC 24707. In this paper we propose an alternative semantics of modules, discuss their logical properties, and how they can be used in ontology development.","PeriodicalId":266832,"journal":{"name":"Appl. Ontology","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124581541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}