Skip to main content

Analyzing a Process Core Ontology and Its Usefulness for Different Domains

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC 2021)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1439))

Abstract

A well-specified strategy should define and integrate consistently three capabilities: process, method, and common vocabulary specifications. The domain vocabularies of different strategies should be built on common reference terminologies. For example, a process ontology should be a common reference since it considers cross-cutting concerns for different domains. This work specifies and defines the main terms of ProcessCO (Process Core Ontology). This is an ontology placed at the core level in the context of a four-layered ontological architecture. A practical use of an upper-level ontology is to semantically enrich the lowest-level ontologies. For example, ThingFO (an ontology at the foundational level in that architecture) enriches ProcessCO. Since ProcessCO is at the core level, ontologies at the domain level benefit from reusing and extending its concepts. Therefore, ProcessCO can be seen as a reusable resource to semantically enrich domain ontologies. To illustrate its applicability, this work shows the semantic enrichment of two top-domain ontologies. By using ProcessCO (and other core ontologies) as a common terminological reference, the domain ontologies used in the different strategies are conceptually harmonized. Hence, strategies ensure terminological uniformity and consistency, thus facilitating the understanding of process and method specifications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arnicans, G., Romans, D., Straujums, U.: Semi-automatic generation of a software testing lightweight ontology from a glossary based on the ONTO6 methodology. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 249, pp. 263–276 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Becker, P., Olsina, L., Peppino, D., Tebes, G.: Specifying the process model for systematic reviews: an augmented proposal. J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev. (JSERD) 7, 1–23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.5753/jserd.2019.460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, P., Papa, F., Olsina, L.: Process ontology specification for enhancing the process compliance of a measurement and evaluation strategy. CLEI Electron. J. 18(1), 1–26 (2015). https://doi.org/10.19153/cleiej.18.1.2

  4. Bringuente, A.C., Falbo, R.A., Guizzardi, G.: Using a foundational ontology for reengineering a software process ontology. J. Inf. Data Manag. 2(3), 511–526 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cai, L., Tong, W., Liu, Z., Zhang, J.: Test case reuse based on ontology. In: 15th IEEE Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing, pp. 103–108 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Corcho, O., Fernández-López, M., Gómez-Pérez, A.: Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point? Data Knowl. Eng. 46(1), 41–64 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Curtis, B., Kellner, M., Over, J.: Process modelling. Commun. ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. D’Aquin, M., Gangemi, A.: Is there beauty in ontologies? Appl. Ontol. 6(3), 165–175 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garanina, N.O., Anureev, I.S., Borovikova, O.I.: Verification-oriented process ontology. Autom. Control. Comput. Sci. 53(7), 584–594 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3103/S0146411619070058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowl. Acquis. 5(2), 199–220 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.: Grounding software domain ontologies in the unified foundational ontology (UFO): the case of the ODE software process ontology. In: 11th Conferencia Iberoamericana de Software Engineering (CIbSE 2008), pp. 127–140 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. ISO/IEC 12207: Systems and software engineering - Software life cycle processes (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Olsina, L., Becker, P.: Family of strategies for different evaluation purposes. In: 20th Conferencia Iberoamericana en Software Engineering (CIbSE 2017) held in the framework of ICSE, CABA, Argentina, pp. 221–234. Curran Associates (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Olsina, L.: Analyzing the usefulness of ThingFO as a foundational ontology for sciences. In: Proceedings of ASSE 2020, Argentine Symposium on Software Engineering, 49 JAIIO, Held Virtually, CABA, Argentina, October 2020, pp. 172–191 (2020). ISSN 2451-7593

    Google Scholar 

  15. OMG-SPEM: Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification v2.0 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Renault, L., Barcellos, M., Falbo, R.: Using an ontology-based approach for integrating applications to support software processes. In: 17th Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality (SBQS), pp. 220–229. ACM, New York (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ruiz, F., Hilera, J.R.: Using ontologies in software engineering and technology. In: Calero, C., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M. (eds.) Ontologies in Software Engineering and Software Technology, pp. 49–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-34518-3_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Ruy, F.B., Falbo, R.A., Barcellos, M.P., Costa, S.D., Guizzardi, G.: SEON: a software engineering ontology network. In: 20th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp. 527–542 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tebes, G., Olsina, L., Peppino, D., Becker, P.: TestTDO: a top-domain software testing ontology. In: 23rd CIbSE 2020, pp. 364–377. Curran Associates (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  20. van Heijst, G., Schreiber, A.Th., Wielinga, B.J.: Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 46, 183–292 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This line of research is supported partially by the Engineering School at UNLPam, in the project named “Family of Strategies for Functional and Non-Functional Software Testing considering Different Test Goal Purposes”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pablo Becker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Becker, P., Papa, F., Tebes, G., Olsina, L. (2021). Analyzing a Process Core Ontology and Its Usefulness for Different Domains. In: Paiva, A.C.R., Cavalli, A.R., Ventura Martins, P., Pérez-Castillo, R. (eds) Quality of Information and Communications Technology. QUATIC 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1439. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85347-1_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85347-1_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85346-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85347-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics