Advertisement

Using ontologies to capture the semantics of a (business) process for digital preservation

  • Rudolf Mayer
  • Gonçalo Antunes
  • Artur Caetano
  • Marzieh Bakhshandeh
  • Andreas Rauber
  • José Borbinha
Article

Abstract

IT-supported business processes and computationally intensive science (called e-science) have become increasingly ubiquitous in the last decades. Along with this trend comes the need to make at least the most important of these processes available for the long term, to allow later analysis of their execution, or even a re-execution. As such, the preservation of scientific experiments and their results enables others to reproduce and verify the results as well as build on the result of earlier work. All but the simplest processes require to be described by a multitude of information objects, as well as their interconnections and relations, to be successfully preserved. To enable a semantic description of these objects in a structured manner, we developed a formal meta-model that can be utilised in the digital preservation of a process. The meta-model describes classes of elements and their relations, in the form of ontologies, with a core ontology describing the generic concepts, and extension mechanisms to map supplementary ontologies describing more specific aspects. In this paper, we present the overall architecture and individual ontologies, and motivate their usefulness via the application to use cases from different domains.

Keywords

Digital preservation Process preservation Preservation metadata Context 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Part of this work was supported by the project TIMBUS, co-funded by the EU under the FP7 contract 269940, by national funds through FCT (Fundaçãao para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), under project PEstOE/EEI/LA0021/2013, the grant (SFRH/BD/69121/2010) to Gonçalo Antunes, and COMET K1, FFG - Austrian Research Promotion Agency.

References

  1. 1.
    Antunes, G., Bakhshandeh, M., Mayer, R., Borbinha, J., Caetano, A.: Using ontologies for enterprise architecture analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research Workshop (TEAR 2013), in Conjunction with the 17th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2013). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antunes, G., Barateiro, J., Proença, D., Silva, A., Caetano, A., Borbinha, J., Vieira, R., Freitas, R., Hecheltjen, M., Kolany, B., Yankova, S.: Deliverable use case definition and requirements: civil enginieering infrastructures. In: Proceedings of Technical Report (2012). http://timbusproject.net/resources/publications/public-project-deliverables
  3. 3.
    Antunes, G., Caetano, A., Bakhshandeh, M., Mayer, R., Borbinha, J.: Using ontologies for enterprise architecture model alignment. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Business and IT Alignment (BITA 2013). Poznan, Poland (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antunes, G., Caetano, A., Bakhshandeh, M., Mayer, R., Miri, H., Galushka, M., Draws, D., Coutinho, C.: Deliverable dependency models Iter. 2. In: Proceedings of Technical Report (2013). http://timbusproject.net/resources/publications/public-project-deliverables
  5. 5.
    Bakhshandeh, M., Antunes, G., Mayer, R., Borbinha, J., Caetano, A.: On the use of ontologies to specify and integrate enterprise architecture models. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Vocabularies, Ontologies and Rules for the Enterprise and Beyond (VORTE 2013), in conjunction with the 17th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2013) Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becker, C., Antunes, G., Barateiro, J., Vieira, R.: A capability model for digital preservation-analyzing concerns, drivers, constraints, capabilities and maturities. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (iPRES 2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becker, C., Kulovits, H., Guttenbrunner, M., Strodl, S., Rauber, A., Hofman, H.: Systematic planning for digital preservation: evaluating potential strategies and building preservation plans. IJDL 10(4), 133–157 (2009). doi: 10.1007/s00799-009-0057-1 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Binz, T., Leymann, F., Nowak, A., Schumm, D.: Improving the manageability of enterprise topologies through segmentation, graph transformation, and analysis strategies. In: Proceedings of 2012 16th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC) (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brocks, H., Kranstedt, A., Jaschke, G., Hemmje, M.: Modeling context for digital preservation. In: Szczerbicki, E., Nguyen, N.T. (eds.) Smart Information and Knowledge Management. Studies in Computational Intelligence, 260th edn, pp. 197–226. Springer, Berlin (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buckl, S., Buschle, M., Johnson, P., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: A meta-language for enterprise architecture analysis. In: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2011), London, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on basic philosophy. vol. 3, Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Reidel (1977)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buschle, M., Ullberg, J., Franke, U., Lagerström, R., Sommestad, T.: A tool for enterprise architecture analysis using the prm formalism. In: Proceedings of Information Systems Evolution, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 72, pp. 108–121. Springer, Berlin (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17722-4_8
  13. 13.
    Conway, E., Matthews, B., Giaretta, D., Lambert, S., Wilson, M.: Managing risks in the preservation of research data with preservation network. Int. J. Digit. Curation 7, 3–15 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer, R., Aier, S., Winter, R.: A federated approach to enterprise architecture model maintenance. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Arch. 2, 14–22 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Granger, S.: Emulation as a digital preservation strategy. In: Proceedings of D-Lib Magazine, vol. 6, p. 10 (2000). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/granger/10granger.html
  16. 16.
    Greefhorst, D., Proper, E.: Architecture Principles: The Cornerstones of Enterprise Architecture. The Enterprise Engineering Series. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. CTIT, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins, S.: The DCC curation lifecycle model. Int. J. Digit. Curation 3, 134–140 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO: ISO 31000: 2009 Risk management: principles and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO: Space data and information transfer systems: open archival information system: reference model (ISO 14721:2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO, IEC and IEEE: ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011: Systems and Software Engineering, Architecture Description. In: Proceedings of Technical Report (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M.: Enterprise architecture: models and analyses for information systems decision making. Studentlitteratur, Lund (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kolany-Raiser, B., Yankova, S.A., Bakhshandeh, M., Miri, H., Galushka, M., Caetano, A., Borbinha, J.: Towards a legal ontology for the digital preservation domain. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technology, Law, Protection, and Access Rights (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kramler, G., Kappel, G., Reiter, T., Kapsammer, E., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: Towards a semantic infrastructure supporting model-based tool integration. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Global Integrated Model Management (GaMMa ’06) (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication, and Analysis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise architecture modeling: the issue of integration. Adv. Eng. Inf. 18, 205–216 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marcum, D.B.: The preservation of digital information. J. Acad. Librariansh. 22(6), 451–454 (1996). doi: 10.1016/S0099-1333(96)90006-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Martin, R.A., Robertson, E.L., Springer, J.A.: Architectural principles for enterprise frameworks: guidance for interoperability. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Enterprise Integration Modelling and Technology 2004 (ICEIMT 2004), Toronto, Canada (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mayer, R., Rauber, A.: Towards time-resilient MIR processes. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2012), pp. 337–342. Porto, Portugal (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mayer, R., Rauber, A., Neumann, M.A., Thomson, J., Antunes, G.: Preserving scientific processes from design to publication. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL 2012), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7489, pp. 113–124. Springer, Cyprus (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33290-6_13
  31. 31.
    Mayer, R., Strodl, J.B.S., Rauber, A.: Automatic discovery of preservation alternatives supported by community maintained knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Digital Preservation (iPres 2014). Melbourne, Australia (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miksa, T., Proell, S., Mayer, R., Strodl, S., Vieira, R., Barateiro, J., Rauber, A.: Framework for verification of preserved and redeployed processes. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (IPRES2013). Lisbon, Portugal (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Toward a Standard Upper Ontology. In: Welty, C., Smith, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2001), pp. 2–9 (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0, vol. OMG Standard, formal/2011-01-03, 2011. Object Management Group (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pinto, H.S., Gomez-Perez, A., Martins, J.P.: Some issues on ontology integration. In: Proceedings of IJCAI99’s Workshop on Ontologies and Problem Solving Methods: Lessons Learned and Future Trends. Stockholm, Sweden (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    PREMIS Editorial Committee: Premis data dictionary for preservation metadata. In: Proceedings of Technical Report (2008). http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/v2/premis-2-0
  37. 37.
    Preuveneers, D., Van den Bergh, J., Wagelaar, D., Georges, A., Rigole, P., Clerckx, T., Berbers, Y., Coninx, K., Jonckers, V., De Bosschere, K.: Towards an extensible context ontology for ambient intelligence. In: Proceedings of Ambient Intelligence, pp. 148–159. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M.: A reference methodology for conducting ontological analyses. In: Proceedings of Conceptual Modeling-ER 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3288, pp. 110–121. Springer, Berlin (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30464-7_10
  39. 39.
    Sartor, G., Pompeu, C., Biasiotti, M.A., Fernández-Barrera, M. (eds.): Approaches to legal ontologies: Theories, Domains, Methodologies, vol. 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schekkerman, J.: How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework. Trafford Publishing, Berlin, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Strodl, S., Mayer, R., Antunes, G., Draws, D., Rauber, A.: Digital preservation of a process and its application to e-science experiments. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (IPRES2013), pp. 117–125. Lisbon, Portugal (2013)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    The Open Group: TOGAF version 9.1. Van Haren Publishing (2011)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. Van Haren Publishing (2012)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Treinen, R., Zacchiroli, S.: Description of the CUDF Format. In: Proceedings of Technical Report (2008). arXiv:abs/0811.3621
  45. 45.
    U. K. Ministry of Defence: MOD Architecture Framework, Version 1.2.004. U. K. Ministry of Defence (2010). http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/InformationManagement/MODAF
  46. 46.
    US Department of Defense: DoD Architecture Framework, Version 2.02. US Department of Defense (2010). http://dodcio.defense.gov/sites/dodaf20
  47. 47.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, 2nd edn. Technical Report (2012). W3C RecommendationGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Webb, C.: Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage. National Library of Australia (2005)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers & Lybrand, Melbourne (1997)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Witten, I., Frank, E.: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zivkovic, S., Kuhn, H., Karagiannis, D.: Facilitate modeling using method integration: An approach uisng mapping and integration. In: Proceesings of 15th European Conference in Information Systems (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rudolf Mayer
    • 1
  • Gonçalo Antunes
    • 2
  • Artur Caetano
    • 2
  • Marzieh Bakhshandeh
    • 2
  • Andreas Rauber
    • 1
    • 3
  • José Borbinha
    • 2
  1. 1.Secure Business AustriaViennaAustria
  2. 2.INESC-IDLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations