Advertisement

MDA-based Automatic OWL Ontology Development

  • Dragan GaševićEmail author
  • Dragan Djurić
  • Vladan Devedžić
Regular Contributions

Abstract

This paper presents an eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformation (XSLT)-based approach for automatic generation of the Web Ontology Language (OWL) from a UML model. Similar solutions that treat this problem are mostly partial since they do not use full metamodeling potentials. Although they emphasize the notion of the use UML for ontology development and propose necessary transformations into Semantic Web languages (e.g., RDF Schema, DAML, DAML+OIL), their UML models must be further refined using ontology-specialized tool. None of these approaches enables instance modeling and generation of OWL ontologies. In our efforts to make ontological and software engineering techniques closer, we have firstly defined ontology metamodeling architecture using Model Driven Architecture (MDA) concepts. This architecture consists of the Ontology Definition Metamodel defined using Meta Object Facility (MOF) and based on the OWL, as well as the related Ontology UML Profile (OUP). A transformation, that we present here, extends this metamodeling architecture and transforms an ontology from its OUP definition (i.e., XML Metadata Interchange – XMI) into the OWL description. Accordingly, we illustrate how an OUP-developed ontology can be shared with ontological engineering tools (i.e., Protégé).

Keywords

Ontology development Model Driven Architecture UML Profile OWL XSLT 

References

  1. 1.
    Baclawski K., Kokar M., Kogut P., Hart L., Smith J., Letkowski J., Emery P. (2002). Extending the Unified Modeling Language for ontology development. Int J Softw. Syst. Modeling 1(2):142–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baclawski, K., Kokar, M., Smith, J., Wallace, E., Letkowski, J., Koethe, M., Kogut, P.: UOL: Unified Ontology Language. Assorted papers discussed at the DC Ontology SIG meeting http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ontology/2002-11-02 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P., Stein, L.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C recommendation http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/ (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee T. (1999). Weaving the Web. Orion Business Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bézivin, J.: From Object Composition to Model Transformation with the MDA. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference and Exhibition on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, Santa Barbara, USA, pp. 350–355 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bock C. (2003). UML without pictures. IEEE Software 20(5):33–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.: (eds.) Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0. W3C Candidate Recommendation http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chandrasekaran B., Josephson J., Benjamins R. (1999). What are ontologies, and why do we need them?. IEEE Intell. Syst. 14(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaudhri, V., Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., Karp, P., Rice, J.: OKBC: A programmatic foundation for knowledge base interoperability. In: Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 600–607 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and Exchange using UML and RDF. J. Digi. inf. 1(8) http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Damjanović V. (2003). Semantic Web, Ontologies, and Agents. Honors degree thesis, University of Belgrade, Serbia and MontenegroGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Denny, M.: Ontology Tools Survey, Revisited http://www. xml.com/lpt/a/2004/07/14/onto.html (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Devedžić V. (2002). Understanding Ontological Engineering. Communications of the ACM 45(4):136–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dirckze, R. (ed.) Java Metadata Interface (JMI) Specification Version 1.0 http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/final/jsr040/index.html (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Djurić D., Gašević D., Devedžić V. (2005). Ontology modeling and MDA. J. Object Techno. 4(1):109–129Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duddy K. (2002). UML2 must enable a family of languages. Commun. ACM 45(11):73–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falkovych K., Sabou M., Stuckenschmidt H. (2003). UML for the semantic web: Transformation-based approaches. In: Omelayenko B, Klein M (eds) Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 95. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 92–106Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fensel D., van Harmelen F., Horrocks I., McGuinness D., Patel-Schneider P. (2001). OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the semantic web. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16(2):38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gašević, D., Devedžić, V.: Reusing petri nets through the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 1st European Semantic Web Symposium, Heraklion, Greece, 2004. LNCS 3053. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 284–298 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gašević, D., Damjanović, V., Devedžić, V.: Analysis of the MDA standards in ontological engineering. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Information Technology, Bhubaneswar, India, pp. 193–196 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gómez-Pérez A., Corcho O. (2002). Ontology languages for the semantic web. IEEE Intell. Syst. 17(1):54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gruber T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis. 5(2):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Juerjens J. (2003). Secure Systems Development with UML. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karp, P., Myers, K., Gruber, T.: The generic frame protocol. In: Proceedings of the 1995 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Monreal, Canada. pp. 768–774 (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kogut P., Cranefield S., Hart L., Dutra M., Baclawski K., Kokar M., Smith J. (2002). UML for ontology development. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 17(1):61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McGuinness D., Fikes R., Hendler J., Stein L. (2002). DAML+OIL: An Ontology Language for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intell. Syst. 17(5):72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller, J., Mukerji, J: (eds.) MDA Guide: Version 1.0, OMG Document: omg/2003-05-01 http://www.omg.org/mda/ mda_files/MDA_Guide_Version1-0.pdf (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.: Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. TR SMI-2001-0880, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Noy, N.F., Fergerson, R., Musen, M.: The knowledge model of Protégé-2000: combining interoperability and flexibility. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, Juan-les-Pins, France, pp. 17–32 (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Noy N.F., Sintek M., Decker S., Crubézy M., Fergerson R., Musen M. (2001). Creating Semantic Web Contents with Protégé-2000. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16(2):60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ontology Definition Metamodel Preliminary Revised Submission to OMG RFP ad/2003-03-40, Volume 1 http://codip.grci.com/odm/draft (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ontology Definition Metamodel, DSTC Initial Submission. OMG Document ad/2003-08-01 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/03-08-01 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ontology Definition Metamodel, Gentleware Initial Submission. OMG Document ad/03-08-09 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/03-08-09 (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ontology Definition Metamodel, IBM Initial Submission. OMG Document ad/03-07-02 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/03-07-02 (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification v1.4. OMG Document formal/02-04-03 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?formal/02-04-03.pdf (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    OMG Ontology Definition Metamodel Request for Proposal. OMG Document: ad/2003-03-40 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2003-03-40 (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ontology Definition Metamodel, Sandpiper Software Inc and KSL Initial Submission. OMG Document ad/03-08-06 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/03-08-06 (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification v1.5. OMG Document formal/03-03-01 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?formal/03-03-01.zip (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    OMG XMI Specification, v1.2. OMG Document formal/02-01-01 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2002-01-01 (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Seidewitz E. (2003). What Models Mean. IEEE Software 20(5):26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Selic B. (2003). The pragmatics of model-driven Development. IEEE Software 20(5):19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sigel, J.: Developing in OMG’s Model-Driven Architecture, Revision 2.6. OMG’s White Paper ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/-omg/01-12-01.pdf (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dragan Gašević
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dragan Djurić
    • 2
  • Vladan Devedžić
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Interactive Arts and TechnologySimon Fraser University SurreySurreyCanada
  2. 2.FON – School of Business AdministrationUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia and Montenegro

Personalised recommendations