Journal on Data Semantics

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 19–36 | Cite as

ROMULUS: The Repository of Ontologies for MULtiple USes Populated with Mediated Foundational Ontologies

Original Article

Abstract

A foundational ontology contributes to ontology-driven conceptual data modelling and is used to solve interoperability issues among domain ontologies. Multiple foundational ontologies have been developed in recent years, and most of them are available in several versions. This has re-introduced the interoperability problem, increased the need for a coordinated and structured comparison and elucidation of modelling decisions, and raised the requirement for software infrastructure to address this. We present here a basic step in that direction with the Repository of Ontologies for MULtiple USes, ROMULUS, which is the first online library of machine-processable, modularised, aligned, and logic-based merged foundational ontologies. In addition to the typical features of a model repository, it has a foundational ontology recommender covering features of six foundational ontologies, tailor-made modules for easier reuse, and a catalogue of mappable and non-mappable elements among the BFO, GFO and DOLCE foundational ontologies.

Keywords

Foundational ontology Top-level ontology Upper ontology Ontology repository Ontology mediation Semantic interoperability Ontology metadata Ontology module 

References

  1. 1.
    Protégé (2014) http://protege.stanford.edu/. Accessed on 09/03/2014
  2. 2.
    Baclawski K, Schneider T (2009) The open ontology repository initiative: requirements and research challenges. In: Proceedings of the workshop on collaborative construction, management and linking of structured knowledge, CEUR-WS, vol 514. Washington DC, USA. 25 Oct 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgo S (2011) Goals of modularity: a voice from the foundational viewpoint. In: Proceedings of the 5th workshop on modular ontologies (WoMO’11), frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol 230, pp 1–6. IOS Press (2011). Ljubljana, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camara G, Desprès S, Djedidi R, Lo M (2014) Building a schistosomiasis process ontology for an epidemiological monitoring system. In: Innovations in intelligent machines-4 - recent advances in knowledge engineering, studies in computational intelligence, vol 514, pp 75–99. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell LJ, Halpin TA, Proper HA (1996) Conceptual schemas with abstractions: making flat conceptual schemas more comprehensible. Data Knowl Eng 20(1):39–85CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cowell LG, Smith B (2010) Infectious disease ontology. In: Sintchenko V (ed) Infectious disease informatics. Springer, New York, pp 373–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuenca Grau B, Horrocks I, Kazakov Y, Sattler U (2007) Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 16th international world wide web conference (WWW’07). ACM (2007). May 8–12, Banff, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuenca Grau B, Horrocks I, Kazakov Y, Sattler U (2008) Modular reuse of ontologies: theory and practice. J Artif Intell Res 31:273–318MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cuzzocrea A (2006) Combining multidimensional user models and knowledge representation and management techniques for making web services knowledge-aware. Web Intell Agent Syst 4(3):289–312Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cuzzocrea A, Saccà D, Ullman JD (2013) Big data: a research agenda. In: Proceedings of the 17th international database engineering and applications symposium (IDEAS’13), pp 198–203. ACM conference proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    d’Aquin M, Schlicht A, Stuckenschmidt H, Sabou M (2009) Criteria and evaluation for ontology modularization techniques. In: Modular ontologies, LNCS, vol 5445, pp 67–89. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eapen BR (2008) ONTODerm-a domain ontology for dermatology. Dermatol Online J 14(6):16. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/79p7c1hc
  13. 13.
    Fiorini SR, Abel M, Scherer CM (2013) An approach for grounding ontologies in raw data using foundational ontology. Inf Syst 38(5):784–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grüninger M (2009) COLORE: common logic ontology repository. http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR-Ontolog-Panel/2009-08-06Ontology-20090806.pdf
  15. 15.
    Guarino N (1998) Formal ontology and information systems. In: Proceedings of formal ontology in information systems (FOIS’98). IOS Press, Amsterdam, TrentoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guarino N, Guizzardi G (2006) In the defense of ontological foundations for conceptual modeling. Scand J Inf Syst 18(1):9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guizzardi G (2010) On the representation of quantities and their parts in conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS’10), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guizzardi G, Wagner G (2010) Using the unified foundational ontology (UFO) as a foundation for general conceptual modeling languages. In: Theory and applications of ontology: computer applications, pp 175–196. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guizzardi G, Wagner G, de Almeida Falbo R, Guizzardi RSS, Almeida JPA (2013) Towards ontological foundations for the conceptual modeling of events. In: 32nd international conference on conceptual modeling (ER’13), LNCS, vol 8217, pp 327–341. Springer (2013). 11-13 Nov 2013Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hartmann J, Sure Y, Haase P, Palma R, del Carmen Suárez-Figueroa M (2005) OMV: ontology metadata vocabulary. In: Ontology patterns for the semantic web (OPSW) (2005). Galway, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herre H (2010) General formal ontology (GFO): a foundational ontology for conceptual modelling. In: Theory and applications of ontology: computer applications, chap. 14, pp 297–345. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kalyanpur A, Parsia B, Sirin E, Cuenca Grau B, Hendler JA (2006) Swoop: a web ontology editing browser. J Web Semant 4(2):144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kazakov Y, Krötzsch M, Simancik F (2012) ELK reasoner: architecture and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on OWL reasoner evaluation (ORE’12), CEUR-WS, vol 858, Manchester, UK. 1 July 2012Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keet CM (2007) Enhancing comprehension of ontologies and conceptual models through abstractions. In: 10th Congress of the Italian association for artificial intelligence (AI*IA 2007), LNAI, vol 4733, pp 814–822. Springer, Verlag, Rome, 10-13 Sept 2007Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keet CM (2013) Ontology-driven formal conceptual data modeling for biological data analysis. In: Biological knowledge discovery handbook: preprocessing, mining and postprocessing of biological data, chap. 6, pp 129–154. WileyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keet CM, Artale A (2008) Representing and reasoning over a taxonomy of part-whole relations. Appl Ontol Special Issue Ontol Found Concept Model 3(1–2):91–110Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keet CM, d’Amato C, Khan Z, Lawrynowicz A (2014) Exploring reasoningwith theDMOPontology. In: 3rd workshop on ontology reasoner evaluation (ORE’14), CEUR workshop proceedings, pp 64–70. CEUR-WS.org (2014). July 1, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keet CM, Fernández-Reyes FC, Morales-González A (2012) Representing mereotopological relations in OWL ontologies with ontoparts. In: Proceedings of the 9th extended semantic web conference (ESWC’12), LNCS, vol 7295, pp 240–254. Springer, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. 29-31 May 2012Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Keet CM, Fillottrani PR (2013) Toward an ontology-driven unifying metamodel for UML class diagrams, EER, and ORM2. In: 32nd international conference on conceptual modeling (ER’13), LNCS, vol 8217, pp 313–326. Springer, Hong Kong. 11–13 Nov 2013Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khan Z, Keet CM (2012) ONSET: automated foundational ontology selection and explanation. In: 18th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW’12), LNAI, vol 7603, pp 237–251. Springer, Galway, Ireland. 8–12 Oct 2012Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khan Z, Keet CM (2013) Addressing issues in foundational ontology mediation. In: 5th international conference on knowledge engineering and ontology development (KEOD’13), pp 5–16. SCITEPRESS, Vilamoura, Portugal, 19–22 Sept 2013Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khan Z, Keet CM (2013) Toward semantic interoperability with aligned foundational ontologies in ROMULUS. In: 7th international conference on knowledge capture (K-CAP’13), p. a27 (poster&demo). ACM, Banff. 23–26 June 2013Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Khan Z, Keet CM (2014) Feasibility of automated foundational ontology interchangeability. In: 19th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW’14), LNAI, vol 8876, pp 225–237. Springer, Linköping, Sweden. 24–28 Nov 2014Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khan ZC, Keet CM (2015) Toward a framework for ontology modularity. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of the South African Institute of computer scientists and information technologists (SAICSIT’15), p. in print. ACM conference proceedings (2015), Stellenbosch, South Africa, 28–30 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Konev B, Lutz C, Walther D, Wolter F (2008) Semantic modularity and module extraction in description logics. In: Proceedings of 18th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’08), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol 178, pp 55–59. IOS Press, Patras, Greece, 21-25 July 2008Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Konev B, Lutz C, Walther D, Wolter F (2009) Formal properties of modularisation. In: Modular ontologies, LNCS, vol 5445, pp 25–66. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lange C, Mossakowski T, Kutz O, Galinski C, Grüninger M, Vale DC (2012) The distributed ontology language (DOL): use cases, syntax, and extensibility. arXiv:1208.0293
  38. 38.
    Loebe F (2006) Requirements for logical modules. In: Proceedings of the workshop on modular ontologies (WoMO’06), CEUR-WS, vol 232. Athens, Georgia, USA. 5 Nov 2006Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Martínez Ferrandis AM, Pastor López O, Guizzardi G (2013)Applying the principles of an ontology-based approach to a conceptual schema of human genome. In: 32nd international conference on conceptual modeling (ER’13), LNCS, vol 8217, pp 471–478.Springer, Hong Kong, 11-13 Nov 2013Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Masolo C, Borgo S, Gangemi A, Guarino N, Oltramari A (2003) Ontology library. WonderWeb Deliverable D18 (ver. 1.0, 31-12-2003). http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org
  41. 41.
    Mizoguchi R (2010) YAMATO: yet another more advanced toplevelontology. In: Proceedings of the sixth Australasian ontology workshop, CRPIT, pp 1–16, Adelaide, 10 Dec 2010Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mossakowski T, Lange C, Kutz O (2012) Three semantics for the core of the Distributed Ontology Language. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS’12), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press (2012). 24-27 July, Graz, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Niles I, Pease A (2001) Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS’01). IOS Press (2001). Ogunquit, Maine, USA. 17-19 Oct 2001Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Parent C, Spaccaprieta S (2009) An overview of modularity. In: Modular ontologies, LNCS, vol 5445, chap. 2, pp 5–23. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Seyed AP (28 June 2009) BFO/DOLCE primitive relation comparison. In: The 12th annual bio-ontologies meeting (2009). Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Temal L, Rosier A, Dameron O, Burgun A (2010) Mapping BFO and DOLCE. Stud Health Technol Inf 160(Pt 2):1065–1069Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thomas H, Brennan R, O’Sullivan D (2012) Using the OM2R meta-data model for ontology mapping reuse for the ontology alignment challenge - a case study. In: Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on ontology matching (OM’12), CEUR-WS, vol 946 (2012). Boston, MA, USA, 11 NovGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tudorache T, Vendetti J, Noy NF (2008) Web-Protégé: A lightweight OWL ontology editor for the web. In: Proceedings of the 5th workshop on OWL: experiences and directions, CEUR-WS, vol 432. CEUR-WS.org (2008). Karlsruhe, Germany, 26-27 OctGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vale DC et al. (2014) The TONES ontology repository. http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/repository/browser. Accessed on 14/13/2014
  50. 50.
    Whetzel PL, Noy NF, Shah NH, Alexander PR, Nyulas C, Tudorache T, Musen MA (2011) BioPortal: enhanced functionality via new web services from the National Center for Biomedical Ontology to access and use ontologies in software applications. Nucl Acid Res 39(Web–Server–Issue):541–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Williams S, Third A, Power R (2011) Levels of organisation in ontology verbalisation. In: The 13th European workshop on natural language generation, pp 158–163. Association for Computational Linguistics (2011). Nancy, France, 28-30 Sept 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations