Situated Support for Choice of Representation for a Semantic Web Application

  • Sari E. Hakkarainen
  • Anders Kofod-Petersen
  • Carlos Buil Aranda
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3770)


As more and more companies are augmenting their data to include semantics, it is imperative that the choices made when choosing the modelling language are well founded in knowledge about the language and the domain in question. This work extends the Semiotic Quality Framework with computational and situated instruments. Furthermore, it demonstrates how the extended Semiotic Quality Framework can facilitate the choice of the most suited language for a real world application. The application is a directory services system, which currently is being moved into the realms of the Semantic Web.


Modelling Language Target Language Importance Weight Automatic Reasoning Ontology Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uschold, M., Grüninger, M.: Ontologies: Priciples, methods, and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11, 93–155 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Mario Bunge’s Ontology as a formal foundation for information systems concepts. In: Weingartner, P., Dorn, G., eds.: Studies on Mario Bunge’s Treatise. Rodopi (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weber, R., Zhang, Y.: An analytical evaluation of NIAM’s grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Information Systems Journal 6, 147–170 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Software and Systems Modelling (SoSyM) 1, 43–67 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Milton, S., Rosemann, M.: Using Meta-Models for the Comparison of Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Eighth CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, EMMSAD 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling. IEEE Software 11, 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krogstie, J., Sølvberg, A.: Information systems engineering - Conceptual modeling in a quality perspective. Kompendiumforlaget, Trondheim, Norway (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krogstie, J.: Using a Semiotic Framework to Evaluate UML for the Development of Models of High Quality. In: Siau, K., Halpin, T., eds.: Unified Modeling Language: System analysis, design, and development issues. IDEA Group Publishing (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Su, X., Ilebrekke, L.: A comparative study of ontology languages and tools. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 761–765. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gómez-Péres, A., Corcho, O.: Ontology Languages for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 54–60 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schuette, R.: Architectures for evaluating the quality of information models – a meta and an object level comparison. In: Akoka, J., Bouzeghoub, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Métais, E. (eds.) ER 1999. LNCS, vol. 1728, pp. 490–505. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hakkarainen, S., Hella, L., Strasunskas, D., Tuxen, S.: Choosing Appropriate Metod Guidelines for Web-Ontology Building. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 270–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pohl, K.: Three dimensions of requirements engineering: a framework and its applications. Information Systems 19, 243–258 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G., Drake, P.: Evaluating and Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models: Experiences in Research and Practice. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Su, X., Ilebrekke, L.: 14. In: Using a Semitic Framework for a Comparative Study of Ontology Languages and Tools, pp. 278–299. IDEA Group Publishing Group (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sindre, G.: Hicons: a general diagrammatic framework for hierarchical modelling. PhD thesis, Norwegian Institure of Technology (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seltveit, A.H.: Complexity reduction in information systems modelling. PhD thesis, Norwegian Institute of Technology (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maiden, N.A., Ncube, C.: Acquiring cots software selection requiremtents. IEEE Software 15, 46–56 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hakkarainen, S.E., Strasunskas, D., Hella, L., Tuxen, S.M.: Weighted evaluation of ontology building methods. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, Springer, Heidelberg (2005) (to Appear)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V. (eds.): RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Biezunski, M., Bryan, M., Newcomb, S.R. (eds.): ISO/IEC 13250:2000 Topic Maps: Information Technology – Document Description and Markup Language. International Organization for Standardization (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Technical Report KSL-01-05, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sari E. Hakkarainen
    • 1
  • Anders Kofod-Petersen
    • 1
  • Carlos Buil Aranda
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations