Advertisement

Semantic Components for Timetabling

  • Nele Custers
  • Patrick De Causmaecker
  • Peter Demeester
  • Greet Vanden Berghe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3616)

Abstract

Automated timetabling is a research domain that has occupied many researchers over the last 50 years. Several algorithms have proven to be applicable to timetabling but they are nearly all designed to address specific problems. The framework presented in this paper is a step towards a generic semi-automatic timetabling tool. The basis of the framework is an ontology for timetabling that we designed after having investigated different types of timetabling problem.

A first step towards solving general problems consists of mapping their data representation to the ontology. That is carried out in such a way that existing data that is already available in databases can further be used throughout the application. In the next step, the tool assists in determining the constraints and objectives of the problem. The semantic components have three sources of information: meta-data about the database, domain knowledge about timetabling problems and external, non-domain-specific knowledge.

Keywords

Resource Description Framework Soft Constraint Select Paper Timetabling Problem Constraint Logic Programming 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Halimi, R., et al.: WordNet—An Electronic Lexical Database. Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anicic, N., Marjanovic, Z.: Integration of Business Applications Using Semantic Web Technologies. In: First Int. Conf. on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications, Geneva (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barták, R.: A Generalized Framework for Constraint Planning, Technical Report No 97/9. Department of Theoretical Computer Science, Charles University, Prague (June 1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barták, R.: Modelling Planning and Scheduling Problems with Time and Resources. In: Recent Advances in Computers, Computing and Communications, pp. 104–109. WSEAS Press, Rethymnon (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bechhofer, S., Horrocks, I., Goble, C., Stevens, R.: OilEd: a Reason-able Ontology Editor for the Semantic Web. In: Baader, F., Brewka, G., Eiter, T. (eds.) KI 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2174, pp. 396–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Sci. Am. (May 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bizer, C.: D2R MAP—A Database to RDF Mapping Language. In: Proc. WWW, Budapest (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E.: Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd edn). W3C Recommendation (2000), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml
  9. 9.
    Broder, S.: Final Examination Scheduling. Commun. ACM. 7, 494–498 (1964)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burke, E.K., Elliman, D.G., Ford, P.H., Weare, R.F.: Examination Timetabling in British Universities—A Survey. In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burke, E.K., Kingston, J.H., Pepper, P.A.: A Standard Data Format for Timetabling Instances. In: Burke, E.K., Carter, M. (eds.) PATAT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1408, pp. 213–222. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burke, E.K., Cowling, P., De Causmaecker, P., Vanden Berghe, G.: A Memetic Approach to the Nurse Rostering Problem. Appl. Intell. (Special Issue on Simulated Evolution and Learning) 15, 199–214 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P., Petrovic, S., Vanden Berghe, G.: Fitness Evaluation for Nurse Scheduling Problems. In: Proc. Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC2001, Seoul), pp. 1139–1146. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burke, E.K., Bykov, Y., Newall, J.P., Petrovic, S.: A Time-Predefined Local Search Approach to Exam Timetabling Problems. IIE Trans. Oper. Eng. 36, 509–528 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P., Vanden Berghe, G., Van Landeghem, H.: The State of the Art of Nurse Rostering. J. Scheduling 7, 441–499 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carrasco, M.P., Pato, M.V.: A Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm for the Class/Teacher Timetabling Problem. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 3–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carter, M.W., Laporte, G.: Recent Development in Practical Examination Timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 3–21. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carter, M.W., Laporte, G.: Recent Development in Practical Course Timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., Carter, M. (eds.) PATAT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1408, pp. 3–19. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chan, P., Weil, G.: Cyclical Staff Scheduling Using Constraint Logic Programming. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 159–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Connolly, D., van Harmelen, F., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: DAML+OIL Reference Description. W3C Note 18 (December 2001), http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference
  21. 21.
    De Causmaecker, P., Demeester, P., Lu, Y., Vanden Berghe, G.: Using Web Standards for Timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P. (eds.) PATAT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2740, pp. 238–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Causmaecker, P., Vanden Berghe, G.: Relaxation of Coverage Constraints in Hospital Personnel Rostering. In: Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P. (eds.) PATAT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2740, pp. 129–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Gaspero, L., Schaerf, A.: EasyLocal++: An Object-Oriented Framework for the Flexible Design of Local Search Algorithms. Softw. Pract. Exp. 33, 733–765 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Di Gaspero, L., Schaerf, A.: Multi-Neighbourhood Local Search with Application to Course Timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P. (eds.) PATAT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2740, pp. 262–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Learning to Map Between Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In: 11th Int. WWW Conf., Hawaii, pp. 662–673 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Erben, W.: A Grouping Genetic Algorithm for Graph Coloring and Exam Timetabling. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 132–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Foxley, E., Lockyer, K.: The Construction of Examination Timetables by Computer. Comput. J. 11, 264–268 (1968)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gröbner, M., Wilke, P., Büttcher, S.: A Standard Framework for Timetabling Problems. In: Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P. (eds.) PATAT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2740, pp. 24–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guéret, C., Jussien, N., Boizumault, P., Prins, C.: Building University Timetables Using Constraint Logic Programming. In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 130–145. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gusfield, D.: Algorithms on Strings, Trees and Sequences: Computer Science and Computational Biology. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge (June 1997) ISBN 0521585198Google Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Henz, M., Würtz, J.: Using Oz for College Timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 162–177. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Franses, P., Post, G.: Personnel Scheduling in Laboratories. In: Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P. (eds.) PATAT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2740, pp. 113–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Izza, S., Vincent, L., Burlat, P.: Ontology-Based Approach for Application Integration. In: 1st Int. Conf. on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications, Geneva (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaplansky, E., Kendall, G., Meisels, A., Hussin, N.: Distributed Examination Timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., Trick, M.A. (eds.) PATAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3616, pp. 511–516. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaplansky, E., Meisels, A.: Negotiation Among Scheduling Agents for Distributed Timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., Trick, M.A. (eds.) PATAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3616, pp. 517–520. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kendall, G., Hussin, N.M.: Tabu Search Hyper-heuristic Approach to the Examination Timetabling Problem at University Technology MARA. In: Burke, E.K., Trick, M.A. (eds.) PATAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3616, pp. 199–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kingston, J.H., Yin-Sun Lynn, B.: A Software Architecture for Timetabling Construction. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 309–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lajos, G.: Complete University Modular Timetabling Using Constraint Logic Programming. In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 146–161. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lassila, O., Swick, R.R.: Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. W3C Recommendation (1999), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax
  41. 41.
    Lockheed Martin: DAML Language Lessons Learned, http://ubot.lockheedmartin.com/ubot/lessons/language.html
  42. 42.
    Merlot, L.T.G., Boland, N., Hughes, B.D., Stuckey, P.J.: A Hybrid Algorithm for the Examination Timetabling Problem. In: Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P. (eds.) PATAT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2740, pp. 207–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miller, L., FitzPatrick, G., Brickley, D.: SkiCal and iCalendar in DAML+OIL: A Case Study, http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2002/03/skical-daml/
  44. 44.
    Misskof, M., Navigli, R., Velardi, P.: Integrated Approach to Web Ontology Learning and Engineering. IEEE Comput. 35, 60–63 (2002)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Anchor-PROMPT: Using Non-Local Context for Semantic Matching. In: Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing at the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2001), Seattle (2001)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment. In: Proc. 7th Natl Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2000, Austin, pp. 450–455 (2000)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Okada, M., Okada, M.: Prolog-Based System for Nursing Staff Scheduling Implemented on a Personal Computer. Comput. Biomed. Res. 21, 53–63 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Özcan, E.: Towards an XML Based Standard for Timetabling Problems: TTML. In: Proc. 1st Multidisciplinary Int. Conf. on Scheduling: Theory and Applications (MISTA 2003), Nottingham, pp. 163–185 (2003)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Prasad, S., Peng, Y., Finin, T.: Using Explicit Information To Map Between Two Ontologies. In: Proc. Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems, 1st Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Bologna (2002)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rankin, R.C.: Automatic Timetabling in Practice. In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 266–279. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Reis, L.P., Oliveira, E.: A Language for Specifying Complete Timetabling Problems. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 322–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Resende, M.G.C., Pinho de Sousa, J.: Metaheuristics: Computer Decision-Making. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Smith, S.F., Becker, M.A.: An Ontology for Constructing Scheduling Systems. In: Working Notes AAAI Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, Stanford, March 1997, pp. 120–129 (1997)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Socha, K., Knowles, J., Sampels, M.: A MAX–MIN Ant System for the University Timetabling Problem. In: Dorigo, M., Di Caro, G.A., Sampels, M. (eds.) Ant Algorithms 2002. LNCS, vol. 2463, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sosnowska, D., Rolim, J.: Fleet Scheduling Optimization: A Simulated Annealing Approach. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 227–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stojanovic, N., Stojanovic, L., Volz, R.: A Reverse Engineering Approach for Migrating Data-Intensive Web Sites to the Semantic Web. In: Intelligent Information Processing IFIP 17th World Computer Congress: TC12 Stream on Intelligent Information Processing, Montreal, pp. 141–154 (2002)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Trick, M.A.: Challenge Traveling Tournament Instances, http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/TOURN/
  58. 58.
    Trick, M.A.: Scheduling Court Constrained Sports Tournaments. In: Burke, E.K., Trick, M.A. (eds.) PATAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3616, pp. 371–376. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ueda, H., Ouchi, D., Takahashi, K., Miyahara, T.: A Co-evolving Timeslot/Room Assignment Genetic Algorithm Technique for University Timetabling. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    White, G.M., Zhang, J.: Generating Complete University Timetables by Combining Tabu Search with Constraint Logic. In: Burke, E.K., Carter, M. (eds.) PATAT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1408, pp. 187–198. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    White, G.M., Xie, B.S.: Examination Timetables and Tabu Search With Longer-Term Memory. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 85–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wren, A.: Scheduling, Timetabling and Rostering—A Special Relationship? In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 46–75. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nele Custers
    • 1
  • Patrick De Causmaecker
    • 1
  • Peter Demeester
    • 1
  • Greet Vanden Berghe
    • 1
  1. 1.KaHo Sint-Lieven, Information TechnologyGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations