A Method for Pruning Ontologies in the Development of Conceptual Schemas of Information Systems

  • Jordi Conesa
  • Antoni Olivé
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3870)

Abstract

In the past, most conceptual schemas of information systems have been developed essentially from scratch. Currently, however, several research projects are considering an emerging approach that tries to reuse as much as possible the knowledge included in existing ontologies. Using this approach, conceptual schemas would be developed as refinements of (more general) ontologies. However, when the refined ontology is large, a new problem that arises using this approach is the need of pruning the concepts in that ontology that are superfluous in the final conceptual schema. This paper proposes a new method for pruning ontologies in this approach. We also show how to adapt the method to prune ontologies in other contexts. Our method is general and it can be adapted to most conceptual modeling languages. We give the complete details of its adaptation to the UML. On the other hand, the method is fully automatic. The method has been implemented. We illustrate the method by means of its application to a case study that refines the Cyc ontology.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: The B-Book (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bechhofer, S., Harmelen, F. v., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D. L., Patel- Schneider, P. F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C: (December 2003), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  3. 3.
    Bhatt, M., Flahive, A., Wouters, C., Rahayu, W., Taniar, D.: A Distributed Approach to Sub-Ontology Extraction. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Application, Fukuoka, Japan (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatt, M., Wouters, C., Flahive, A., Rahayu, W., Taniar, D.: Semantic Completeness in Sub-ontology Extraction Using Distributed Methods. In: Laganá, A., Gavrilova, M.L., Kumar, V., Mun, Y., Tan, C.J.K., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3045, pp. 508–517. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castano, S., Antonellis, V.D., Zonta, B.: Classifying and Reusing Conceptual Schemas. In: Pernul, G., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ER 1992. LNCS, vol. 645, pp. 121–138. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman, D., et al.: Object-Oriented Development. The Fusion Method, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conesa, J.: Ontology Driven Information Systems Development: Pruning and refactoring of ontologies. PhD Thesis (in preparation), in LSI - Llenguatges i Sistemes Informàtics. Barcelona: UPC (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conesa, J., Olivé, A.: A General Method for Pruning OWL Ontologies. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3291, pp. 981–998. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conesa, J., Olivé, A.: Pruning Ontologies in the Development of Conceptual Schemas of Information Systems. In: Atzeni, P., Chu, W., Lu, H., Zhou, S., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2004. LNCS, vol. 3288, pp. 122–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conesa, J., Palol, X.d., Olivé, A.: Building conceptual schemas by refining general ontologies. In: Mařík, V., Štěpánková, O., Retschitzegger, W. (eds.) DEXA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2736, pp. 693–702. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fowler, M.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward Principles for the Design of Ontolgies for Knowledge Sharing. International Journal of Human and Computer Studies 43(5/6), 907–928 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology and Information Systems. In: Proc. FOIS 1998, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kietz, J.-U., Maedche, A., Volz, R.: A Method for Semi-Automatic Ontology Acquisition from a Corporate Intranet. In: Proceedings of EKAW-2000 Workshop. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns. An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lenat, D.B., Guha, R.V., Pittman, K., Pratt, D., Shepherd, M.: CYC: Toward Programs With Common Sense. Communications of the ACM 33, 30–49 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling. IEEE Software 11, 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lloyd-Williams, M.: Exploiting Domain Knowledge During the Automated Design of Object-Oriented Databases. In: Embley, D.W. (ed.) ER 1997. LNCS, vol. 1331, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Ontology Learning for the Semantic Web. IEEE Inteligent Systems 16, 72–79 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mena, E., Royo, J.A., Illarramendi, A., Goñi, A.: An Agent-based Approach for Helping Users of Hand-Held Devices to Browse Software Catalogs. In: In Cooperative Information Agents VI, 6th International Workshop CIA 2002, Madrid, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mili, H., Mili, F., Mili, A.: Reusing Software: Issues and Research Directions. IEEE TSE 21, 528–562 (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Navigli, R.: Automatically Extending, Pruning and Trimming General Purpose Ontologies. In: International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Tunisy (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olivé, A.: Integrity Constraints Definition in Object-Oriented Conceptual Modeling Languages. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 349–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    OMG, OMG Revised Submission, UML 2.0 OCL Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    OMG, UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, 2.0 edn.: OMG (August 2003) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    OpenCyc, OpenCyc, the public version of Cyc, http://www.opencyc.com/
  27. 27.
    Peterson, B.J., Andersen, W.A., Engel, J.: Knowledge Bus: Generating Applicationfocused Databases from Large Ontologies. In: KRDB 1998, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 1–10 (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sacco, G.: Dynamic Taxonomies: A Model for Large Information Bases. IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering 12, 468–479 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Storey, V.C., Chiang, R.H.L., Dey, D., Goldstein, R.C., Sundaresan, S.: Database Design with Common Sense Business Reasoning and Learning. ACM TODS 22, 471–512 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sugiura, N., Kurematsu, M., Fukuta, N., Izumi, N., Yamaguchi, T.: A Domain Ontology Engineeering Tool with General Ontologies and Text Corpus. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology based Tools, pp. 71–82 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sugumaran, V., Storey, V.C.: Ontologies for conceptual modeling: their creation, use, and management. Data & Knowledge Engineering 42, 251–271 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Swartout, W.R., Tatil, R., Knight, K., Russ, T.: Toward Distributed use of Large- Scale Ontologies. In: Proc. 10th. Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, Canada (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Uschold, M.: Knowledge level modelling: concepts and terminology. The Knowledge Engineering Review 13, 5–29 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. The Knowledge Engineering Review 11, 93–136 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Volz, R., Studer, R., Maedche, A., Lauser, B.: Pruning-based Identification of Domain Ontologies. Journal of Universal Computer Science 9, 520–529 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang, X., Chan, C.W., Hamilton, H.J.: Design of Knowledge-Based Systems with the Ontology-Domain-System Approach. In: Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 859, pp. 233–236. ACM Press, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wollersheim, D., Rahayu, W.: Methodology For Creating a Sample Subset of Dynamic Taxonomy to Use in Navigating Medical Text Databases. In: Proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium on Database Engineering & Applications, pp. 276–289 (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wouters, C., Dillon, T., Rahayu, W., Chang, E., Meersman, R.: Ontologies on the MOVE. In: Lee, Y., Li, J., Whang, K.-Y., Lee, D. (eds.) DASFAA 2004. LNCS, vol. 2973, pp. 812–823. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wouters, C., Dillon, T.S., Rahayu, J.W., Chang, E.: A Practical Walkthrough of the Ontology Derivation Rules. In: Hameurlain, A., Cicchetti, R., Traunmüller, R. (eds.) DEXA 2002. LNCS, vol. 2453, pp. 259–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yamaguchi, T.: Constructing Domain Ontologies Based on Concept Drift Analysis. In: IJCAI 1999, Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Conesa
    • 1
  • Antoni Olivé
    • 1
  1. 1.Departament de Llenguatges i Sistemes InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica CatalunyaBarcelona

Personalised recommendations