Conceptual Modeling of Topic Maps with ORM Versus UML

  • Are D. Gulbrandsen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3873)

Abstract

The paper aims to discuss strengths and weaknesses of using Object Role Modeling (ORM) and UML Class Diagrams for conceptual modeling of Topic Maps. Established evaluation criteria for conceptual modeling languages are used to compare Topic Map ontology modeling with ORM and UML, to try to find if ORM is a good alternative to UML. The paper discusses a few extensions to simplify viewing ORM diagrams of a Topic Map ontology. ORM is also used to model a case ontology to show practical use within an application domain.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmed, K.: Topic Map Design Patterns For Information Architecture (2003). http://www.techquila.com/tmsinia.html
  2. 2.
    Bloesch, A., Halpin, T.: ConQuer: a conceptual query language. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) ER 1996. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 121–133. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cranefield, S.: Networked Knowledge Representation and Exchange using UML and RDF. Journal of Digital Information 1(8) (2001), http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v01/i08/Cranefield/
  4. 4.
    Denny, M.: Ontology Tools Survey, Revisited. Xml.com (2004). http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/07/14/onto.html
  5. 5.
    Garshol, L.M.: Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! In: Proceedings of XML Europe 2004, IDEAlliance (April 2004), http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tm-vs-thesauri.html
  6. 6.
    Garshol, L. M.: The Linear Topic Map Notation. Definition and introduction, version 1.3, http://www.ontopia.net/download/ltm.html
  7. 7.
    Griethuysen, J.V. (ed.): Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base. Publ. nr. ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3-N695, ANSI, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036 (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases, From Conceptual Analysis to Logical Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hapin, T.: Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, ch. 4. In: ORM/NIAM Object-Role Modeling, Springer, Heidelberg (1998), http://www.orm.net/pdf/springer.pdf Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpin, T., Bloesch, A.: Data modeling in UML and ORM: a comparison. Journal of Database Management 10(4) (1999), http://www.orm.net/pdf/JDM99.pdf
  11. 11.
    Halpin, T.: FORML Position paper for W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability. In: W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability, April 27-28 (2005), http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/32/
  12. 12.
    ter Hofstede, A., Proper, H., van der Weide, T.: Formal definition of a conceptual language for the description and manipulation of information models. Information Systems 18(7), 489–523 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO 13250-2: Topic Maps Data Model (TMDM). International Organization for Standardization (ISO), http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/
  14. 14.
    ISO 19756: Topic Maps Constraint Language (TMCL). International Organization for Standardization (ISO), http://www.isotopicmaps.org/tmcl/
  15. 15.
    ISO 18048: Topic Map Query Language (TMQL). International Organization for Standardization (ISO), http://www.isotopicmaps.org/tmql/
  16. 16.
    Jarrar, M., Demey, J., Meersman, R.: On Using Conceptual Data Modeling for Ontology Engineering. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics I. LNCS, vol. 2800, pp. 185–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krogstie, J., Halpin, T., Siau, K.: Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, ch. 2. Idea Group Publishing (2005) ISBN:1591403758Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Ontology Definition Metamodel RFP. OMG Document: ad/2003-03-40, http://ontology.omg.org/ontology_info.htm
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules. OMG Document: dtc/05-11-01 (SBVR draft adopted specification), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?dtc/05-11-01.pdf
  20. 20.
    Ontopia: The Ontopia Knowledge Suite, http://www.ontopia.net/
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Unified Modeling Language 2.0 (UML), http://www.uml.org/
  22. 22.
    Park, J. (ed.): XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web. Addison Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Passin, T.B.: Explorers Guide to the Semantic Web. Manning Publications (2004) ISBN: 1-932394-20-6Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pepper, S.: The TAO of Topic Maps, Ontopia (2002). http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tao.html
  25. 25.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological Engineering, ch.1. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rath, H.H.: The Topic Maps Handbook - an empolis White Paper, Empolis (2003), http://empolis.de/downloads/empolis_TopicMaps_Whitepaper20030206.pdf
  27. 27.
    Skagestein, G., Normann, R.: Revival of the elementary sentence - or the dark side of UML class diagrams. In: The Norwegian Conference of informatics (2003), http://www.nik.no/2003/Bidrag/Skagestein.pdf
  28. 28.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Are D. Gulbrandsen
    • 1
  1. 1.The XML group, Center for Information Technology ServicesUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations