Advertisement

A Model Driven Approach for Building OWL DL and OWL Full Ontologies

  • Saartje Brockmans
  • Robert M. Colomb
  • Peter Haase
  • Elisa F. Kendall
  • Evan K. Wallace
  • Chris Welty
  • Guo Tong Xie
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4273)

Abstract

This paper presents an approach for visually modeling OWL DL and OWL Full ontologies based on the well-established visual modeling language UML. We discuss a metamodel for OWL based on the Meta-Object Facility, an associated UML profile as visual syntax, and transformations between both. The work we present supports model-driven development of OWL ontologies and is currently undergoing the standardization process of the Object Management Group. After describing our approach, we present the implementation of our approach and an example, showing how the metamodel and UML profile can be used to improve developing Semantic Web applications.

References

  1. 1.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V.: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. Technical report, W3C. W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brockmans, S., Haase, P., Hitzler, P., Studer, R.: A Metamodel and UML Profile for Rule-extended OWL DL Ontologies. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 303–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brockmans, S., Haase, P., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Formalism-Independent Specification of Ontology Mappings - A Metamodeling Approach. In: 5th International Conference on Ontologies, DataBases, and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE 2006), Montpellier, France (November 2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brockmans, S., Volz, R., Eberhart, A., Loeffler, P.: Visual modeling of OWL DL ontologies using UML. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 198–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, A.: An introduction to Model Driven Architecture - Part I: MDA and today’s systems (February 2004), http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/3100.html
  6. 6.
    Budinsky, F., Ellersick, R., Grose, T.J., Merks, E., Steinberg, D.: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 1st edn. The Eclipse Series. Addison Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colomb, R., Raymond, K., Hart, L., Emery, P., Welty, C., Xie, G.T., Kendall, E.: The Object Management Group Ontology Definition Metamodel. In: Ruiz, F., Calero, C., Piattini, M. (eds.) Ontologies for Software Engineering and Technology. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    des Rivieres, J., Beaton, W.: Eclipse Platform Technical Overview (July 2001), updated April 2006 for Eclipse 3.1Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Djuric, D., GaŽevic, D., Deveddic, V., Damjanovic, V.: MDA Development of Ontology Infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Applied Computing, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. II–23–II–26 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frankel, D., Hayes, P., Kendall, E., McGuinness, D.: The Model Driven Semantic Web. In: The 1st International Workshop on the Model-Driven Semantic Web (MSDW 2004), Monterey, California, USA (September 2004), http://www.sandsoft.com/edoc2004/FHKM-MDSWOverview.pdf
  12. 12.
    Hart, L., Emery, P., Colomb, R., Raymond, K., Taraporewalla, S., Chang, D., Ye, Y., Kendall, E., Dutra, M.: OWL Full and UML 2.0 Compared (March 2004), http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~colomb/Papers/UML-OWLont04.03.01.pdf
  13. 13.
    IBM and Sandpiper Software. Ontology Definition Metamodel. Sixth Revised Submission, Object Management Group (June 2006), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-05-01
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC. Topic Maps – Data Model. Technical Report 13250-2 (December 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC. Information technology – Common Logic (CL) - A framework for a family of logic-based languages. Technical Report 24707, Official ISO FCD Draft (April 2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ma, L., Yang, Y., Qiu, Z., Xie, G., Pan, Y.: Towards A Complete OWL Ontology Benchmark. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 125–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nitzsche, T., Mukerji, J., Reynolds, D., Kendall, E.: Using Semantic Web Technologies for Management Application Integration. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE), Galway, Ireland (November 2005), http://www.mel.nist.gov/msid/conferences/SWESE/accepted_papers.html
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group. Ontology Definition Metamodel – Request For Proposal (March 2003), http://www.omg.org/docs/ontology/03-03-01.rtf
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group. Revised submission for MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP (August 2003), http://www.qvtp.org/downloads/1.1/qvtpartners1.1.pdf
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group. OCL 2.0 Specification. Technical Report Version 2.0 (June 2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. Technical Report Version 2.0 (August 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group. XMI Mapping Specification. Technical Report Version 2.1 (September 2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification. Technical Report Version 2.0, OMG Available Specification (January 2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure. Technical Report Version 2.0 (March 2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pan, Y., Xie, G., Ma, L., Yang, Y., Qiu, Z., Lee, J.: Model-Driven Ontology Engineering. Journal of Data Semantics VII (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W3C. Rule interchange format working group charter (2005), http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saartje Brockmans
    • 1
  • Robert M. Colomb
    • 2
  • Peter Haase
    • 1
  • Elisa F. Kendall
    • 3
  • Evan K. Wallace
    • 4
  • Chris Welty
    • 5
  • Guo Tong Xie
    • 6
  1. 1.AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe (TH)Germany
  2. 2.School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandAustralia
  3. 3.Sandpiper Software, Inc.Los Altos
  4. 4.US National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburg
  5. 5.IBM Watson Research CenterNew York
  6. 6.IBM China Research LabChina

Personalised recommendations