Acquiring Configuration Knowledge Bases in the Semantic Web Using UML

  • Alexander Felfernig
  • Gerhard Friedrich
  • Dietmar Jannach
  • Markus Stumptner
  • Markus Zanker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2473)


The Semantic Web will provide the conceptual infrastructure to allow new forms of business application integration. This paper outlines our approach for integrating Web-based sales systems for highly complex customizable products and services (configuration systems) making use of descriptive representation formalisms of the Semantic Web. The evolving trend towards highly specialized solution providers cooperatively offering configurable products and services to their customers requires the extension of current (standalone) configuration technology with capabilities of knowledge sharing and distributed configuration problem solving. On the one hand, a standardized representation language is needed in order to tackle the challenges imposed by heterogeneous representation formalisms of state-of-the-art configuration environments (e.g. description logic or predicate logic based configurators), on the other hand it is important to integrate the development and maintenance of configuration systems into industrial software development processes. We show how to support both goals by demonstrating the applicability of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) for configuration knowledge acquisition and by providing a set of rules for transforming UML models into configuration knowledge bases specified by languages such as OIL or DAML+OIL which represent the foundation for potential future description standards for Web services.


Description Logic Component Type Translation Rule IEEE Intelligent System Generalization Hierarchy 
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]
    A. Artale, E. Franconi, N. Guarino, and L. Pazzi. Part-Whole Relations in Object-Centered Systems: An Overview. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 20(3):347–383, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    V.E. Barker, D.E. O’Connor, J.D. Bachant, and E. Soloway. Expert systems for configuration at Digital: XCON and beyond. Communications of the ACM, 32(3):298–318, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Borgida. On the relative expressive power of description logics and predicate calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 82:353–367, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, and D. Jannach. Generating product configuration knowledge bases from precise domain extended UML models. In Proceedings of the 12 th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’2000), pages 284–293, Chicago, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, and D. Jannach. UML as domain specific language for the construction of knowledge-based configuration systems. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (IJSEKE), 10(4):449–469, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, D. Jannach, M. Stumptner, and M. Zanker. A Joint Foundation for Configuration in the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the Workshop on Configuration (ECAI’2002), 2001.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, D. Jannach, M. Stumptner, and M. Zanker. Transforming UML domain descriptions into Configuration Knowledge Bases for the Semantic Web. Lyon, France, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, D. Jannach, and M. Zanker. Semantic Configuration Web Services in the CAWICOMS Project. Sardinia, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, D. Jannach, and M. Zanker. Web-based Configuration of Virtual Private Networks with Multiple Suppliers. Cambridge, UK, 2002. Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D. McGuinness, and P.F. Patel-Schneider. OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2):38–45, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Fleischanderl, G. Friedrich, A. Haselböck, H. Schreiner, and M. Stumptner. Configuring Large Systems Using Generative Constraint Satisfaction. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13(4):59–68, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    T. Gruber. Ontolingua: A mechanism to support portable ontologies. Technical Report KSL 91-66, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    E.W. Jüngst M. Heinrich. A resource-based paradigm for the configuring of technical systems from modular components. In Proceedings of the 7 th IEEE Conference on AI applciations (CAIA), pages 257–264, Miami, FL, USA, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Mittal and F. Frayman. Towards a Generic Model of Configuration Tasks. In Proceedings 11 th International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1395–1401, Detroit, MI, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D. Sabin and R. Weigel. Product Configuration Frameworks-A Survey. In B. Faltings and E. Freuder, editors, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Configuration, volume 13, pages 50–58. IEEE, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    U. Sattler. Description Logics for the Representation of Aggregated Objects. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), pages 239–243, Berlin, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    T. Soininen, J. Tiihonen, T. Männistö, and R. Sulonen. Towards a General Ontology of Configuration. AI Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing Journal, Special Issue: Configuration Design, 12(4):357–372, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. Stumptner. An overview of knowledge-based configuration. AI Communications, 10(2), June, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    F. vanHarmelen, P.F. Patel-Schneider, and I. Horrocks. A Model-Theoretic Semantics for DAML+OIL., March 2001.
  21. [21]
    J. Warmer and A. Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language-Precise Modeling with UML. Addison Wesley Object Technology Series, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J.R. Wright, E. Weixelbaum, G.T. Vesonder, K.E. Brown, S.R. Palmer, J.I. Berman, and H.H. Moore. A Knowledge-Based Configurator that supports Sales, Engineering, and Manufacturing at AT&T Network Systems. AI Magazine, 14(3):69–80, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Felfernig
    • 1
  • Gerhard Friedrich
    • 1
  • Dietmar Jannach
    • 1
  • Markus Stumptner
    • 2
  • Markus Zanker
    • 1
  1. 1.ProduktionsinformatikInstitut für Wirtschaftsinformatik und AnwendungssystemeKlagenfurtAustria
  2. 2.Advanced Computing Research CentreUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations