Advertisement

Introducing the Common Non-Functional Ontology

  • Vandana Kabilan
  • Paul Johannesson
  • Sini Ruohomaa
  • Pirjo Moen
  • Andrea Herrmann
  • Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt
  • Hans Weigand

Abstract

Enterprise systems interoperability is impeded by the lack of a cohesive, integrated perspective on non-functional aspects (NFA). We propose to respond to the fragmentation in NFA research by supporting a shared, common understanding. For this purpose:- first, we propose a common NFA ontology, which generalizes and integrates the different non-functional aspects under a common top-level ontology. Second, we introduce a series of specialized ontologies on specific non-functional aspects, such as trust, risk, privacy, threat and misuse. By fostering a consensual and shared view of the non-functional aspects domain, we aim to move closer to enhancing semantic enterprise interoperability. This shared perspective on what non-functional aspects are and how they relate to the other ‘functional’ aspects of enterprise systems, is the key towards enterprise interoperability.

Keywords

Business Process Business Decision Data Owner Enterprise System Business Object 
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.
    INTEROP-NoE Task Group 7. Roadmap for tg7: Interoperability challenges of trust, confidence, security and policies, 2005. URL http://interop-noe.org/backoffice/deliv/DTG7.1/.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. De Nicola and M. Missikoff. A proposal for a unified process for ontology building: Upon. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3588, Pages 655–664. Springer Verlag, 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Fernandez, A. Gomez-Perez, and N. Juristo. Methontology: From ontological art towards ontological engineering. In Proceedings of Symposium on Ontological Engineering of AAAI Stanford, California, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Object Management Group. Business motivation model (bmm) specification. draft adopted specification 2006-07-01. http://www.omg.org/docs/dtc/06-07-01.pdf, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    TR. Gruber. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In Presented at the Padua workshop on Formal Ontology, March 1993, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Guarino. Formal ontology and information systems. In Proceedings of Formal Ontology and Information Systems(FOIS 1998), pp-3–15. IOS Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Herrmann and B. Paech. Quality misuse. In Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Software Quality (RFSQ), Foundations of Software Quality, pp 193–199. Essener Informatik Berichte, 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Herrmann, J. Rueckert, and B. Paech. Exploring the interoperability of web services using moqare. In Proceedings of First International Workshop on Interoperability Solutions to Trust, Security, Policies and QoS for Enhanced Enterprise Systems(IS-TSPQ), 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. Jacobson, G. Booch, and J. Rumbaugh. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison Wesley, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Kabilan and P. Johanesson. Semantic representation of contract knowledge using multi-tier contract ontology. In Proceedings of Semantic Web and Databases workshop, (SWDB 2003), 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Kabilan and H. Weigand. Value-model based risk assessment and contract drafting. In Proceedings of First International Workshop on Interoperability Solutions to Trust, Security, Policies and QoS for Enhanced Enterprise Systems(IS-TSPQ), 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Harrison McKnight and Norman L. Chervany. Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In Trust in Cyber-societies: Integrating the human and artificial perspectives, volume LNCS 2246/2001, pages 27–54. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Noy and DL. McGuiness. Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Technical report, Stanford University, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Working Party on Information Security OECD and Privacy. Privacy online: policy and practical guidance. Technical report, OECD, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sini Ruohomaa and Lea Kutvonen. Trust management survey. In Proceedings of the iTrust 3rd International Conference on Trust Management, 23–26, May, 2005, Rocquencourt, France, pages 77–92. Springer-Verlag, LNCS 3477/2005, May 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Union. Directive 95/46/ec. The Official Journal of The European Communities, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Uschold and M. Gruninger. Ontologies principles, methods and applications. The Knowledge Engineering Re-view 11(2): 93–136, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lea Viljanen. Towards an ontology of trust. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business (Trust-Bus’05), 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vandana Kabilan
    • 1
  • Paul Johannesson
    • 1
  • Sini Ruohomaa
    • 2
  • Pirjo Moen
    • 2
  • Andrea Herrmann
    • 3
  • Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt
    • 4
  • Hans Weigand
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesRoyal Institute of Technology and Stockholm UniversityStockholm
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinki
  3. 3.University of HeidelbergHeidelberg
  4. 4.University of SkövdeSkövde
  5. 5.Tilburg UniversityTilburg

Personalised recommendations