Advertisement

Toward the Use of Upper-Level Ontologies for Semantically Interoperable Systems: An Emergency Management Use Case

  • Linda ElmhadhbiEmail author
  • Mohamed-Hedi Karray
  • Bernard Archimède
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the I-ESA Conferences book series (IESACONF, volume 9)

Abstract

In the context of globalization and knowledge management, information technologies require an ample need of unprecedented levels of data exchange and sharing to allow collaboration between heterogeneous systems. Yet, understanding the semantics of the exchanged data is one of the major challenges. Semantic interoperability can be ensured by capturing knowledge from diverse sources by using ontologies and align these latter by using upper-level ontologies to come up with a common shared vocabulary. In this paper, we aim in one hand to investigate the role of upper-level ontologies as a mean for enabling the formalization and integration of heterogeneous sources of information and how it may support interoperability of systems. On the other hand, we present several upper-level ontologies and how we chose and then used basic formal ontology (BFO) as an upper-level ontology and common core ontology (CCO) as a mid-level ontology to develop a modular ontology that defines emergency responders’ knowledge starting from firefighters’ module for a solution to the semantic interoperability problem in emergency management.

Keywords

Semantic interoperability Ontology Upper-level ontology BFO Mid-level ontology CCO Emergency management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as part of the POLARISC (Plateforme OpérationnelLe d’Actualisation du Renseignement Interservices pour la Sécurité Civile) project. It was funded by the regional operational program FEDER/FSE «Midi-Pyrénées et Garonne 2014–2020» as part of the call for projects “Easynov2016.”

References

  1. 1.
    IEEE. (1990). IEEE standard computer dictionary: a compilation of IEEE standard computer glossaries.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Komatsoulis, G. A., et al. (2008). caCORE version 3: Implementation of a model driven, service-oriented architecture for semantic interoperability. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 41(1), 106–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heiler, S. (1995). Semantic interoperability. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 27(2), 271–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bittner, T., Donnelly, M., & Winter, S. (2005). Ontology and semantic interoperability. In Large-scale 3D data integration: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 139–160).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antunes, G., et al. (2013). Using ontologies to integrate multiple enterprise architecture domains. In International Conference on Business Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Obrst, L. (2003). Ontologies for semantically interoperable systems. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Song, F., Zacharewicz, G., & Chen, D. (2013). An ontology-driven framework towards building enterprise semantic information layer. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 27(1), 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Degen, W., et al. (2001). GOL: Toward an axiomatized upper-level ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Vol. 2001) ACM.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conesa, J., Storey, V. C., & Sugumaran, V. (2010). Usability of upper level ontologies: The case of ResearchCyc. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 69(4), 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Semy, S. K., Pulvermacher, M. K., & Obrst, L. J. (2004). Toward the use of an upper ontology for US government and US military domains: An evaluation. No. MTR-04B0000063. Bedford MA: MITRE Corp.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Baumgartner, N., & Retschitzegger, W. (2006). A survey of upper ontologies for situation awareness. In Proceedings of the 4th IASTED International Conference on Knowledge Sharing and Collaborative Engineering, St. Thomas, US VI.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stevenson, G., et al. (2009). Ontonym: A collection of upper ontologies for developing pervasive systems. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Context, Information and Ontologies. ACM.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, Y., Chen, S., & Wang, Y. (2014). SOFERS: Scenario ontology for emergency response system. JNW, 9(9).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matuszek, C., et al. (2006). An introduction to the syntax and content of Cyc. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Formalizing and Compiling Background Knowledge and Its Applications to Knowledge Representation and Question Answering.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herre, H. (2010). General formal ontology (GFO): A foundational ontology for conceptual modelling: Theory and applications of ontology: Computer applications. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niles, I., & Pease, A. (2001). Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Vol. 2001). ACM.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farrar, S., & Bateman, J. (2004). General ontology baseline, deliverable D1, I1-[OntoSpace]; workpackage 1.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith, B., & Ceusters, W. (2010). Ontological realism: A methodology for coordinated evolution of scientific ontologies. Applied ontology, 5(3–4).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seppälä, S., Smith, B., & Ceusters, W. (2014). Applying the realism-based ontology-versioning method for tracking changes in the basic formal ontology. In: FOIS.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gangemi, A., et al. (2002). Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Knowledge engineering and knowledge management: Ontologies and the semantic Web.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    COSMO, Home Page. Retrieved January 15, 2018 from http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/COSMO.html.
  23. 23.
    Mascardi, V., & Cordì, V., & Rosso, P. (2007). A comparison of upper ontologies. WOA.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Semy, S. K., Pulvermacher, M. K., & Obrst, L. J. (2004). Toward the use of an upper ontology for US government and US military domains: An evaluation. Bedford, MA: MITRE Corp.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arp, R., Smith, B., & Spear, A. D. (2015). Building ontologies with basic formal ontology. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rudnicki, R. (2016). An overview of the common core ontologies. CUBRC, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cubrc Homepage. Retrieved November 20, 2017 from http://www.cubrc.org/index.php/data-science-and-information-fusion/ontology.
  28. 28.
    Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lovrencic, S., & Cubrilo, M. (2008). Ontology evaluation-comprising verification and validation. In CECIIS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Elmhadhbi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohamed-Hedi Karray
    • 1
  • Bernard Archimède
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations