Advertisement

Designing an Ontology for Semantic Integration of Various Conceptual Models

  • Marek SuchánekEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 366)

Abstract

Ontologies and conceptual modelling are very close areas in software engineering. This paper is focused on initial steps towards the integration of conceptual models by the foundation of Ontology for Conceptual Models Integration to capture the knowledge about various conceptual modelling languages, including process, event, and object-role modelling. It is based on previous work in this area and has an ambitious goal to allow semantic integration of conceptual models made in different languages to cover more aspects and details of the problem domain. The presented contribution consists of the related work research, the initial ontology designed to be easily extensible, and related ideas for future work based on this foundation. We foresee this ontology to help also with using various conceptual models to create complete, consistent, and requisite software implementation in an automated way.

Keywords

Ontology Conceptual modelling Integration Mapping 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the grant of Czech Technical University in Prague No. SGS17/211/OHK3/3T/18.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barcelos, P.P.F., dos Santos, V.A., Silva, F.B., Monteiro, M.E., Garcia, A.S.: An automated transformation from OntoUML to OWL and SWRL. Ontobras 1041, 130–141 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bechhofer, S., et al.: OWL: Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C recommendation 10(02) (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braga, B.F., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., Benevides, A.B.: Transforming OntoUML into alloy: towards conceptual model validation using a lightweight formal method. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 6(1–2), 55–63 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brodie, M.L., Mylopoulos, J., Schmidt, J.W.: On Conceptual Modelling: Perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, Databases, and Programming Languages. Springer, New York (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Creative Commons: CC0 1.0 Universal (2019). https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.cs
  7. 7.
    Dietz, J.L.: Towards a discipline of organisation engineering. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 128(2), 351–363 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garijo, D.: WIDOCO: a wizard for documenting ontologies. In: d’Amato, C., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10588, pp. 94–102. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68204-4_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graham, M.: Persistent URL Service, purl.org, Now Run by the Internet Archive. blog.archive.org (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: the next step for OWL. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 6(4), 309–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, Telematica Instituut, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (2005). http://doc.utwente.nl/50826/1/thesis_Guizzardi.pdf
  12. 12.
    Halpin, T.: Object-Role Modeling Fundamentals: A Practical Guide to Data Modeling with ORM. Technics Publications, LLC, Basking Ridge (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative and others: Dublin core metadata element set, version 1.1 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalfoglou, Y., et al. (eds.) Semantic Interoperability and Integration, no. 04391 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, Dagstuhl, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knott, R., Merunka, V., Polák, J.: The BORM method: a third generation object-oriented methodology. In: Management of the Object-Oriented Development Process. IGI Global (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In: Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Olivé, A. (eds.) Information System Concepts. IAICT, pp. 216–231. Springer, Boston, MA (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34870-4_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lohmann, S., Link, V., Marbach, E., Negru, S.: WebVOWL: web-based visualization of ontologies. In: Lambrix, P., et al. (eds.) EKAW 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8982, pp. 154–158. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17966-7_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCusker, J.P., Luciano, J.S., McGuinness, D.L.: Towards an ontology for conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Biomedical Ontology, Buffalo, NY, USA, 26–30 July 2011 (2011). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-833/paper25.pdf
  19. 19.
    McGuinness, D.L., Van Harmelen, F., et al.: OWL: Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C recommendation 10(10), 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Musen, M.A., et al.: The Protégé project: a look back and a look forward. AI Matters 1(4), 4 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual Modelling and Telos. Conceptual Modelling, Databases, and CASE: An Integrated View of Information System Development, pp. 49–68. Wiley, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Natschläger, C.: Towards a BPMN 2.0 ontology. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) BPMN 2011. LNBIP, vol. 95, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25160-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group (OMG): OMG unified modeling language, v. 2.5. Technical report (2015). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/PDF
  24. 24.
    OMG: OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, Version 2.5.1 (2013). http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.5.1
  25. 25.
    Potter, M., Smith, T.: Making code citable with zenodo and github. Software Sustainibility Institute (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 25(1), 158–176 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Truyen, F.: The Fast Guide to Model Driven Architecture - The basics of Model Driven Architecture (2006). http://www.omg.org/mda/mda_files/Cephas_MDA_Fast_Guide.pdf
  28. 28.
    Verdonck, M., Gailly, F., Pergl, R., Guizzardi, G., Martins, B., Pastor, O.: Comparing traditional conceptual modeling with ontology-driven conceptual modeling: an empirical study. Information Systems (2018). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2018.11.009
  29. 29.
    Wilkinson, M.D., et al.: The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship. Scientific Data 3 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zedlitz, J., Jörke, J., Luttenberger, N.: From UML to OWL 2. In: Lukose, D., Ahmad, A.R., Suliman, A. (eds.) KTW 2011. CCIS, vol. 295, pp. 154–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32826-8_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zedlitz, J., Luttenberger, N.: Transforming between UML conceptual models and OWL 2 ontologies. In: Terra Cognita 2012 Workshop, vol. 6, p. 15 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyCzech Technical University in PraguePrague 6Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations