The Role of Foundational Ontologies in Manufacturing Domain Applications

  • Stefano Borgo
  • Paulo Leitão
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3290)

Abstract

Although ontology has gained wide attention in the area of information systems, a criticism typical of the early days is still rehearsed here and there. Roughly, this criticism says: general ontologies are not suited for real applications. We believe this is the result of a misunderstanding of the role of general ontologies since, we claim, even foundational ontologies (the most general and formal ontologies) have a crucial role in building reusable, adaptable and transparent application systems. We support this view by showing how foundational ontologies can be used in the manufacturing control area. Our approach (partially presented here through an example) provides a domain-specific ontology which is explicitly designed for applications, theoretically organized by a foundational ontology, driven by the application field for all intents and purposes, suitable for communication across different applications.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology and Information Systems, FOIS, Trento, Italy, pp. 3–5 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet An Electronic Lexical Database. Bradford Book (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: Ontology Library (WonderWeb Deliverable D18), http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf
  4. 4.
    Pisanelli, D.M., Gangemi, A., Steve, G.: Ontologies and Information Systems: the Marriage of the Century? In: Proceedings of Lyee Workshop, Paris (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertolazzi, P., Krusich, C., Missikoff, M.: An Approach to the Definition of a Core Enterprise Ontology: CEO, OES-SEO 2001, Rome (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilks, Y.: Ontotherapy: or how to stop worrying about what there is 2003/8/6 (2003), http://www.racai.ro/EUROLAN-2003/html/presentations/SheffieldWilksBrewsterDingli/Ontotherapy_YWilks.ppt
  7. 7.
    Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A.: Understanding Top-Level Ontological Distinctions. In: Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, IJCAI 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leitão, P., Restivo, F.: Holonic Adaptive Production Control Systems. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, pp. 2968–2973 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koestler, A.: The Ghost in the Machine. Arkana Books, London (1969)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (June 2003), http://www.fipa.org/
  11. 11.
    Schlenoff, C., Knutilla, A., Ray, S.: Unified Process Specification Language: Requirements for Modelling Process, NIST, Interagency Report 5910, Gaithersburg MD (September 1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Catron, B., Ray, S.: ALPS: A Language for Process Specification. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 4(2), 105–113 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fadel, F., Fox, M., Gruninger, M.: A Generic Enterprise Resource Ontology. In: 3rd IEEE Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructures for Collaborative Enterprises (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., Zorgios, Y.: The Enterprise Ontology. The Knowledge Engineering Review, Special Issue on Putting Ontologies to Use 13(1), 31–89 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, J., Gruninger, M., Jin, Y., Malone, T., Tate, A., Yost, G.: The PIF WG, The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework. Know. Eng. Rev. 13(1), 91–120 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Vet, P., Speel, P.-H., Mars, N.: The PLINIUS Ontology of Ceramic Materials. In: ECAI 1994, Workshop on Comparison of Implemented Ontologies (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heller, B., Herre, H.: Ontological Categories in GOL. Axiomathes 1(14), 57–76Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Toward a Standard Upper Ontology. In: FOIS 2001, pp. 2–9 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin, P.: Correction and Extension of WordNet 1.7. In: Ganter, B., de Moor, A., Lex, W. (eds.) ICCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2746, pp. 160–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masolo, C., Vieu, L., Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Ferrario, R., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N.: Social Roles and their Descriptions, KR 2004, pp. 267–277 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Borgo
    • 1
  • Paulo Leitão
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory for Applied OntologyISTC-CNRTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Polytechnic Institute of BragançaQuinta Sta ApolóniaBragançaPortugal

Personalised recommendations