Advertisement

Engineering an Ontology of Financial Securities Fraud

  • Gang Zhao
  • John Kingston
  • Koen Kerremans
  • Frederick Coppens
  • Ruben Verlinden
  • Rita Temmerman
  • Robert Meersman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3292)

Abstract

This paper discusses the approach of ontology-based knowledge engineering in FF POIROT, a project to explore the use of ontology technology in information systems against financial fraud. A fraud forensic ontology is being developed from laws, regulations and cases about illegal solicitation of financial products on the web. The knowledge development is based on the DOGMA ontology paradigm, and the derived ontology engineering methodology AKEM. The regulatory ontology engineering is a multi-disciplinary and distributed team work through a series of tasks and deliverables with emphasis on the traceability of decision making in the development. The machine ontology extraction and a manually constructed bilingual terminological database, is used to support the ontology modelling process.

Keywords

Ontological Commitment Knowledge Resource Ontology Modelling Ontology Development Ontology Engineering 
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.
    Aussenac-Gilles, N., Bielow, B., Szulman, S.: Corpus Analysis for Conceptual Modelling. In: Dieng, R., Corby, O. (eds.) EKAW 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1937, p. 51. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deray, T., Verheyden, P.: Towards a Semantic Integration of Medical Relational Databases by Using Ontologies: a Case Study. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM-WS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2889, pp. 137–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruber, T.: Towards Principles A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grüingger, M., Fox, M.S.: Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In: IJCAI 1995 Workshop on basic ontological issues in knowledge sharing, Montreal (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jarrar, M., Demey, J., Meersman, R.: On Reusing Conceptual Data Modeling for Ontology Engineering. Journal on Data Semantics 1(1), 185–207 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kerremans, K., Temmerman, R., Tummers, J.: Representing Multilingual and Culture- Specific Knowledge in a VAT Regulatory Ontology: Support from the Termontography Approach. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2003 Workshops, Springer, Tübingen (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kingston, J., Vandenberghe, W.: A Comparison of A Regulatory Ontology with Existing Legal Ontology Frameworks. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2003 Workshops, Springer, Tübingen (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kroll, P., Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process Made Easy: A Practitioner’s Guide to the RUP. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Legislative Decree 58 of 24 February 1998, Consolidated Law on Financial Intermediation Pursuant to Articles of Law 52 of 6 February 1996, as Amended by Legislative Decree 61, April 11 (2002), http://www.consob.it/produzione/english/Regulations/fr_decree58.htm
  12. 12.
    Meersman, R.: Reusing Certain Database Design Principles, Methods and Techniques for Ontology Theory, Construction and Methodology. STARLab Technical Report 01 (2000) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nobecourt, J.: A Method to Build Formal Ontologies from Texts, Corpus Analysis for Conceptual Modelling. In: EKAW 2000 Workshop on Ontologies and Texts. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, p. 51 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Temmerman, R.: Towards New Ways of Terminology Description - the Sociocognitive Approach. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wigmore, J.H.: The Science of Judicial Proof as given by Logic, Psychology and General Experience. Little Brown, Boston (1937)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhao, G.: Application Semiotics Engineering Process. In: International Conference of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 354–359 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhao, G., Gao, Y., Meersman, R.: An Ontology-based Approach to Business Modelling. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of Knowledge Engineering and Decision Support, pp. 213–221 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gang Zhao
    • 1
  • John Kingston
    • 2
  • Koen Kerremans
    • 3
  • Frederick Coppens
    • 4
  • Ruben Verlinden
    • 1
  • Rita Temmerman
    • 3
  • Robert Meersman
    • 1
  1. 1.STARLab, Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselBelgium
  2. 2.Joseph Bell CentreUniversity of EdinburghScotland
  3. 3.CVCErasmushogeschool BrusselBelgium
  4. 4.Language & Computing NVBelgium

Personalised recommendations