Advertisement

Using Graph Transformation to Support Collaborative Ontology Evolution

  • Pieter De Leenheer
  • Tom Mens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5088)

Abstract

In collaborative ontology engineering, contexts are key to manage the complexity of different dependency types between ontological artefacts. Instead of being frustrated by out-of-control evolution processes, proper context dependency management will allow human experts to focus on the meaning interpretation and negotiation processes. This requires support for the detection and resolution of meaning ambiguities and conflicts. In this article, we explore to which extent the theory of graph transformation can be used to support this activity. More specifically, we propose the use of critical pair analysis as a formal means to analyse conflicts between ontologies that are evolving in parallel. We illustrate this with an example from a realistic case study.

Keywords

Graph Transformation Critical Pair Context Dependency Concrete Syntax 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.
    Corradini, A., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Graph processes. Fundamenta Informaticae 26(3–4), 241–265 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: ATOM3: A tool for multi-formalism and meta-modelling. In: Kutsche, R.-D., Weber, H. (eds.) FASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2306, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Leenheer, P., Mens, T.: Ontology Evolution: State of the Art and Future Directions. In: Ontology Management for the Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services, and Business Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Moor, A., De Leenheer, P., Meersman, R.: DOGMA-MESS: A meaning evolution support system for interorganizational ontology engineering. In: Schärfe, H., Hitzler, P., Øhrstrøm, P. (eds.) ICCS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4068, pp. 189–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ermel, C., Ehrig, K., Taentzer, G., Weiss, E.: Object-oriented and rule-based design of visual languages using tiger. In: Proc. workshop on Graph-Based Tools (GraBaTs). Electronic Communications of the EASST, vol. 1 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Falkenberg, E.D.: Frisco: A framework of information system concepts. Technical report, IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruber, T.: Cyc: a translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guarino, N.: Formal ontology and information systems. In: Proc. of FOIS 1998, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heckel, R.: Algebraic graph transformations with application conditions. Master’s thesis, Technische Universität Berlin (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heckel, R., Küster, J.M., Taentzer, G.: Confluence of typed attributed graph transformation systems. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2505, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heer, T., Retkowitz, D., Kraft, B.: Algorithm and tool for ontology integration based on graph rewriting. In: Proc. Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance (AGTIVE), Wilhelmshöhe, Kassel, Germany, pp. 484–490 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hepp, M., De Leenheer, P., de Moor, A., Sure, Y. (eds.): Ontology Management for the Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services, and Business Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jurack, S., Taentzer, G.: ROOTS: An Eclipse plug-in for graph transformation systems based on AGG. In: Proc. Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance (AGTIVE), pp. 491–496 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koehler, J., Gschwind, T., Küster, J.: Combining quality assurance and model transformations in business-driven development. In: Proc.of Agtive 2007. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Leenheer, P., de Moor, A., Meersman, R.: Context dependency management in ontology engineering: a formal approach. LNCS Journal on Data Semantics 8, 26–56 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Leenheer, P., Meersman, R.: Towards community-based evolution of knowledge-intensive systems. In: Proc.of ODBASE 2007. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meersman, R.: The use of lexicons and other computer-linguistic tools in semantics, design and cooperation of database systems. In: Proc.of CODAS 1999, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mens, T.: A Formal Foundation for Object-Oriented Software Evolution. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium (September 1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mens, T.: Conditional graph rewriting as a domain-independent formalism for software evolution. In: Münch, M., Nagl, M. (eds.) AGTIVE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1779, pp. 127–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mens, T., Demeyer, S. (eds.): Software Evolution. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mens, T., Taentzer, G., Runge, O.: Analyzing refactoring dependencies using graph transformation. Software and Systems Modeling (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mens, T., Van Der Straeten, R.: Incremental resolution of model inconsistencies. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Schobbens, P.-Y. (eds.) WADT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4409, pp. 111–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mens, T., Van Der Straeten, R., D’Hondt, M.: Detecting and resolving model inconsistencies using transformation dependency analysis. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Minas, M.: Generating meta-model-based freehand editors. In: Proc. Int’l Workshop Graph-Based Tools (GraBaTs), Natal, Brazil. Electronic Communications of the EASST (September 2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Minas, M., Viehstaedt, G.: DiaGen: A generator for diagram editors providing direct manipulation and execution of diagrams. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. Visual Languages, pp. 203–210 (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vrije Universiteit Brussel STAR.Lab. DOGMA Studio WorkBench (2007), http://www.starlab.vub.ac.be/website/dogmastudio
  27. 27.
    Taentzer, G.: AGG: A graph transformation environment for modeling and validation of software. In: Pfaltz, J.L., Nagl, M., Böhlen, B. (eds.) AGTIVE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 446–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taentzer, G.: AGG (November 2007), http://tfs.cs.tu-berlin.de/agg
  29. 29.
    Taentzer, G., Schmutzler, R., Ermel, C.: Generating domain-specific model editors with complex editing commands. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) Proceedings of AGTIVE 2007: Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance, Wilhelmshöhe, Kassel, Germany (October 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter De Leenheer
    • 1
  • Tom Mens
    • 2
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit Brussel, STARLabBelgium
  2. 2.University of Mons-HainautBelgium

Personalised recommendations