Main Elements of a Basic Ontology of Infrastructure Interdependency for the Assessment of Incidents

  • Miguel-Ángel Sicilia
  • Leopoldo Santos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5736)


Critical infrastructure systems currently conform highly complex and interdependent networks. While simulation models exist for different infrastructure domains, they are not always available when incidents are unfolding, and in many cases they cannot predict the cascading effect of failures that cross domains, or they are not able to support the rapid situation assessment required in response phase. To address a high-level view of the incidents in a given situation, both expert and domain knowledge and also computational models cross-cutting infrastructure systems are required. This paper describes the main elements of a basic formal infrastructure incident assessment ontology (BFiaO) that factors out the main elements required for applications dealing with incident assessment. Such ontology is intended to be extended with the specifics of each domain and infrastructure network. Situation assessment knowledge including reasoning can be captured with rules that suggest potential risks given the interdependency patterns in the network, having the outcomes of these rules different status according to their sources. Examples of this kind of risk-oriented assessment are provided.


Emergency management critical infrastructures ontologies situation assessment rules OWL SWRL 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Araujo, R.B., Rocha, R.V., Campos, M.R., Boukerche, A.: Creating Emergency Management Training Simulations through Ontologies Integration. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering (workshops), pp. 373–378 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. Baker, G.H.: A Vulnerability Assessment Methodology for Critical Infrastructure Sites DHS Symposium: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security, Boston, Massachusetts (April 2005),
  3. Brown, T., Beyeler, W., Barton, D.: Assessing infrastructure interdependencies: the challenge of risk analysis for complex adaptive systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 1(1), 108–117 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dudenhoeffer, D.D., Permann, M.R., Manic, M.: CIMS: A Framework for Infrastructure Interdependency Modeling and Analysis. In: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. WSC 2006, pp. 478–485 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. Dueñas-Osorio, L., Craig, J.I., Goodno, B.J.: Seismic response of critical interdependent networks. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36(2), 285–306 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ezell, B.: Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I-VAM). Risk Analysis 27(3), 571–583 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hernandez, J., Serrano, J.M.: Knowledge-based models for emergency management systems. Expert Systems with Applications 20(2), 173–186 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holmgren, A.J.: Using graph models to analyze the vulnerability of electric power networks. Risk Analysis 26(4), 955–969 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klir, G., Wierman, M.: Uncertainty-Based Information: Elements of Generalized Information Theory. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Little, E., Rogova, G.: Designing ontologies for higher level fusion. Information Fusion 10(1), 70–82 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McLennan, J., Holgate, M., Omodei, M.M., Wearing, A.J.: Human information processing aspects of emergency incident management decision making. In: Cook, M., Noyes, J., Masakowski, Y. (eds.) Decision making in complex environments, pp. 143–151. Ashgate, Aldershot (2007)Google Scholar
  12. Pederson, P., Dudenhoeffer, D., Hartley, S., Permann, M.: Critical infrastructure interdependency modeling: a survey of US and international research. Report INL/EXT-06-11464, Idaho Falls: Idaho National Laboratory (2006)Google Scholar
  13. Robert, B., De Calan, R., Morabito, L.: Modelling interdependencies among critical infrastructures. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 4(4), 392–408 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith, B.: Mereotopology: A Theory of Parts and Boundaries. Data and Knowledge Engineering 20, 287–303 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Zimmerman, R., Restrepo, C.: The next step: quantifying infrastructure interdependencies to improve security. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 2(2/3), 215–230 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel-Ángel Sicilia
    • 1
  • Leopoldo Santos
    • 2
  1. 1.Information Engineering Research Unit Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of AlcaláAlcalá de Henares (Madrid)Spain
  2. 2.Emergency Military Unit, CG J6Torrejón de Ardoz Air BaseSpain

Personalised recommendations