An Architecture for Information Exchange Based on Reference Models

  • Heiko Paulheim
  • Daniel Oberle
  • Roland Plendl
  • Florian Probst
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6940)


The goal of reference models is to establish a common vocabulary and recently also to facilitate semantically unambiguous information exchange between IT systems. However, IT systems are based on implementation models that typically deviate significantly from the reference models. This raises the need for a mapping mechanism, which is flexible enough to cope with the disparities between implementation model and reference model at runtime and on instance level, and which can be implemented without altering the established IT system. We present an architecture that solves this problem by establishing methods for representing the instances of an existing IT-System in terms of a reference model. Based on rules, the concrete nature of the representation is decided at run time. Albeit our approach is entirely domain independent, we demonstrate the feasibility of our approach in an industrial case study from the Oil and Gas domain, using the ISO 15926 ontology as a reference model and mapping it to different Java and Flex implementation models.


Reference Model Resource Description Framework Implementation Model Mapping Rule SPARQL Query 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brachman, R.J., Schmolze, J.G.: An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System. Cognitive Science 9(2), 171–216 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.E., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. J. Database Manag. 10(4), 51–52 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stipp, L., Booch, G.: Introduction to object-oriented design (abstract). OOPS Messenger 4(2), 222 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.): Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rebstock, M., Fengel, J., Paulheim, H.: Ontologies-based Business Integration. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pletat, U., Narayan, V.: Towards an upper ontology for representing oil & gas enterprises. In: Position paper for W3C Workshop on Semantic Web in Energy Industries; Part I: Oil and Gas (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Verhelst, F., Myren, F., Rylandsholm, P., Svensson, I., Waaler, A., Skramstad, T., Ornæs, J., Tvedt, B., Høydal, J.: Digital Platform for the Next Generation IO: A Prerequisite for the High North. In: SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kluewer, J.W., Skjæveland, M.G., Valen-Sendstad, M.: ISO 15926 templates and the Semantic Web. In: Position paper for W3C Workshop on Semantic Web in Energy Industries; Part I: Oil and Gas (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Credle, R., Akibola, V., Karna, V., Panneerselvam, D., Pillai, R., Prasad, S.: Discovering the Business Value Patterns of Chemical and Petroleum Integrated Information Framework. Red Book SG24-7735-00, IBM (August 2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernstein, P.A., Melnik, S.: Model Management 2.0: Manipulating Richer Mappings. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 1–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doan, A., Halevy, A.Y.: Semantic Integration Research in the Database Community: A Brief Survey. AI Magazine 26(1), 83–94 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choi, N., Song, I.-Y., Han, H.: A survey on ontology mapping. SIGMOD Record 35(3), 34–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manola, F., Miller, E.: RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation (February 2004),
  14. 14.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Notation3 (N3) A readable RDF syntax (1998),
  15. 15.
    ANSI/X3/SPARC Study Group on Data Base Management Systems: Interim Report. FDT – Bulletin of ACM SIGMOD 7(2), 1–140 (1975)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, P.P.: The Entity-Relationship Model - Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hettel, T., Lawley, M., Raymond, K.: Towards Model Round-Trip Engineering: An Abductive Approach. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ammons, G., Bodík, R., Larus, J.R.: Mining specifications. In: Conference Record of POPL 2002: The 29th SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, January 16-18, pp. 4–16. ACM, Portland (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halevy, A.: Information Integration. In: Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 1490–1496. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sahoo, S.S., Halb, W., Hellmann, S., Idehen, K., Thibodeau Jr., T., Auer, S., Sequeda, J., Ezzat, A.: A Survey of Current Approaches for Mapping of Relational Databases to RDF (2009),, (accessed July 16, 2010)
  21. 21.
    Puleston, C., Parsia, B., Cunningham, J., Rector, A.: Integrating Object-Oriented and Ontological Representations: A Case Study in Java and OWL. In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T.W., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 130–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paulheim, H., Plendl, R., Probst, F., Oberle, D.: Mapping Pragmatic Class Models to Reference Ontologies. In: DESWeb 2011 - 2nd International Workshop on Data Engineering Meets the Semantic Web. In Conjunction with ICDE 2011, Hannover, Germany, April 11 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hillairet, G., Bertrand, F., Lafaye, J.Y.: Bridging EMF applications and RDF data sources. In: Kendall, E.F., Pan, J.Z., Sabbouh, M., Stojanovic, L., Bontcheva, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering, SWESE (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carroll, J.J., Dickinson, I., Dollin, C., Reynolds, D., Seaborne, A., Wilkinson, K.: Jena: Implementing the Semantic Web Recommendations. In: Feldman, S.I., Uretsky, M., Najork, M., Wills, C.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web - Alternate Track Papers & Posters, pp. 74–83. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bechhofer, S., Volz, R., Lord, P.W.: Cooking the Semantic Web with the OWL API. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 659–675. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Völkel, M., Sure, Y.: RDFReactor - From Ontologies to Programmatic Data Access. In: Posters and Demos at International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2005), Galway, Ireland (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalyanpur, A., Pastor, D.J., Battle, S., Padget, J.A.: Automatic Mapping of OWL Ontologies into Java. In: Maurer, F., Ruhe, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2004), Banff, Alberta, Canada, June 20-24, pp. 98–103 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Polleres, A., Scharffe, F., Schindlauer, R.: SPARQL++ for Mapping Between RDF Vocabularies. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 878–896. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: C-OWL: Contextualizing Ontologies. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 164–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akhtar, W., Kopecký, J., Krennwallner, T., Polleres, A.: XSPARQL: Traveling between the XML and RDF Worlds – and Avoiding the XSLT Pilgrimage. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 432–447. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32. Introducing JSON (2010),
  33. 33.
    W3C: XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0 (2007),
  34. 34.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (January 2008),
  35. 35.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO/IEC 14977: Information technology – Syntactic metalanguage – Extended BNF (1996),
  36. 36.
    Friedl, J.: Mastering Regular Expressions. O’Reilly (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    W3C: SPARQL New Features and Rationale (2009),
  38. 38.
    Paulheim, H.: Seamlessly Integrated, but Loosely Coupled - Building UIs from Heterogeneous Components. In: ASE 2010: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 123–126. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Foreman, I.R., Forman, N.: Java Reflection in Action. Action Series. Manning Publications (2004)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sun Microsystems: Java Beans API Specification (1997),
  41. 41.
    Paulheim, H., Meyer, L.: Ontology-based Information Visualization in Integrated UIs. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI), pp. 451–452. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Paulheim, H., Probst, F.: Ontology-Enhanced User Interfaces: A Survey. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 6(2), 36–59 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bonifati, A., Mecca, G., Papotti, P., Velegrakis, Y.: Discovery and Correctness of Schema Mapping Transformations. In: Bellahsene, Z., Bonifati, A., Rahm, E. (eds.) Schema Matching and Mapping, pp. 111–147. Springer (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Paulheim
    • 1
  • Daniel Oberle
    • 2
  • Roland Plendl
    • 2
  • Florian Probst
    • 2
  1. 1.Knowledge Engineering GroupTechnische Universität DarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.SAP ResearchGermany

Personalised recommendations