Declarative Representation of Programming Access to Ontologies

  • Stefan Scheglmann
  • Ansgar Scherp
  • Steffen Staab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7295)

Abstract

Using ontologies in software applications is a challenging task due to the chasm between the logics-based world of ontologies and the object-oriented world of software applications. The logics-based representation emphasizes the meaning of concepts and properties, i.e., their semantics. The modeler in the object-oriented paradigm also takes into account the pragmatics, i.e., how the classes are used, by whom, and why. To enable a comprehensive use of logics-based representations in object-oriented software systems, a seamless integration of the two paradigms is needed. However, the pragmatic issues of using logic-based knowledge in object-oriented software applications has yet not been considered sufficiently. Rather, the pragmatic issues that arise in using an ontology, e.g., which classes to instantiate in which order, remains a task to be carefully considered by the application developer. In this paper, we present a declarative representation for designing and applying programming access to ontologies. Based on this declarative representation, we have build OntoMDE, a model-driven engineering toolkit that we have applied to several example ontologies with different Characteristics.

Keywords

Structure Concept Programming Access Content Concept Ontology Concept Semantic Unit 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Fowler, M.: Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fussell, M.L. (ed.): Foundations of Object Relational Mapping (2007), http://www.database-books.us/databasesystems_0003.php
  3. 3.
    Gangemi, A., Mika, P.: Understanding the Semantic Web through Descriptions and Situations. In: Meersman, R., Schmidt, D.C. (eds.) CoopIS 2003, DOA 2003, and ODBASE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2888, pp. 689–706. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hart, L., Emery, P.: OWL Full and UML 2.0 Compared (2004), http://uk.builder.com/whitepapers/0and39026692and60093347p-39001028qand00.html
  5. 5.
    Ireland, C., Bowers, D., Newton, M., Waugh, K.: A classification of object-relational impedance mismatch. In: Chen, Q., Cuzzocrea, A., Hara, T., Hunt, E., Popescu, M. (eds.) DBKDA, pp. 36–43. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalyanpur, A., Pastor, D.J., Battle, S., Padget, J.A.: Automatic Mapping of OWL Ontologies into Java. In: SEKE (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ontology Definition Metamodel. Object Modeling Group (May 2009), http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.0/PDF
  8. 8.
    Oren, E., Delbru, R., Gerke, S., Haller, A., Decker, S.: Activerdf: object-oriented semantic web programming. In: WWW. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parreiras, F.S., Saathoff, C., Walter, T., Franz, T., Staab, S.: à gogo: Automatic Generation of Ontology APIs. In: IEEE Int. Conference on Semantic Computing. IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S., Winter, A.: Improving design patterns by description logics: A use case with abstract factory and strategy. In: Khne, T., Reisig, W., Steimann, F. (eds.) Modellierung. LNI, vol. 127, pp. 89–104. GI (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahmani, T., Oberle, D., Dahms, M.: An Adjustable Transformation from OWL to Ecore. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 243–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saathoff, C., Scheglmann, S., Schenk, S.: Winter: Mapping RDF to POJOs revisited. In: Poster and Demo Session, ESWC, Heraklion, Greece (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saathoff, C., Scherp, A.: Unlocking the Semantics of Multimedia Presentations in the Web with the Multimedia Metadata Ontology. In: WWW. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scherp, A., Franz, T., Saathoff, C., Staab, S.: F–a model of events based on the foundational ontology DOLCE+DnS Ultralight. In: K-CAP 2009. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ambler Scott, W.: Crossing the object-data divide (March 2000), http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/184414587
  16. 16.
    Ambler Scott, W.: The object-relational impedance mismatch (January 2010), http://www.agiledata.org/essays/impedanceMismatch.html
  17. 17.
    Wirfs-Brock, R., Wilkerson, B.: Object-Oriented Design: A Responsibility Driven Approach. SIGPLAN Notices (October 1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Scheglmann
    • 1
  • Ansgar Scherp
    • 1
  • Steffen Staab
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Web Science and TechnologiesUniversity of Koblenz-LandauGermany

Personalised recommendations