Representation of Integration Profiles Using an Ontology

  • Ralph Welge
  • Bjoern-Helge Busch
  • Klaus Kabitzsch
  • Janina Laurila-Epe
  • Stefan Heusinger
  • Myriam Lipprandt
  • Marco Eichelberg
  • Elke Eichenberg
  • Heike Engelien
  • Murat Goek
  • Guido Moritz
  • Andreas Hein
Conference paper
Part of the Advanced Technologies and Societal Change book series (ATSC)

Abstract

The Integration and commissioning of AAL systems are time consuming and complicated. The lack of interoperability of available components for Ambient Assisted Living has to be considered as an obstacle for innovative SMEs. In order to ease integration and commissioning of systems knowledge based methods should be taken into account to enable innovative characteristics of AAL systems such as design automation, self-configuration and self-management. Hence, semantic technologies are suitable instruments which offer the capability for mastering the problems of interoperability of heterogeneous and distributed systems. As an important prerequisite for the emergence of knowledge-based assistance functions a standard for unambiguous representation of AAL-relevant knowledge has to be developed. In this paper, the development of an AAL-ontology is proposed as a formal basis for knowledge-based system functions. A prototype of an AAL specific ontology engineering process is presented through the modeling example of a formal representation of a sensor block which is part of an AAL-Integration Profile proposed by the RAALI consortium.

References

  1. 1.
    Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE): IT infrastructure technical framework, Revision 8.0. http://www.ihe.net/Technical_Framework/index.cfm#IT (2011)
  2. 2.
    Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE): Patient care coordination technical framework revision 7.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Continua Health Alliance: Continua Design Guidelines, Version 2012Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DIN EN 61499-1, Funktionsbausteine fuer industrielle Leitsysteme—Teil 1: Architektur (IEC 61499-1:2005); Deutsche Fassung EN 61499-1:2005, Beuth VerlagGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ITU-T Rec. Z.100 (11/99) Specification and description language. www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com10/languages/Z.100_1199.pdf
  6. 6.
    Gruber, T.: Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 43, 907–928 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Noy, N., Hafner, C.: The state of the art in ontology design—a survey and comparative review. AI Magazine. 36(3)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Ontology learning for the semantic webGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fensel, D.: Ontologies: Silver Bullet for Knowledge Man-Agement and Electronic Commerce. Springer, Berlin (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boris Motik, Peter, F., Patel-Schneider, Bijan Parsia, (eds.) W3C Recommendation: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/, (2009)
  11. 11.
    Guarino, N.: Formal ontology and information systems. In: Proceedings of FOIS’98 (Formal Ontology in Information Systems). IOS Press, Trento, Italy (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: Ontology Design Patterns. In: Handbook on Ontologies, 2nd edn. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W3C Incubator group report 28 June 2011: Semantic sensor network XG final report. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn-20110628/ (2012)
  14. 14.
    OGC White Paper—OGC sensor web enablement: Over-view and high Level architecture. http://www.opengeospatial.org/pressroom/papers (2012)
  15. 15.
    Lipprandt.M , et al: Beschreibungsmethodik für AAL-Integrationsprofile. Proceedings GMDS (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sure, Y., Studer, R.: On-To-knowledge methodology final version. EU-IST-Project IST-1999-10132 On-To-Knowledge (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sure, Y., Staab, S., Studer, R.: Ontology engineering methodology. In: Handbook on ontologies, pp. 135–152, 2nd edn. Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-70999-2 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schreiber, G., Akkermans, H., Anjewierden, A., de Hoog, R., Shadbolt, N., Van de Velde, W., Wielinga, B.: Knowledge Engineering and Management—The CommonKADS Methodology. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DIN 1319-1..4, BeuthGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suárez-Figueroa.MC., Gómez-Pérez,A., and Boris Villazón-Terrazas: How to write and use the Ontology Requirements Specification Document. In: Proceeding OTM ‘09 Proceedings of the Confederated International Conferences, CoopIS, DOA, IS, and ODBASE 2009 on the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: Part II, pp 966—982, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: An Overview of Ontoclean. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp 201–221, 2nd edn. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph Welge
    • 1
  • Bjoern-Helge Busch
    • 1
  • Klaus Kabitzsch
    • 1
  • Janina Laurila-Epe
    • 1
  • Stefan Heusinger
    • 1
  • Myriam Lipprandt
    • 1
  • Marco Eichelberg
    • 1
  • Elke Eichenberg
    • 1
  • Heike Engelien
    • 1
  • Murat Goek
    • 1
  • Guido Moritz
    • 1
  • Andreas Hein
    • 1
  1. 1.ENS—Freies Institut fuer Technische InformatikReinstorfGermany

Personalised recommendations