Aspect-Oriented Ontology Development

  • Ralph Schäfermeier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 160)


In this paper, we describe our PhD research on an aspect-oriented approach for multi-dimensional specification of ontology modules driven by cross-cutting modularization requirements. The problem with existing modularization techniques lies in their respective focus on a single dimension along which a problem space can be segmented. We believe, however, that the majority of real-world ontology development scenarios is more complex, and that most applications have the potential for providing multiple cross-cutting modularization use cases. We examine commonalities between ontology modules and software aspects and propose an approach to applying the latter to the problem of a priori construction of modular ontologies and a posteriori ontology modularization.


ontology modularization aspect-oriented development cross-cutting concerns 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    del Vescovo, C., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T.: The modular structure of an ontology: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Modular Ontologies: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop (WoMO 2010), pp. 11–24. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grau, B.C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Modularity and web ontologies. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 198–209. AAAI Press (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    d’Aquin, M.: Modularizing Ontologies. In: Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Gómez-Pérez, A., Motta, E., Gangemi, A. (eds.) Ontology Engineering in a Networked World, pp. 213–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoehndorf, R., Dumontier, M., Oellrich, A., Wimalaratne, S., Rebholz-Schuhmann, D., Schofield, P., Gkoutos, G.V.: A common layer of interoperability for biomedical ontologies based on OWL EL. Bioinformatics 27(7), 1001–1008 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stvilia, B.: A model for ontology quality evaluation. First Monday 12(12) (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Maio, P.: Toward “Just Enough” Ontology Engineering. Cutter Consoritium Business Intelligence Executive Report 9(3) (March 2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Group, I.A.W.: IEEE standard 1471-2000, Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grau, B.C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Automatic Partitioning of OWL Ontologies Using ε-Connections (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Combining OWL ontologies using ε-Connections. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 4(1), 40–59 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schlicht, A., Stuckenschmidt, H.: A Flexible Partitioning Tool for Large Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, WI-IAT 2008, vol. 01, pp. 482–488. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coskun, G., Rothe, M., Teymourian, K., Paschke, A.: Applying community detection algorithms on ontologies for indentifying concept groups. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, Ljubljana, Slovenia (September 2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Extracting Modules from Ontologies: A Logic-Based Approach. In: [30], pp. 159–186, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-01907-4Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Konev, B., Lutz, C., Walther, D., Wolter, F.: Semantic Modularity and Module Extraction in Description Logics. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on ECAI 2008: 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 55–59. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Module Extraction and Incremental Classification: A Pragmatic Approach for \(\mathcal{EL}^+\) Ontologies. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 230–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kontchakov, R., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: Logic-based ontology comparison and module extraction, with an application to DL-Lite. Artificial Intelligence 174(15), 1093–1141 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grau, B.C., Honavar, V., Schlicht, A., Wolter, F. (eds.): Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, WoMO 2007, Whistler, Canada, October 28, 2007. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 315. (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    d’Aquin, M., Doran, P., Motta, E., Tamma, V.A.M.: Towards a parametric ontology modularization framework based on graph transformation. In: [16]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thakker, D., Dimitrova, V., Lau, L., Denaux, R., Karanasios, S., Yang-Turner, F.: A priori ontology modularisation in ill-defined domains. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Semantic Systems. I-Semantics 2011, pp. 167–170. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Doran, P., Palmisano, I., Tamma, V.A.M.: Somet: Algorithm and tool for sparql based ontology module extraction. In: Sattler, U., Tamilin, A. (eds.) WoMO. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 348. (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Filman, R., Friedman, D.: Aspect-Oriented Programming Is Quantification and Obliviousness. In: Workshop on Advanced Separation of Concerns, OOPSLA (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steimann, F.: Domain Models Are Aspect Free. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 171–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Priss, U.: Facet-like Structures in Computer Science. Axiomathes 18(2), 243–255 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dantas, D.S., Walker, D.: Harmless Advice. In: Conference Record of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2006, pp. 383–396. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 31, 273–318, ACM ID: 1622664 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Konev, B., Lutz, C., Walther, D., Wolter, F.: Formal Properties of Modularisation. In: [30], pp. 25–66, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-01907-4Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Del Vescovo, C., Klinov, P., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T., Tsarkov, D.: Syntactic vs. Semantic Locality: How Good Is a Cheap Approximation? In: Schneider, T., Walther, D. (eds.) Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WoMO), pp. 40–50 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    d’Aquin, M., Schlicht, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Sabou, M.: Criteria and Evaluation for Ontology Modularization Techniques. In: Stuckenschmidt, H., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.) Modular Ontologies. LNCS, vol. 5445, pp. 67–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.): Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2009), doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01907-4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph Schäfermeier
    • 1
  1. 1.Corporate Semantic Web GroupFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations