Advertisement

PROMOD: A Modeling Tool for Product Ontology

  • Kyunghwa Kim
  • Moonhee Tark
  • Hyunja Lee
  • Junho Shim
  • Junsoo Lee
  • Seungjin Lee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4055)

Abstract

Product ontology is often constructed by explicating the domain ontology in a formal ontology language. The OWL Web Ontology Language has been positioned as a standard language. It requires technical expertise to directly represent the domain in OWL. An alternative way is to let a domain expert provide a conceptual representation of the domain, and to mechanically translate it into the corresponding OWL codes. We have developed a modeling tool called PROMOD to achieve this process in the product domain. We employ an Extended Entity-Relationship for conceptual model, enriched with modeling elements specialized for the product domain. We present how each element may be technically represented in OWL. We also provide a modeling scenario to demonstrate the practical feasibility of the tool in the field.

Keywords

Modeling Tool Description Logic Domain Ontology Spindle Motor Product Domain 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Franconi, E., Ng, G.: The i∙com Tool for Intelligent Conceptual Modeling. In: 7th International Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases (KRDB 2000) (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Description Logic Systems with Concrete Domains: Applications for the Semantic Web. In: 10th International Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases (KRDB 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hepp, M.: A Methodology for Deriving OWL Ontologies from Products and Services Categorization Standards. In: 13th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, I., Lee, S., Lee, T., Lee, S.-g., Kim, D., Chun, J., Lee, H., Shim, J.: Practical Issues for Building a Product Ontology System. In: International Workshop on Data Engineering Issues in E-Commerce (DEEC 2005). IEEE Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, J., Goodwin, R.: Ontology Management for Large-Scale E-Commerce Applications. In: Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, H., Shim, J.: Product Ontology and OWL Correspondence. In: IEEE Pacific Rim International Workshop on Electronic Commerce (IEEE-PRIWEC 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, H., Shim, J., Kim, D.: Ontological Modeling of e-Catalogs using EER and Description Logic. In: International Workshop on Data Engineering Issues in E-Commerce (DEEC 2005). IEEE Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L.: OWL Web Ontology Language Guide – W3C Recommendation (2004), http://www.w3c.org/TR/owl-guide/
  10. 10.
    Staab, S., Studer, R.: Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Storey, V.C.: Understanding Semantic Relationships. VLDB Journal. VLDB Endowment 2 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyunghwa Kim
    • 1
  • Moonhee Tark
    • 1
  • Hyunja Lee
    • 1
  • Junho Shim
    • 1
  • Junsoo Lee
    • 1
  • Seungjin Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceSookmyung Women’s UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Software EngineeringSungKongHoe UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations