Ontology Based Framework Using a Semantic Web for Addressing Semantic Reconciliation in Construction

  • Raja R. A. Issa
  • Ivan Mutis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4200)


Exchanging, sharing, or integrating information in the construction industry involve the reconciliation of multiple data formats, structures and schemas with minimal human interaction. Approaching interoperability employing these models via integration, mapping or merging information forces the use of purely syntactical layers with heavy human intervention. Enhancing our ability to explicitly model information and to find methods that consistently harmonize the construction participant’s use of common language will allow interoperability to be moved to new levels of flexibility and automation by structuring the information upon semantic levels. These levels must have conceptualization aspects to define knowledge, a common vocabulary that covers the syntax, symbols, grammars, and axiomatization that captures inference. Our approach inherits the ability of enhancing interoperability at the syntactic and semantic levels of the Semantic web and proposes onto-semantic schemas, which are ontology constructs of concepts of the construction domain. The approach produces an analysis from the primitives to more refined concepts using the Semantic Web’s power of representation with the purpose of enhancing interoperability at semantic and syntactic levels.


Resource Description Framework Cognitive Agent Semantic Interoperability Intended Model Construction Concept 
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.
    Turk, Z.: Construction informatics: Definition and ontology. Advanced Engineering Informatics 20(2), 187–199 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jeusfeld, M.A., Moor, A.D.: Concept Integration Precedes Enterprise Integration. In: 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34), p. 10. IEEE, Island of Maui (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veeramani, R., Russell, J.S., Chan, C., Cusick, N., Mahle, M.M., Roo, B.V.: State of Practice of E-Commerce Application in the Construction Industry. In: E-Commerce Applications for Construction, Construction Industry Institute, p. 138. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kitamura, Y., Kashiwase, M., Fuse, M., Mizoguchi, R.: Deployment of an ontological framework of functional design knowledge. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(2), 115–127 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peachavanish, R., Karimi, H.A., Akinci, B., Boukamp, F.: An ontological engineering approach for integrating CAD and GIS in support of infrastructure management. Advanced Engineering Informatics 20(1), 71–88 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Partridge, C.: The role of ontology in integrating semantically heterogeneous databases. In: LADSEB-CNR, T.R. Editor. National Research Council, Institute of Systems Theory and Biomedical Engineering (LADSEB-CNR), Padova - Italy, 05/02, p. 24 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zúñiga, G.L.: Ontology: its transformation from philosophy to information systems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 187–197. ACM Press, Ogunquit (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turk, Z.: Phenomenological foundations of conceptual product modelling in architecture, engineering, and construction. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering 15(2), 83–92 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mutis, I.A., Issa, R.R.A., Flood, I.: Semantic Structures of Construction Product Conceptualization. In: International Conference on Computing Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering, Montreal, Canada (submitted, 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mutis, I.A., Issa, R.R.A., Flood, I.: Conceptualization of Construction Industry Organizations Via Ontological Analysis. In: International Conference on Computing Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering, Montreal, Canada (submitted, 2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Theory of Affordances. In: Shaw, R., Brachman, R.J. (eds.) Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Toward and ecological psychology, vol. 1, p. 492. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1977)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, 1st edn., p. 624. Basic Books, Perseus Books Group, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garcia-Molina, H., Ullman, J.D., Widom, J.: Database systems: the complete book. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brachman, R.J.: On the epistemological status of semantic networks. In: Findler, N.V. (ed.) Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, pp. 3–50. Academic Press, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Woods, W.A.: What’s in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In: Bobrow, D.G., Collins, A.M. (eds.) Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, pp. 32–35. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doan, A.: Learning to Map between Structured Representations of Data. In: Computer Science & Engineering, p. 133. University of Washington, Seattle (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology, R. KSL-01-05 and SMI-2001-0880, Editors. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical, Stanford, Ca., p. 25 (2001) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giunchiglia, F., Shvaiko, P.: Semantic Matching, University of Trento, Department of information and Communication Technology, p. 16 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ding, L., Kolari, P., Ding, Z., Avancha, S., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: Using Ontology in the Semantic Web. Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineer. University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, p. 34 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal 10, 334–350 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI). Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) (Last Update 2005) (accessed, April 2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    OmniClass Construction Classification System (web accessed in July 4) (Last Update)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amor, R.: Integrating Construction Information: An Old Challenge Made New. In: Construction Information Technology 2000, International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp. 11–20 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zamanian, M.K., Pittman, J.H.: A software industry perspective on AEC information models for distributed collaboration. Automation in Construction 8(3), 237–248 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sivashanmugam, K., Miller, J.A., Sheth, A.P., Verma, K.: Framework for Semantic Web Process Composition. In: Large Scale Distributed Information Systems, Computer Science Department, p. 42. The University of Georgia, Athens, GA (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sowa, J.F.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. In: Theory, K.R. (ed.), 1st edn., p. 594. Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Ontology Language (OWL) (Last Update, 2004) (accessed, April 2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Emmeche, C.: Causal processes, semiosis, and consciousness. In: Seibt, J. (ed.) Process Theories: Cross disciplinary Studies in Dynamic Categories, pp. 313–336. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Luger, G.F.: Artificial intelligence: structures and strategies for complex problem solving, 4th edn., p. 856. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guarino, N.: Understanding, building and using ontologies. International Journal Human-Computer Studies 46, 293–310 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology and Information Systems. In: FOIS 1998, p. 12. IOS Press, Trento (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specification. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raja R. A. Issa
    • 1
  • Ivan Mutis
    • 1
  1. 1.M.E. Sr., Rinker School of Building ConstructionUniversity of FloridaGainesville

Personalised recommendations