Abstract
Ontological commitment, or the agreement to have your applications and users conform to a common domain understanding as encapsulated in one or more shared ontologies, is a noble goal and essential for open agent systems. Our experiences building ontology-based agent systems in multiple domains have shown us that the intention for a new application to locate and conform to some existing ontology or ontologies within its domain has many impediments to its success. For instance, the goals of the designer of a domain ontology include developing a complete and comprehensive domain description; however, the application developer may only require a small fragment of that ontology. Multiple applications that conform to the ontology may, in fact, use completely orthogonal fragments of the ontology, and not be able to interact at all. Users may insist on importing into the ontology sets of terms that are neither logically consistent nor easily modelable.
With these issues in mind, we propose here some guidelines for ontology development and evolution that should facilitate ontology reuse. These guidelines could underpin a usage model for ontologies; one that enables the application designer to reuse ontological concepts from multiple ontologies in a more flexible manner, while retaining the essentially good properties of ontology sharing and reuse. These guidelines affect both the design and use of ontology-based applications, as well as the way applications advertise themselves to other agents with which they may interoperate.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA environmental data registry. http://www.epa.gov/edr, 2002.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA terminology reference system. http://www.epa.gov/trs/index.htm, 2002.
S. Cranefield, S. Haustein, and M. Purvis. UML-based ontology modelling for software agents. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems. 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001. http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-52/oas01-cranefield-1.pdf.
DAML.org. The DAML agent markup language homepage. http://www.daml.org, 2003.
Larry M. Deschaine, Richard S. Brice, and Marian H. Nodine. Use of InfoSleuth to coordinate information acquisition, tracking and analysis in complex applications. In Proceedings of Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference, April 2000.
Adam Farquhar, Richard Fikes, and James Rice. Tools for assembling modular ontologies in ontolingua. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1997.
Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. Agent communication language specifications. http://www.fipa.org/repository/aclspecs.html, 2003.
A. Gomez-Perez. Ontological engineering: A state of the art. Expert Update, 1999.
Object Management Group. OMG unified modeling language specification, v. 1.3. http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/unified_modeling_language.htm, 2000.
T. R. Gruber. Translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 1993.
M. Gruninger and M.S. Fox. Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues and Knowledge Sharing, 1995.
Palle Haastrup et al. The environmental data exchange network for inland water, 2004. http://www.eden-iw.org/contents/home.html.
J. Hammer and D. McLeod. An approach to resolving semantic heterogeneity in a federation of autonomous, heterogeneous database systems. International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(1), 1993.
B. L. Humphreys et al. Assessing and enhancing the value of the umls knowledge sources. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, pages 78–82, November 1991.
J. Jannink, P. Mitra, E. Neuhold, S. Pichai, R. Struder, and G. WIederhold. An algebra for semantic interoperation of semistructured data. In Proceedings of the IEEE Knowledge and Data Engineering Exchange Workshop (KDEX ‘99), 1999.
W. Kent. The many forms of a single fact. In Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society International Conference, 1998.
SRI Knowledge Systems Laboratory. OKBC home page. http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/software/OKBC, 2002.
Marian Nodine et al. Active information gathering in InfoSleuth. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 9(1/2):3–28, 2000.
Welcome to the OIL page. http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil, 2002.
European Topic Centre on Catalogue of Data Sources. General Multilingual Environmental Thesaurus. http://www.nu.niedersachsen.de/cds/etccds_neu/library/software.html, 2001.
John F. Sowa. Knowledge Representation. Brooks/Cole, 2000.
M. S. Tuttle et al. Merging terminologies. Medinfo, 8(1):162–166, 1995.
Pepjin R. S. Visser and Zhan Cui. Heterogeneous ontology structures for distributed architectures. In Proceedings of the ECAI-98 Workshop on Applications of Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, pages 112–119, 1998.
W3C. OWL web ontology language guide. http://www.w3.org/TR./2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/, 2004.
S. Willmott, I. Constantinescu, and M. Callisti. Multilingual agents: Ontologies, languages and abstractions. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems (Held in conjunction with Agents 2001), 2001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Birkhäuser Verlag
About this paper
Cite this paper
Nodine, M.H., Fowler, J. (2005). On the Impact of Ontological Commitment. In: Tamma, V., Cranefield, S., Finin, T.W., Willmott, S. (eds) Ontologies for Agents: Theory and Experiences. Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies. Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-7643-7361-X_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-7643-7361-X_2
Publisher Name: Birkhäuser Basel
Print ISBN: 978-3-7643-7237-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-7643-7361-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)