A Semantics-Based Approach to Generation of Emergency Management Scenario Models

  • Antonio De Nicola
  • Michele Melchiori
  • Maria Luisa Villani
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the I-ESA Conferences book series (IESACONF, volume 7)


Interoperable companies making business together form large networks. Communication and exchange of goods and documents is permitted by critical infrastructures like the energy network, the railway, and the telecommunication network. These are threatened by several hazards spanning from natural disasters, as earthquakes and tsunami, to anthropic events, as terrorist attacks. An example of such catastrophic events is the Fukushima nuclear disaster causing deaths, destroying buildings and infrastructures and impacting on the supply chains of several companies. Simulation is one of the most promising means to prepare to such events. However, manual definition of emergency management scenarios is a complex task, due to their inherent unpredictability. In this paper an automatic approach to support generation of emergency management scenarios is proposed. This is based on the CEML scenarios modelling language, on the design patterns-based modelling methodology, on the notion of mini-story, and on emergency management ontologies.


Emergency management Conceptual modelling Ontology 


  1. 1.
    Norio, O., Ye, T., Kajitani, Y., Shi, P., & Tatano, H. (2011). The 2011 eastern Japan great earthquake disaster: Overview and comments. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2(1), 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ando, M., & Kimura, F. (2012). How did the Japanese exports respond to two crises in the international production networks? the global financial crisis and the great East Japan earthquake. Asian Economic Journal, 26(3), 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins, T. (2011). Great east Japan earthquake: Economic and trade impact. Retrieved October 1, 2013, from
  4. 4.
    Collier, N. (2001). Repast: An extensible framework for agent simulation. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, 8, 17–21.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hofmann, M., Sackmann, S., & Betke, H. (2013). A novel architecture for disaster response workflow management systems. Proceedings of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, 2013, 338–343.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Nicola, A., Tofani, A., Vicoli, G., Villani, M. L. (2012). An MDA-based approach to crisis and emergency management modelling. International Journal on Advances in Intelligent Systems 5 (1 & 2), 89–100.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Agostino, G., De Nicola, A., Di Pietro, A., Vicoli, G., Villani, M. L., and Rosato, V. (2012). A domain specific language for the description and the simulation of systems of interacting systems. Advances in Complex Systems, 15(1).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thalheim, B. and Tropmann-Frick, M. (2013). Mini story composition for generic workflows in support of disaster management, Proceedings of 24th IEEE International Workshop on DEXA. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mijović, V., Tomašević, N., Janev, V., Stanojević, M. and Vraneš, S. (2011). Ontology enabled decision support system for emergency management at airports. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Semantic System (I-Semantics ‘11) (pp. 163–166). New York, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grolinger, K., Brown, K. P., & Capretz, M. A. M. (2011). From glossaries to Ontologies: Disaster management domain(S). Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 6644, 402–407.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amailef, K., & Lu, J. (2013). Ontology-supported case-based reasoning approach for intelligent m-Government emergency response services. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, X., Liu, G., Ling, A., Zhan, J., An, N., Li, L., Sha, Y. (2008). Building a practical Ontology for emergency response systems. Computer Science and Software Engineering, 4, 222–225.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Araujo, R. B., Rocha, R. V., Campos, M. R., Boukerche, A. (2008). Creating emergency management training simulations through Ontologies integration, Proceedings of 11th IEEE International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering Workshops CSEWORKSHOPS '08 (pp. 373–378)16–18 July 2008. USA:Springer Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Teo, Y., Szabo, C. (2008). CODES: An integrated approach to composable modeling and simulation, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Simulation Symposium (pp. 103–110), April 2008. USA: Data Device Corporation.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benaben, F., Hanachi, C., Lauras, M., Couget, P., & Chapurlat, V. (2008). A metamodel and its Ontology to guide crisis characterization and its collaborative management. Proceedings of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, 2008, 189–196.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, W., Zhang, X., Dong, C., Gao, S., Du, L., and Lai, X. (2009). Emergency response organization Ontology model and its application, Proceedings of ISISE 2009 Symposium (pp. 50–54).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dong, C. X., Wang, W. J., and Yang, P. (2009). DL-based the knowledge description of emergency plan systems and its application, Proceedings of MUE’09 (pp. 364–368).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kruchten, P. C. (2007). A human-centered conceptual model of disasters affecting critical infrastructures, Proceedings of ISCRAM 2007 Conference (pp. 327–344).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OMG-SysML. (2010). OMG Systems Modeling Language Version 1.2. Access:
  20. 20.
    Gangemi, A., and Presutti, V. (2009). Ontology design patterns, In Handbook on Ontologies (2nd ed.,). International Handbooks on Information Systems. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio De Nicola
    • 1
  • Michele Melchiori
    • 2
  • Maria Luisa Villani
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing and Technological Infrastructure LabENEARomeItaly
  2. 2.Università degli Studi di Brescia—Dip. di Ing. Dell’InformazioneBresciaItaly

Personalised recommendations