An Ontology for Software

  • Daniel OberleEmail author
  • Stephan Grimm
  • Steffen Staab
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


The domain of software is a primary candidate for being formalized in an ontology. On the one hand, the domain is sufficiently complex with different paradigms (e.g., object orientation) and different aspects (e.g., security, legal information, interface descriptions, etc.). On the other hand, the domain is sufficiently stable, i.e., new paradigms and aspects occur rather seldom. Capturing this stable core in a reference ontology for software can be fruitful in order to prevent modeling from scratch. For example, the approaches described in the Chapter “Ontologies and Software Engineering” introduce individual formalizations of at least one paradigm or aspect although they share basic principles.

In this chapter, we present such a reference ontology for software, called the Core Software Ontology, which formalizes common concepts in the software engineering realm, such as data, software with its different shades of meaning, classes, methods, etc. As we cannot possibly...


Special Kind Resource Description Framework Software Component Information Object Intended Meaning 
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.


  1. 1.
    Anupriya Ankolekar, James Herbsleb, and Katia Sycara. Addressing Challenges to Open Source Collaboration With the Semantic Web. In Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott Hissam, and Karim Lakhani, editors, Proceedings of Taking Stock of the Bazaar: The 3rd Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering, the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Washington, D.C., 2003. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dieter Fensel, Richard Benjamins, Enrico Motta, and Bob J. Wielinga. UPML: A Framework for Knowledge System Reuse. In Thomas Dean, editor, Proceedings of the 16th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 99, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999. 2 Volumes, 1450 pages, pages 16–23. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aldo Gangemi, Maria-Teresa Sagri, and Daniela Tiscornia. A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies. Internal project report, EU 6FP METOKIS Project, Deliverable, 2004.
  4. 4.
    Aldo Gangemi, Stefano Borgo, Carola Catenacci, and Jos Lehmann. Task taxonomies for knowledge content. Metokis Deliverable D07, Sep 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aldo Gangemi and Peter Mika. Understanding the Semantic Web through Descriptions and Situations. In DOA/CoopIS/ODBASE 2003 Confederated International Conferences DOA, CoopIS and ODBASE, Proceedings, LNCS. Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Michael Grüninger and Christopher Menzel. The Process Specification Language (PSL) Theory and Applications. AI Magazine, 24(3):63–74, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steffen Lamparter, Anupriya Ankolekar, Daniel Oberle, Rudi Studer, and Christof Weinhardt. A Policy Framework for Trading Configurable Goods and Services in Open Electronic Markets. In Proceedings of the 8th Int. Conference on Electronic Commerce (ICEC’06), pages 162–173, AUG 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    David Martin, Mark Burstein, Jerry Hobbs, Ora Lassila, Drew McDermott, Sheila McIlraith, Srini Narayanan, Massimo Paolucci, Bijan Parsia, Terry Payne, Evren Sirin, Naveen Srinivasan, and Katia Sycara. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services., Nov 2004.
  9. 9.
    Claudio Masolo, Stefano Borgo, Aldo Gangemi, Nicola Guarino, and Alessandro Oltramari. Ontology Library (final). WonderWeb Deliverable D18, Dec 2003.
  10. 10.
    Peter Mika, Daniel Oberle, Aldo Gangemi, and Marta Sabou. Foundations for Service Ontologies: Aligning OWL-S to DOLCE. In The 13th International World Wide Web Conference Proceedings, pages 563–572. ACM, May 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daniel Oberle. Semantic Management of Middleware, volume I of The Semantic Web and Beyond. Springer, New York, Jan 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daniel Oberle, Steffen Lamparter, Stephan Grimm, Denny Vrandecic, Steffen Staab, and Aldo Gangemi. Towards Ontologies for Formalizing Modularization and Communication in Large Software Systems. Journal of Applied Ontology, 1(2):163–202, 2006.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab, and A. Winter. On marrying ontological and metamodeling technical spaces. In ESEC/ACM FSE-2007 — Proceedings of the 6th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the 14th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, pages 439–448. ACM, September 2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab, and A. Winter. Improving design patterns by description logics: An use case with abstract factory and strategy. In T. Kühne and F. Steimann, editors, Proc. of Modellierung 2008, LNI. GI e.V., March 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adam Pease. Core Plan Representation. Object Model Focus Group, Nov 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marta Sabou, Daniel Oberle, and Debbie Richards. Enhancing Application Servers with Semantics. In 1st Australian Workshop on Engineering Service-Oriented Systems (AWESOS 2004) Melbourne, Australia, pages 7–15, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Christopher Welty. An Integrated Representation for Software Development and Discovery. PhD thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Computer Science Department, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SAP ResearchCEC KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Research Center for Information TechnologyFZIKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.University of Koblenz-LandauISWebKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations