Advertisement

Using the PSL Ontology

  • Michael GrüningerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)

Introduction

Representing activities and the constraints on their occurrences is an integral aspect of commonsense reasoning, particularly in manufacturing, enterprise modelling, and autonomous agents or robots. In addition to the traditional concerns of knowledge representation and reasoning, the need to integrate software applications in these areas has become increasingly important. However, interoperability is hindered because the applications use different terminology and representations of the domain. These problems arise most acutely for systems that must manage the heterogeneity inherent in various domains and integrate models of different domains into coherent frameworks. For example, such integration occurs in business process reengineering, where enterprise models integrate processes, organizations, goals and customers. Even when applications use the same terminology, they often associate different semantics with the terms. This clash over the meaning of the terms prevents...

Keywords

Activity Tree Complex Activity Atomic Activity Domain Theory Process Description 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Grenon, P. and Smith, B. (2004) SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4(1):69-104, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gruninger, M. (2003) Applications of PSL to Semantic Web Services, Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases. Very Large Databases Conference, Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruninger, M. and Kopena, J. (2004) Semantic Integration through Invariants, AI Magazine, 26:11-20, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hayes, P. (1996) A Catalog of Temporal Theories. Artificial Intelligence Technical Report UIUC-BI-AI-96-01, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.C. and Zeng, H. (2001) Semantic Web Services, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on the Semantic Web. 16:46–53, March/April, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Menzel, C. and Gruninger, M. (2001) A formal foundation for process modeling, Second International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems, Welty and Smith (eds), 256-269.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ciocoiu, M., Gruninger M., and Nau, D. (2001) Ontologies for integrating engineering applications, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 1:45-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinto, J. and Reiter, R. (1993) Temporal reasoning in logic programming: A case for the situation calculus. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Logic Programming, Budapest, Hungary, June 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schlenoff, C., Gruninger, M., Ciocoiu, M., (1999) The Essence of the Process Specification Language, Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation vol.16 no.4 (December 1999) pages 204-216.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sowa, J. (2000) Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Semantic Web Services Framework (SWSF) Overview W3C Member Submission 9 September 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations