Designing Ontology-Driven System Composition Processes to Satisfy User Expectations: A Case Study for Fish Population Modelling

  • Mitchell G. Gillespie
  • Deborah A. Stacey
  • Stephen S. Crawford
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 272)


Ontology-Driven Compositional Systems (ODCSs) are designed to assist a user with semi- or fully automatic composition of a desired system utilizing previously implemented algorithms and/or software. Current research with ODCSs has been conducted around the discovery and composition of web services and a resource management approach. This chapter utilizes the collaboration with a Fish Population Modelling research group to argue that current ODCSs do not fully consider a users’ expectations of [a] his/her leverage and acquisition of knowledge from the ODCS, and [b] the trustworthy, high quality, and efficient performance of desired resultant systems. The authors support their argument by acknowledging that the current semantic frameworks have yet to fully represent the knowledge required to make proper discovery, decision-making, and composition. The authors introduce the beginning of their work of utilizing the inheritance of multiple ontologies to fully represent the function, data, execution, quality, trust, and timeline semantics of compositional units within an ODCS. Finally, a case study is utilized to illustrate how a more robust representation model will improve the satisfaction of the user’s expectations.


Expert Knowledge Domain Ontology Quality Semantic Semantic Knowledge Resultant System 
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.
    Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B.: Understanding Open Source Software Development, vol. 84. Addison-Wesley (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meng, X., Junliang, C., Yong, P., Xiang, M., Chuanchang, L.: A Dynamic Semantic Association-Based Web Service Composition. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translational approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arpinar, I.B., Zhang, R., Aleman-Meza, B., Maduko, A.: Ontology-driven Web services composition platform. Information Systems and e-Business Management 3, 175–199 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hlomani, H., Stacey, D.A.: An ontology driven approach to software systems composition. In: International Conference of Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development, pp. 254–260. INSTICC (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gillis, D., Tey, J., Gillespie, M., Crawford, S.: Do fisheries biologists have appropriate tools for assessing dynamics of harvested fish populations? (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crawford, S., Gillis, D., Rooney, N.: A review of population level risk assessments for the CANDU Owners Group (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crawford, S., Muir, A., McCann, K.: Ecological basis for recommendation of 2001 Saugeen Ojibway commercial harvest TACs for lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in Lake Huron, Report prepared for Chippewas of Nawash First Nation (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardoso, J., Sheth, A. (eds.): SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Srivastava, B., Koehler, J.: Web Service Composition – current solutions and open problems. In: ICAPS 2003 Workshop on Planning for Web Services (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hlomani, H.: A Bottom-Up Approach to System Compositon using Ontologies. Msc., University of Guelph (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang, P., Von-Dran, G.M.: User Expectations and Rankings of Quality Factors in Different Web Site Domains. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, 9–33 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Jayant, K., Sheng, Q.Z.: Quality Driven Web Services Composition. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the World Wide Web, pp. 411–421. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tran, V.X.: WSQoSOnto: A QoS Ontology for Web Services. In: 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Service-Oriented System Engineering, pp. 233–238. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, X., Vitvar, T., Kerrigan, M., Toma, I.: A QoS-Aware Selection Model for Semantic Web Services. In: Dan, A., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4294, pp. 390–401. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duez, P.P., Zuliani, M.J., Jamieson, G.A.: Trust by design. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Methot, R.J.: Stock assessment: operational models in support of fisheries management, pp. 137–165. Springer Science, Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walters, C., Martell, S.: Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton University Press, New Jersey (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quinn, T., Deriso, R.: Quantitative fish dynamics. Ofxord University Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    NRC: Improving Fish Stock Assessments. Committee on Fish Stock Assessment Methods, U.S. National Research Council. National Academy Press (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stringer, K., Clemens, M., Rivard, D.: The changing nature of fisheries management and implications for science, pp. 97–111. Springer Science, Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hilborn, R., Walters, C.: Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choice, dynamics and uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gillespie, M.G., Hlomani, H., Stacey, D.A.: A Knowledge Identification Framework for Engineering Ontologies in System Composition Processes (Submitted to Conference) (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uschold, M., King, M.: Towards a Methodology for Building Ontologies. In: Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, held in conjunction with IJCAI 1995 (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Ciaramita, M., Lehmann, J.: A Theoretical Framework for Ontology Evaluation and Validation. In: Proceedings of SWAP 2005 - Semantic Web Applications and Perspective (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vrande, D.: Ontology Evaluation, pp. 293–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Obrst, L., Ceusters, W., Mani, I., Ray, S., Smith, B.: The Evaluation of Ontologies, pp. 139–158. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitchell G. Gillespie
    • 1
  • Deborah A. Stacey
    • 1
  • Stephen S. Crawford
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.Dept. of Integrative BiologyUniversity of GuelphGulephCanada
  3. 3.Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First NationWiartonCanada

Personalised recommendations