Advertisement

PRONTOE: An Ontology Editor for Domain Experts

  • Scott BellEmail author
  • Pete Bonasso
  • Mark Boddy
  • David Kortenkamp
  • Debra Schreckenghost
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 454)

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a set of software tools called the PRIDE ONTOlogy Editor (PRONTOE) and a methodology that allows system operators and domain experts to build and maintain ontologies of their systems with no explicit understanding of the underlying ontology representation. We present three case studies: one using NASA flight controllers, one using the DARPA Robotic Challenge, and one using unmanned vehicles.

Keywords

Domain Expert International Space Station Defense Advance Research Project Agency Defense Advance Research Project Agency Unmanned Vehicle 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by a NASA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant. The authors grateful to Dr. Jeremy Frank of NASA Ames Research Center for his help with this project. The authors also wish to thank the numerous NASA flight controllers who have worked with us over the last several years to get the correct data into our ontology. Kevin Kusy was instrumental in creating import scripts for external databases. The development of an ontology of robot affordances for the simulated Atlas robot was funded under a DARPA Phase I Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) contract.

References

  1. 1.
    Norman, D.: The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: PDDL2.1: an extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 20, 61–124 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elsaesser, C., Sanborn, J.: An architecture for adversarial planning. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 20(1), 186–294 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kortenkamp, D., Bonasso, R.P., Schreckenghost, D.: A procedure representation language for human spaceflight operations. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (i-SAIRAS) (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Izygon, M., Kortenkamp, D., Molin, A.: A procedure integrated development environment for future spacecraft and habitats. In: Proceedings of the Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF), vol. 969. Available as American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bell, S., Kortenkamp, D.: Embedding procedure assistance into mission control tools. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on AI in Space (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lopez, F.M.: Overview of methodologies for building ontologies. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cardoso, J.: The semantic web vision: where are we? IEEE Intell. Syst. 22(5), 84–88 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soares, A., Fonseca, F.: Building ontologies for information systems: what we have, what we need. In: Proceedings of iConference (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herzig, A., Varzincak, I.: Metatheory of action: beyond consistency. Artif. Intell. 171, 951–984 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Myers, K.: Domain metatheories: enabling user-centric planning. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Representational Issues for Real-World Planning Systems (AAAI Technical Report WS-00-07) (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Bell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pete Bonasso
    • 1
  • Mark Boddy
    • 2
  • David Kortenkamp
    • 1
  • Debra Schreckenghost
    • 1
  1. 1.TRACLabs Inc.WebsterUSA
  2. 2.Adventium LabsMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations