DOCSLIB.ORG

Ontologies in the Software Engineering Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ontologies in the Software Engineering Process Ont_SE AUS_06 1 Ontologies in the Software Engineering process Wolfgang Hesse FB Mathematik und Informatik, Univ. Marburg, Hans Meerwein-Str., D-35032 Marburg email: [email protected] on sabbatical leave at: School of ITEE, University of Queensland Brisbane Qld., Australia [email protected] Ont_SE AUS_06 2 Contents • What does OBSE mean? • Why use ontologies in the SE process? • Goals • Ontologies vs. conceptual models • A glossary-based approach to OBSE • The role of KCPM in the OBSE cycle • Ontology vs. software development cycles and their combination • Tool support for OBSE • Conclusions Ont_SE AUS_06 3 What does OBSE mean? Project requirements OBSE stands for Ontology-based Software [NL] Engineering Domain • Software projects are not only driven by knowledge transform base -by requirements and models but also -by an ontology (or by ontologies) forming a Project knowledge base for the application domain knowledge base shared by many projects transform & • Models come after ontologies: develop Instead of building models from scratch they Model are derived from both the requirements and (e.g. [UML]) the ontology . implement Code (e.g. [Java]) Ont_SE AUS_06 4 Why use ontologies in software projects? • Re-use should be supported - not only by (ready-made) components, but also including analyses and models. • Application domains are addressed by many projects. Cross-cutting dependencies increase, applications coalesce and grow together. •More efficient work is required: profit from results of other (concluded or concurrent) projects (→ ontology evolution). •Improve exchange of knowledge - between developers and domain experts, between developers of concurrent projects, between agents, etc. • Gain quality in domain analysis and conceptual modelling. • Support standardization of (basic) application domain knowledge and components. Ont_SE AUS_06 5 Our principal questions • How cold the software process be improved by using ontologies? •Which language (for using ontologies in SE projects)? → Candidates: - OWL (or another Semantic Web language) - UML (with extensions / restrictions / ..) -An ORM-like language -A glossary-like format - .. other → Which granularity? •Which process (for OBSE projects)? → Software & Ontology life cycles: Similarities and differences → What is the OBSE process like? Ont_SE AUS_06 6 Our goals • To develop a new approach to OBSE • To use glossaries as knowledge base both for project & domain knowledge • To combine the KCPM and EOS approaches • To build tools supporting OBSE • To profit from the ongoing ODM* and MDA** efforts for ontology transformation and integration. _______________________________________________ * Ontology Definition MetaModel * Model driven Architecture (an initiative of the OMG) Ont_SE AUS_06 7 Ontologies vs. conceptual models Conceptual models Ontologies • refer to one specific application • refer to an encompassing project (or a few related ones) application domain (shared by many projects and applications) • address mainly developers of one • address all involved people in one (or maybe few neighbour) project(s) application domain • can be changed according to • rely on ontological commitment of project requirements heterogeneous groups • maintain consistency and data • control and standardise integrity within one particular conceptualisation and terminology implementation for many implementations • should be extensible for related • must be open for extensions by not yet known projects projects • are shared by many domain • are in the responsibility of one (or a experts and developers of many few) modeller(s) projects, incl. forthcoming ones Ont_SE AUS_06 8 Ontologies and MDA Requirements ? (z.B. use cases) Ontology analyse & specify (OWL, UML, ??) ? CIM ODM model ? PIM (UML) transform & generate PSM_1 .... PSM_n CIM: Computation independent model ODM: Ontology Definition metamodel PIM: Platform independent model PSM: Platform specific model Ont_SE AUS_06 9 A glossary-based approach to OBSE • Project requirements are typically written (or uttered) in natural language, in a rather vague, ambiguous, … manner. • Ontologies should be consulted as early in the project life cycle as possible. • Formal definitions are less important in this phase than information retrieval, exchange, alignment, matching of domain knowledge. • Glossaries are well suited for knowledge representation on the requirements analysis level. • The KCPM method (cf. [Mayr, Kop et al. 2002] follows a glossary- based approach for requirements analysis and domain modelling. • Conceptual models (e.g. UML-like ones) may be formally derived from glossaries using the KCPM rule set. Ont_SE AUS_06 10 From requirements to models: traditional approach Universe of Discourse Natural Language Traditional approach: Requirements z large conceptual distance Specifications z users are not able to validate conceptual schemas Conceptual Schema X Z Y Logical Schema create table x ... create table z ... create table y .... From: H.C. Mayr et al.: KCPM documentation Ont_SE AUS_06 11 From requirements to models via CP Solution: Universe of z Adding a new intermediate step: Discourse conceptual predesign z Semantic model with only few orthogonal und intuitively understandable modeling concepts: KCPM => “Requirements modeling” X Y KCPM glossaries z Graphical and tabular Z representation by X Z Y ‘glossaries’ -> ‘scratch pad’ for requirements elicitation and analysis create table x ... -> Basis for validation create table z ... create table y .... _____________________________ cf. [M-K 02] H.C. Mayr , Ch. Kop: A User Center- ed Approach to Requirements Modeling. Ont_SE AUS_06 12 KCPM design objects Design object thing type condition connection type cooperation type operation type Ont_SE AUS_06 13 KCPM example: part of a thing type glossary Ont_SE AUS_06 14 KCPM example: part of a connection type glossary Ont_SE AUS_06 15 Another glossary-based approach: ORM • Spyns et al.: [SMJ 02] follow a glossary based approach starting from the Object-with Roles Model (ORM) [Hal 01] • They distinguish: -an ontology base (obligatory for all ontology users) consisting of fact declarations ("lexons") of the form <Context-Id : Term1, Role, Term2> - ontological commitments, i.e. packages of domain rules (serving as mediators between the ontology base and its applications. - Rules determine which parts of the ontology are visible for the specific application and contain further constraints, conditions, extensions etc. Rules are given in a semi-formal way and may be further formalised step-by-step through project progress. Ont_SE AUS_06 16 Transformations in the ontology / project life cycles Ontology LC Proiect LC Domain Project knowledge requirements [NL] [NL] extract extract Ontology import / export Project glossary glossary [KCPM ?] [KCPM] transform transform & develop exchange (?) Formal Class ontology [OL] diagram [UML] implement XML & RDF Code (e.g. [Java]) Ont_SE AUS_06 17 Use of KCPM for managing domain ontologies - Domain ontologies are glossaries. - They consist of . thing types, . connection types, . operation / cooperation types, . conditions, . … - Forms of presentation (interchangeable): . as table, . graphical (as network) . UML-like - NL linguistic analysis tools support domain analysis Ont_SE AUS_06 18 The ontology life cycle: approaches Fernandez et al. list possible approaches (acc. to SE life cycle models) [FGJ 97]: - waterfall, - incremental, - evolutionary. Waterfall approach does not meet the specific requirements for ontology engineering (→ no sequential process): incremental approach only partly (no planned increments) Evolutionary approach: seems to be promising. It is, for example, supported by our EOS model ([Hes 96], [Hes 03]). Its highlights are: • Component-based, AN OU • Multi-cyclic, Comp • recursive (fractal) process structure, consisting of DS IM • uniform development cycles, synchronised by • revision points. Ont_SE AUS_06 19 The EOS model M02 (for Evolutionary, Object oriented System X 1 S development) K01 X 4 X 2 M21 X 3 Cycles for: S: System development M31 X: component development M: module/class development Ont_SE AUS_06 20 The ontology life cycle (in terms of the EOS model) OA OU • Ontological analysis: - analyse and delimit ontology domain, Ont - investigate super-, sub- and adjacent ontologies, OD OI - gather and integrate domain knowledge - check for completeness, consistency etc. • Ontology design: - determine / derive / synthesize concepts, associations and rules, - define, visualise, communicate and adjust with adjacent ontologies. • Ontology implementation: - Implement c/a/r.'s and integrate with adjacent ontologies, - publish for potential client applications. • Ontology use and revision: - Use, test validate, disseminate ontology through pilot projects - gather requirements and CR's for revision, start new cycle if required. Ont_SE AUS_06 21 SE and Ont-E processes - a comparison Software Engineering Process Ontology Engineering Process Duration of process Duration of process - fixed, until project termination - not fixed, unlimited Structure of process Structure of process - Phases, maybe decomposed in - preferably iterations, maybe iterations (e.g. RUP) decomposed in phases - Activities: parts of phases - Activities: mostly extensions, modifi- cations of partial areas Subprocesses concern the development of single Subprocesses components or increments concern the development or revision of partial areas Process paradigms: - Waterfall Process paradigms: - incremental - incremental -
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Data-Driven Framework for Assisting Geo-Ontology Engineering Using a Discrepancy Index
    University of California Santa Barbara A Data-Driven Framework for Assisting Geo-Ontology Engineering Using a Discrepancy Index A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Geography by Bo Yan Committee in charge: Professor Krzysztof Janowicz, Chair Professor Werner Kuhn Professor Emerita Helen Couclelis June 2016 The Thesis of Bo Yan is approved. Professor Werner Kuhn Professor Emerita Helen Couclelis Professor Krzysztof Janowicz, Committee Chair May 2016 A Data-Driven Framework for Assisting Geo-Ontology Engineering Using a Discrepancy Index Copyright c 2016 by Bo Yan iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my committee for their guidance and patience in the face of obstacles over the course of my research. I would like to thank my advisor, Krzysztof Janowicz, for his invaluable input on my work. Without his help and encour- agement, I would not have been able to find the light at the end of the tunnel during the last stage of the work. Because he provided insight that helped me think out of the box. There is no better advisor. I would like to thank Yingjie Hu who has offered me numer- ous feedback, suggestions and inspirations on my thesis topic. I would like to thank all my other intelligent colleagues in the STKO lab and the Geography Department { those who have moved on and started anew, those who are still in the quagmire, and those who have just begun { for their support and friendship. Last, but most importantly, I would like to thank my parents for their unconditional love.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology-Driven Automation of Iot-Based Human-Machine Interfaces Development?
    Ontology-Driven Automation of IoT-Based Human-Machine Interfaces Development? Konstantin Ryabinin1[0000−0002−8353−7641], Svetlana Chuprina1[0000−0002−2103−3771], and Konstantin Belousov1[0000−0003−4447−1288] Perm State University, Bukireva Str. 15, 614990, Perm, Russia [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. The paper is devoted to the development of high-level tools to automate tangible human-machine interfaces creation bringing to- gether IoT technologies and ontology engineering methods. We propose using ontology-driven approach to enable automatic generation of firmware for the devices and middleware for the applications to design from scratch or transform the existing M2M ecosystem with respect to new human needs and, if necessary, to transform M2M systems into human-centric ones. Thanks to our previous research, we developed the firmware and middleware generator on top of SciVi scientific visualization system that was proven to be a handy tool to integrate different data sources, in- cluding software solvers and hardware data providers, for monitoring and steering purposes. The high-level graphical user SciVi interface en- ables to design human-machine communication in terms of data flow and ontological specifications. Thereby the SciVi platform capabilities are sufficient to automatically generate all the necessary components for IoT ecosystem software. We tested our approach tackling the real-world problems of creating hardware device turning human gestures into se- mantics of spatiotemporal deixis, which relates to the verbal behavior of people having different psychological types. The device firmware gener- ated by means of SciVi tools enables researchers to understand complex matters and helps them analyze the linguistic behavior of users of so- cial networks with different psychological characteristics, and identify patterns inherent in their communication in social networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns in Ontology Engineering: Classification of Ontology Patterns
    PATTERNS IN ONTOLOGY ENGINEERING: CLASSIFICATION OF ONTOLOGY PATTERNS Eva Blomqvist School of Engineering, Jonk¨ oping¨ University P.O. Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jonk¨ oping,¨ Sweden [email protected] Kurt Sandkuhl School of Engineering, Jonk¨ oping¨ University P.O. Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jonk¨ oping,¨ Sweden [email protected] Keywords: Ontology Engineering, Ontology Patterns, Pattern Classification. Abstract: In Software Engineering, patterns are an accepted way to facilitate and support reuse. This paper focuses on patterns in the field of Ontology Engineering and proposes a classification scheme for ontology patterns. The scheme divides ontology patterns into five levels: Application Patterns, Architecture Patterns, Design Patterns, Semantic Patterns, and Syntactic Patterns. Semantic and Syntactic Patterns are quite well-researched but the higher levels of pattern abstraction are so far almost unexplored. To illustrate the possibilities of patterns on these levels some examples are discussed, together with ideas of future work. 1 INTRODUCTION 2 ONTOLOGY PATTERNS TODAY Recent developments in the area of Ontology En- Ontology is a popular term today, used in many ar- gineering involve semi-automatic ontology construc- eas and defined in many different ways. In this paper tion to reduce time and effort of constructing an on- ontology is defined as: tology. In particular for small-scale application con- texts, reduction of effort and expert involvement is an An ontology is a hierarchically structured set of important requirement. concepts describing a specific domain of knowledge that can be used to create a knowledge base. An on- Ways of reducing this effort are to further facil- tology contains concepts, a subsumption hierarchy, itate semi-automatic construction of ontologies, but arbitrary relations between concepts, and axioms.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Ecommerce Framework for Online Shopping Using Semantic Web and Web 3.0
    ISSN (Online) 2278-1021 IJARCCE ISSN (Print) 2319 5940 International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering Vol. 5, Issue 3, March 2016 Building Ecommerce Framework for Online Shopping using Semantic Web and Web 3.0 Pranita Barpute1, Dhananjay Solankar2, Ravi Hanwate3, Puja Kurwade4, Kiran Avhad5 Student, Computer, SAOE, Pune, India1,2,3,4 Professor, Computer, SAOE, Pune, India5 Abstract: E-commerce is one of the popular areas. In Online Shopping we can perform add, remove, edit, and update the product as per dealers and end users requirement. With the use of semantic web and web 3.0 the system performance will increase. The system should have proper user interface. The customers who visit online shopping system, they will have easy implementation of search item. This will increase the participation of various dealers for their product to get them online. For each Dealer have separate login and they also insert product, tracking products delivery for their products. The proposed system will use semantic web and web 3.0 Therefore, for Customer and also for Dealer it is useful. For both Customer and Dealers it shows own interface. Keywords: Framework, Semantic Web, Ontologies, Web 3.0, Resources Description Framework (RDF), Owl, E- commerce. I. INTRODUCTION II. LITERATURE SURVEY It is becoming a research focus about how to capture or E-commerce [1] framework is used to buy or exchange find customer's behavior patterns and realize commerce relative information via web applications and electronics intelligence by use of Web Semantic technology. device is nothing but E-commerce. This information helps Recommendation system in electronic commerce [1] is to derive different application using online shopping and one of the successful applications that are based on such E-commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • A Methodology for Engineering Domain Ontology Using Entity Relationship Model
    (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 10, No. 8, 2019 A Methodology for Engineering Domain Ontology using Entity Relationship Model Muhammad Ahsan Raza1, M. Rahmah2, Sehrish Raza3, A. Noraziah4, Roslina Abd. Hamid5 Faculty of Computer Systems and Software Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Kuantan, Malaysia1, 2, 4, 5 Institute of Computer Science and Information Technology, The Women University, Multan, Pakistan3 Abstract—Ontology engineering is an important aspect of The proposed procedure of ontology engineering (OE) is semantic web vision to attain the meaningful representation of novel in two aspects: (1) it is based on well know ER-schema data. Although various techniques exist for the creation of which is readily available for most of the database-based ontology, most of the methods involve the number of complex organizations or can be developed efficiently for any domain of phases, scenario-dependent ontology development, and poor interest with accuracy. (2) The method proposes instant and validation of ontology. This research work presents a lightweight cost-effective rules for ER to ontology translation while approach to build domain ontology using Entity Relationship maintaining all semantic checks. The ER-schema and (ER) model. Firstly, a detailed analysis of intended domain is translation model (viewing the two facets as simple and performed to develop the ER model. In the next phase, ER to portable) support the development of ontology for any ontology (EROnt) conversion rules are outlined, and finally the knowledge domain. Focusing on the discipline of information system prototype is developed to construct the ontology. The proposed approach investigates the domain of information technology where the learning material related to the technology curriculum for the successful interpretation of curriculum is highly unstructured, we have developed an OE concepts, attributes, relationships of concepts and constraints tool that captures semantics from the ER-schema and among the concepts of the ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Semom, a Semantic Middleware for Iot Healthcare Applications Rita Zgheib
    SeMoM, a semantic middleware for IoT healthcare applications Rita Zgheib To cite this version: Rita Zgheib. SeMoM, a semantic middleware for IoT healthcare applications. Artificial Intelligence [cs.AI]. Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse III, 2017. English. NNT : 2017TOU30250. tel-01925467 HAL Id: tel-01925467 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01925467 Submitted on 16 Nov 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THTHESEESE`` En vue de l’obtention du DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITE´ DE TOULOUSE D´elivr´e par : l’Universit´eToulouse 3 Paul Sabatier (UT3 Paul Sabatier) Pr´esent´ee et soutenue le 12/12/2017 par : Rita ZGHEIB SeMoM: A semantic Middleware for IoT Healthcare Applications JURY Myriam LAMOLLE Professeure-Universit´ede Paris 8Rapporteur Norbert NOURY Professeur-Universit´ede LyonRapporteur Lynda TAMINE Professeure-Universit´edeToulouse3 Examinateur Ernesto EXPOSITO Professeur-Universit´ede PauExaminateur Remi´ BASTIDE Professeur-INU ChampollionDirecteur de th`ese Emmanuel CONCHON MCF-Universit´ede LimogesCodirecteur de th`ese Ecole´ doctorale et sp´ecialit´e : MITT : Domaine STIC : Intelligence Artificielle Unit´e de Recherche : Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (UMR 5505) Directeur(s) de Th`ese : R´emiBASTIDE et Emmanuel CONCHON Rapporteurs : Myriam LAMOLLE et Norbert NOURY Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank the “Midi-Pyrenees Region" and the "CUFR Jean-François Champollion” for funding my PhD thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing Ontology Awareness Into Model Driven Engineering Platforms 1
    Bringing Ontology Awareness into Model Driven Engineering Platforms 1 Srdjan Živkovi ć, Marion Murzek, Harald Kühn BOC Information Systems GmbH, Wipplingerstrasse 1, 1010 Vienna, Austria {srdjan.zivkovic, marion.murzek, harald.kuehn}@boc-eu.com Abstract. In state-of-the-art of MDE platforms semantic technologies such as ontologies are rarely used. Our aim is to understand the role of ontologies in supporting model-driven engineering, in particular MDE platforms. MDE platforms may benefit from semantic technologies in formal model semantics and automated reasoning on different levels of the metamodelling architecture. We present an ontology-aware MDE platform architecture and outline some application scenarios where ontologies and automatic reasoning may bring benefit to such platforms. Additionally, an example of using ontologies for verification checks of mapping models in the course of metamodel composition is illustrated. Keywords: metamodelling, model-driven engineering (MDE), ontology-aware architecture, ontology application scenarios. 1 Introduction In state-of-the-art MDE platforms semantic technologies such as ontologies are rarely used. Currently, such platforms focus on aspects such as metamodelling, metamodel composition, model integration, and model transformation [1]. We are convinced that MDE platforms may benefit from semantic technologies particularly in formalizing semantics of models on different metamodelling levels, which in turn allows for application of automated reasoning. Based on this hypothesis, in this research-in-progress paper, we discuss first how a MDE platform architecture may be extended to be considered as ontology-aware (section 2). Referring to the introduced architecture, we describe some possible application scenarios where ontologies and automatic reasoning may bring benefit to such platforms (section 3).
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology to Appear in the Encyclopedia of Database Systems, Ling Liu and M
    Ontology to appear in the Encyclopedia of Database Systems, Ling Liu and M. Tamer Özsu (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, 2008. TITLE OF ENTRY Ontology BYLINE Tom Gruber, http://tomgruber.org. Formerly of Stanford University, Intraspect Software, and RealTravel.com. SYNONYMS computational ontology, semantic data model, ontological engineering DEFINITION In the context of computer and information sciences, an ontology defines a set of representational primitives with which to model a domain of knowledge or discourse. The representational primitives are typically classes (or sets), attributes (or properties), and relationships (or relations among class members). The definitions of the representational primitives include information about their meaning and constraints on their logically consistent application. In the context of database systems, ontology can be viewed as a level of abstraction of data models, analogous to hierarchical and relational models, but intended for modeling knowledge about individuals, their attributes, and their relationships to other individuals. Ontologies are typically specified in languages that allow abstraction away from data structures and implementation strategies; in practice, the languages of ontologies are closer in expressive power to first-order logic than languages used to model databases. For this reason, ontologies are said to be at the "semantic" level, whereas database schema are models of data at the "logical" or "physical" level. Due to their independence from lower level data models, ontologies are used for integrating heterogeneous databases, enabling interoperability among disparate systems, and specifying interfaces to independent, knowledge-based services. In the technology stack of the Semantic Web standards [1], ontologies are called out as an explicit layer. There are now standard languages and a variety of commercial and open source tools for creating and working with ontologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes Ontology Engineering
    Lecture Notes Ontology Engineering Department of Computer Science University of Cape Town, South Africa Version 1.2 2014 C. Maria Keet Lecture Notes Ontology Engineering C. Maria Keet Keywords: Ontology, ontologies, Knowledge base, Description Logics, OWL, Semantic Web, Ontology Development Copyright © 2014 by Maria Keet This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th floor, San Francisco, Cal- ifornia, 94105, USA. These Lecture Notes are typeset in LATEX Cover design by Maria Keet Printed and bound by you Contents Preface vii Course Outline ix 0.1 Aims and Synopsis . ix 0.2 Module assessment . ix 0.3 Course material . .x 0.4 Course content . .x 1 Introduction 1 1.1 What is an ontology? . .1 1.2 What does an ontology look like? . .5 1.3 What is the usefulness of an ontology? . .6 1.3.1 Data and information system integration . .7 1.3.2 Ontologies as part of a solution to other problems . 11 1.4 Success stories . 13 1.5 Outline and usage of the lecture notes . 15 1.6 Exercises . 16 1.7 Literature and reference material . 17 I Logic foundations for ontologies 19 2 First Order Logic recap 21 2.1 First order logic syntax and semantics . 21 2.2 Reasoning . 25 2.2.1 Introduction . 25 2.2.2 Basic idea . 26 2.2.3 Deduction, Abduction, Induction . 27 2.2.4 Proof .
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation-Based Ontology Engineering
    Argumentation Technology Argumentation-Based Ontology Engineering Christoph Tempich and Rudi Studer, University of Karlsruhe Elena Simperl and Markus Luczak, Free University of Berlin H. Sofia Pinto, Technical University of Lisbon he Semantic Web envisions an infrastructure in which humans and machines seam- T lessly exchange information on the Web. For this to succeed, we need shared ontolo- gies that enable information exchange between different parties. Engineering a shared ontology in this kind of scenario is a social, evolving process, involving a geographically The DILIGENT dispersed community with different knowledge and The DILIGENT (distributed, loosely controlled, and argumentation expertise—ontology engineers, domain experts, and evolving engineering of ontologies) argumentation ontology users. framework consists of an argumentation process and framework helps Depending on the methodology used, the ontol- a formal model, and is supported technologically by ogy’s life cycle might consist of a series of stages, in a wiki-based support tool, coefficientMakna (col- capture design which the engineering team decides how to model a laborative, ontology-engineering-efficient Makna). domain to best suit the ontology users’needs and the Here, we sketch out DILIGENT’s theoretical back- deliberations in application requirements.1 Such engineering method- ground and an application scenario (typical to dis- ologies typically cover the major aspects of general tributed ontology engineering) we envisioned when ontology-engineering ontology engineering, describing related support specifying the framework’s functional requirements. methods, decisions to consider, and expected results. We also describe coefficientMakna’s design, archi- discussions. It makes However, these methodologies only marginally tecture, and implementation. We employed several address the collaborative interaction among commu- case studies to provide empirical data on the frame- consensus-building nity members who are creating an ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • A Systematic Analysis of the Schema.Org Community
    What Does an Ontology Engineering Community Look Like? A Systematic Analysis of the schema.org Community Samantha Kanza1, Alex Stolz2, Martin Hepp2, and Elena Simperl1 University of Southampton [email protected], [email protected] Universitaet der Bundeswehr Munich [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. We present a systematic analysis of participation and in- teractions within the community behind schema.org, one of the largest and most relevant ontology engineering projects in recent times. Previous work conducted in this space has focused on ontology collaboration tools, and the roles that different contributors play within these projects. This paper takes a broader view and looks at the entire life cycle of the collab- orative process to gain insights into how new functionality is proposed and accepted, and how contributors engage with one another based on real-world data. The analysis resulted in several findings. First, the col- laborative ontology engineering roles identified in previous studies with a much stronger link to ontology editors apply to community interac- tion contexts as well. In the same time, the participation inequality is less pronounced than the 90 − 9 − 1 rule for Internet communities. In addition, schema.org seems to facilitate a form of collaboration that is friendly towards newcomers, whose concerns receive as much attention from the community as those of their longer-serving peers. Keywords: collaborative ontology engineering, GitHub, schema.org, com- munity analysis, social computing, mixed methods 1 Introduction Creating an ontology is a complex process. It requires an understanding of the relevant domain, the technicalities of ontology engineering, and an ability and willingness to collaborate with others, often across disciplinary boundaries, to agree on what the ontology should cover and how.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Simplified Ontology for Better E-Commerce Search
    Towards a simplified ontology for beer e-commerce search Aliasgar Kutiyanawala Prateek Verma Zheng (John) Yan Jet.com and Walmart Labs Jet.com and Walmart Labs Jet.com and Walmart Labs 221 River Street 221 River Street 221 River Street Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT belts (irrelevant). is problem is also evident when queries are ery Understanding is a semantic search method that can classify similar in terms of words but actually relate to very dierent prod- tokens in a customer’s search query to entities like Product, Brand, ucts. For example: the queries “camera with lens” and “lens for etc. is method can overcome the limitations of bag-of-words camera” may produce the same result if prepositions are ignored methods but requires an ontology. We show that current ontologies as stopwords. ere are ways to augment the bag-of-words search are not optimized for search and propose a simplied ontology system with a category pinpointing (or prediction) model, bigrams, framework designed specially for e-commerce search and retrieval. etc. to improve the recall but this approach is still not very accurate. We also present three methods for automatically extracting product classes for the proposed ontology and compare their performance A beer approach to search is to use a query understanding sys- relative to each other. tem to understand the customer’s search intent [13, 24]. One such method is to use a semantic annotation process described in [9, 23] CCS CONCEPTS by using a well dened ontology to classify terms from the cus- tomer’s search query.
    [Show full text]