Mediation of foundation ontology based knowledge sources

Abstract

Abstract:Ontologies are helpful in giving interoperable structures to sources of knowledge and information. This interoperability, however, is greatly hindered by the heterogeneity of independently developed ontologies which in turn increases the requirements for mediation systems to reconcile the differences. A core concepts ontology for a certain domain contained by a foundation ontology can be used to alleviate this problem and to facilitate the reconciliation efforts. Possible differences in the use of concepts from the core concepts to model entities in domain ontologies can be prevented by binding the domain ontology developers to some rules. These rules can be particularly useful for domain ontologies requiring some kind of traceability of their concepts in the foundation ontology. The mediation system can then use this traceability to establish similarities between two ontologies. Software applications, like the one explained in this paper, can then be developed to perform the mediation task automatically and accurately.

Modeling Smart Grid neighborhoods with the ENERsip ontology

“…An inexperienced person in this area can use it to get started and get a clear idea of its main elements and the relationships among them at a glance. It can be also taken as basis for developing software to simulate and evaluate either the performance of the platform as a whole or the performance of some specific sub-system or domain (e.g., the Building Domain in self-consumption scenarios) [45,46]. It can bring context to generic services or applications, so that they can run seamlessly over the modeled domain (or a part of it) once they are connected to the ontology.…”

An ontological approach for reliable data integration in the industrial domain

“…We have seen that taxonomical structures in ontology are based on general principles which, although well motivated, can be hard to implement and, in complex domains, may lead to conflicting decisions as, e.g., the criteria of minimality and adequacy. This difficulty is in our view the theoretical source of several problems discovered in ontology-based information systems and exemplified in studies like [1], see also the gaps 8 and 9 in [23].…”

“…To show the generality of the method, we apply it to two quite different ontologies: the conceptual data model ISO 15926-2 [26,4], which was initially motivated by modeling concerns in construction and operation of oil and gas production facilities but is today applied to other domains as well [28,14]; and the foundational ontology DOLCE [30], which is used in areas like engineering design methodology [6,20], inventive design [50] and manufacturing [10,7]. For reviews on ontologies and semantic standards see [1,43,7,18] and references therein.…”

Towards a formal manufacturing reference ontology

“…It was identified that a core set of manufacturing concepts need to be defined for manufacturing industry (Lee and Suh 2008). It was identified that a set of core manufacturing concepts and relations should be formally defined to support interoperability across specific product design and production domains (Anjum et al 2012;Chen, Doumeingts, and Vernadat 2008;Chungoora and Young 2010). The requirements can be summarised as follows: (1) there is a need to define and categorise manufacturing concepts in the light of the previous research work on manufacturing ontologies, (2) there is need to define a core set of manufacturing concepts, which are neither as generic as foundation ontologies nor as specific as application-specific ontologies, (3) there is a need to formally define the core manufacturing concepts to enable computer systems to interpret the semantics of the concepts and (4) the core manufacturing ontology should support the development of application-specific ontologies in product design and production domains.…”

“…A review of literature as well as the industrial investigation was undertaken to elicit the research gaps in present manufacturing ontologies. Particular research gaps being addressed in this paper are as follows: (i) There is a need to define a core set of manufacturing concepts to provide a common understanding for various strands of manufacturing (Chen, Doumeingts, and Vernadat 2008;Lee and Suh 2008); (ii) it was identified that the core manufacturing concepts should be formally defined to enable computer system to understand the semantics of concepts (Anjum et al 2012;; (iii) there is a need to define a manufacturing reference ontology (MRO) that can support the development of semantically sound application-specific ontologies for product design and production domains (Anjum et al 2012;Chungoora and Young 2010).…”