Model Driven Architecture and Ontology Development
โ Scribed by Dragan Gasevic, Dragan Djuric, Vladan Devedzic,
- Publisher
- Springer
- Year
- 2006
- Tongue
- English
- Leaves
- 316
- Edition
- 1
- Category
- Library
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
โฆ Synopsis
Defining a formal domain ontology is generally considered a useful, not to say necessary step in almost every software project. This is because software deals with ideas rather than with self-evident physical artefacts. However, this development step is hardly ever done, as ontologies rely on well-defined and semantically powerful AI concepts such as description logics or rule-based systems, and most software engineers are largely unfamiliar with these. Ga?evic and his co-authors try to fill this gap by covering the subject of MDA application for ontology development on the Semantic Web. Part I of their book describes existing technologies, tools, and standards like XML, RDF, OWL, MDA, and UML. Part II presents the first detailed description of OMGโs new ODM (Ontology Definition Metamodel) initiative, a specification which is expected to be in the form of an OMG language like UML. Finally, Part III is dedicated to applications and practical aspects of developing ontologies using MDA-based languages. The book is supported by a website showing many ontologies, UML and other MDA-based models, and the transformations between them. "The book is equally suited to those who merely want to be informed of the relevant technological landscape, to practitioners dealing with concrete problems, and to researchers seeking pointers to potentially fruitful areas of research. The writing is technical yet clear and accessible, illustrated throughout with useful and easily digestible examples." from the Foreword by Bran Selic, IBM Rational Software, Canada. "I do not know another book that offers such a high quality insight into UML and ontologies." Steffen Staab, U Koblenz, Germany
โฆ Table of Contents
3540321802......Page 1
Contents......Page 12
Part I. Basics......Page 17
1. Knowledge Representation......Page 18
1.1 Basic Concepts......Page 19
1.2 Cognitive Science......Page 22
1.3 Types of Human Knowledge......Page 26
1.4 Knowledge Representation Techniques......Page 29
1.5 Knowledge Representation Languages......Page 34
1.6 Knowledge Engineering......Page 51
1.7 Open Knowledge Base Connectivity (OKBC)......Page 54
1.8 The Knowledge Level......Page 56
2. Ontologies......Page 59
2.1 Basic Concepts......Page 60
2.2 Ontological Engineering......Page 72
2.3 Applications......Page 83
2.4 Advanced Topics......Page 86
3. The Semantic Web......Page 92
3.1 Rationale......Page 93
3.2 Semantic Web Languages......Page 94
3.3 The Role of Ontologies......Page 108
3.4 Semantic Markup......Page 109
3.5 Semantic Web Services......Page 113
3.6 Open Issues......Page 117
3.7 Quotations......Page 120
4.1 Models and Metamodels......Page 121
4.2 Platform-Independent Models......Page 122
4.3 Four-Layer Architecture......Page 124
4.4 The Meta-Object Facility......Page 126
4.5 Specific MDA Metamodels......Page 129
4.6 UML Profiles......Page 132
4.7 An XML for Sharing MDA Artifacts......Page 135
4.8 The Need for Modeling Spaces......Page 138
5. Modeling Spaces......Page 139
5.1 Modeling the Real World......Page 140
5.2 The Real World, Models, and Metamodels......Page 141
5.3 The Essentials of Modeling Spaces......Page 143
5.4 Modeling Spaces Illuminated......Page 146
5.5 A Touch of RDF(S) and MOF Modeling Spaces......Page 149
5.6 A Touch of the Semantic Web and MDA Technical Spaces......Page 151
5.7 Instead of Conclusions......Page 153
Part II. The Model Driven Architecture and Ontologies......Page 154
6.1 A Brief History of Ontology Modeling......Page 155
6.2 Ontology Development Tools Based on Software Engineering Techniques......Page 170
6.3 Summary of Relations Between UML and Ontologies......Page 178
7.1 Motivation......Page 183
7.2 Overview......Page 184
7.3 Bridging RDF(S) and MOF......Page 186
7.4 Design Rationale for the Ontology UML Profile......Page 188
8.1 ODM Metamodels......Page 190
8.2 A Few Issues Regarding the Revised Joint Submission......Page 192
8.3 The Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS) metamodel......Page 193
8.4 The Web Ontology Language (OWL) Metamodel......Page 199
9.1 Classes and Individuals in Ontologies......Page 209
9.2 Properties of Ontologies......Page 212
9.3 Statements......Page 214
9.4 Different Versions of the Ontology UML Profile......Page 215
10.1 Relations Between Modeling Spaces......Page 218
10.2 Transformations Between Modeling Spaces......Page 221
10.3 Example of an Implementation: an XSLT-Based Approach......Page 224
Part III. Applications......Page 234
11. Using UML Tools for Ontology Modeling......Page 235
11.1 MagicDraw......Page 236
11.2 Poseidon for UML......Page 253
11.3 Sharing UML Models Between UML tools and Protรฉgรฉ Using the UML Back End......Page 257
12.1 Motivation......Page 261
12.2 The Basic Idea......Page 262
12.3 Metamodel โ the Conceptual Building Block of AIR......Page 264
12.4 The AIR Metadata Repository......Page 265
12.5 The AIR Workbench......Page 268
12.6 The Role of XML Technologies......Page 270
12.7 Possibilities......Page 271
13.1 Petri Net Ontology......Page 272
13.2 Educational Ontologies......Page 283
References......Page 296
D......Page 310
M......Page 311
O......Page 312
R......Page 314
V......Page 315
X......Page 316
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
Defining a formal domain ontology is generally considered a useful, not to say necessary step in almost every software project. This is because software deals with ideas rather than with self-evident physical artefacts. However, this development step is hardly ever done, as ontologies rely on well-d
<p><P>Defining a formal domain ontology is generally considered a useful, not to say necessary step in almost every software project. This is because software deals with ideas rather than with self-evident physical artefacts. However, this development step is hardly ever done, as ontologies rely on
<p><P>Defining a formal domain ontology is generally considered a useful, not to say necessary step in almost every software project. This is because software deals with ideas rather than with self-evident physical artefacts. However, this development step is hardly ever done, as ontologies rely on
<p><P>Defining a formal domain ontology is generally considered a useful, not to say necessary step in almost every software project. This is because software deals with ideas rather than with self-evident physical artefacts. However, this development step is hardly ever done, as ontologies rely on