Converting UML to OWL ontologies

Gašević, Dragan; Djurić, Dragan; Devedžić, Vladan; Damjanovi, Violeta

doi:10.1145/1010432.1010604

Cited by 31 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While experienced ontology engineers might prefer to define classes, relationships and rules directly in OWL, we chose UML for its popularity, understandability, ease of communication with domain experts, and widely available and usable software tools. We see UML-style diagrams as a way to capture knowledge about classes and relationships that could be automatically translated into an OWL ontology or PR-OWL probabilistic ontology (cf., Gasevic et al (2004)). Figure 4 depicts a simplified model of the classes and relationships in the procurement fraud domain.…”

Section: Analysis and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty modeling process for semantic technology

Carvalho

Laskey

Costa

2016

PeerJ Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ubiquity of uncertainty across application domains generates a need for principled support for uncertainty management in semantically aware systems. A probabilistic ontology provides constructs for representing uncertainty in domain ontologies. While the literature has been growing on formalisms for representing uncertainty in ontologies, there remains little guidance in the knowledge engineering literature for how to design probabilistic ontologies. To address the gap, this paper presents the Uncertainty Modeling Process for Semantic Technology (UMP-ST), a new methodology for modeling probabilistic ontologies. To explain how the methodology works and to verify that it can be applied to different scenarios, this paper describes step-by-step the construction of a proof-of-concept probabilistic ontology. The resulting domain model can be used to support identification of fraud in public procurements in Brazil. While the case study illustrates the development of a probabilistic ontology in the PR-OWL probabilistic ontology language, the methodology is applicable to any ontology formalism that properly integrates uncertainty with domain semantics.

show abstract

Section: Analysis and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty modeling process for semantic technology

Carvalho

Laskey

Costa

2016

PeerJ Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example of Classes modeled in Ontology UML Profile is shown in Figure 1. We implemented the XSLT that transforms the OUP ontologies into OWL [4]. We tested this solution on the wellknown Wine ontology.…”

Section: Classmentioning

confidence: 99%

UML Profile for OWL

Djurić

Gašević

Devedžić

et al. 2004

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The paper presents Ontology UML Profile (OUP) that is based on OWL and a metamodel -Ontology Definition Metamodel. OUP is defined in the context of the MDA four-layer architecture and current the OMG's effort for ontology development. The proposed UML profile enables usage of the well-known UML notation in ontology development more extensively. Ontology UML Profile: An OverviewThe Semantic Web and its XML-based languages are the main directions of the future Web development. Domain ontologies are the most important part of the Semantic Web applications. In order to overcome the gap between software engineering practitioners and AI techniques, there are a few proposals for UML usage in ontology development [1]. But, UML itself does not satisfy needs for representation of ontology concepts that are borrowed from description logics, and that are included in Semantic Web ontology languages (e.g. RDF, RDF Schema, OWL, etc.). The OMG's Model Driven Architecture (MDA) concept has the ability to create (using metamodeling) a family of languages that are defined in the similar way like the UML is. Currently, there is a RFP (Request for Proposal) within OMG that tries to define a suitable language for modeling Semantic Web ontology languages in the context of MDA [2. According to this RFP we give our proposal of such architecture, which consists of: Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) and Ontology UML Profile (OUP) [3]. ODM is a metamodel defined using Meta-Object Facility (MOF), and is based on the Web Ontology Language (OWL).OUP enables graphical editing of ontologies using UML diagrams as well as other benefits of using mature UML CASE tools. OUP is based on the basic UML constructs (model elements) that are customized and extended with new semantics by using four UML extension mechanisms defined in the UML Specification: stereotypes, tag definitions, tagged values, and constraints. Stereotypes enable defining virtual subclasses of UML metaclasses, assigning them additional semantics. OUP support the following OWL concepts: classes, individuals, properties, and statements. Since OUP supports ontology statements we can model ontology instances using OUP. We shortly illustrate the OUP's class concept. Class is one of the most fundamental concepts in ODM and Ontology UML Profile. In ODM, Ontology Class has several concrete species, according to the class description:

show abstract

“…This is because ObjectOriented (00) modeling languages (such as UML) provide insufficient modeling constructs for utilizing semi-structured (such as XML, RDF, OWL) schema based data descriptions and constraints, while XML/RDF Schema lacks the ability to provide higher levels of abstraction (such as conceptual models) that are easily understood by humans. To address this issue, many researchers have proposed OMG's UML (and OCL) based solutions [2,15,[18][19][20][21], with added extensions to model semi-structured data.…”

Section: Databases Ontologies and Viewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Logical/Schema Objects (L0)\ When CO are transformed or mapped into the logical/schema level (such rules and mapping formalism described in works such as [10,21,41,45,46]), the resulting objects are called LO. These objects are represented in textual (such as a schema language, OWL) or other formal notations that support schema objects (such as graph).…”

Section: Conceptual View Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…many schemata transformation rules and mapping techniques exists for transforming UML models to [20,21,41]; (a) XML Schema, (2) Ontology Web Language (OWL), (c) RDF and (d) XMI. Therefore, for the purpose of this paper, UML is visual modelling language of choice for 0 0 conceptual modelling and supports abstraction from classical data models to ontology bases.…”

Section: Modeling Conceptual Views For Swmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling Ontology Views

Rajugan

Chang

Dillon

et al.

Industrial Applications of Semantic Web

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The emergence of Semantic Web (SW) and the related technologies promise to make the web a meaningful experience. However, high level modeling, design and querying techniques proves to be a challenging task for organizations that are hoping to utilize the SW paradigm for their industrial applications. To address one such issue, in this paper, we propose an abstract view model with conceptual extensions for the SW. First we outline the view model, its properties and some modeling issues with the help of an industrial case study example. Then, we provide some discussions on constructing such views (at the conceptual level) using a set of operators. Later we provide a brief discussion on how such this view model can utilized in the MOVE [1] system, to design and construct materialized Ontology views to support Ontology extraction.Keywords: Semantic Web (SW), view models. Ontology views, Object-Oriented conceptual models (OOCM), conceptual views. Ontology extraction INTRODUCTIONThe emergence of Semantic Web (SW) and the related technologies promise to make the web a meaningful experience. Conversely, success of SW and its applications depends heavily on utilization and interoperability of well formulated Ontology bases in an automated, heterogeneous environment. This creates a need to investigate utilization of (materialized) Ontology views [2] in SW applications, such as; (a) Ontology extraction, (b) Ontology versioning, (c) sub-ontology bases, and (d) SW-wrappers for traditional data sources, in industrial settings. However, unlike

show abstract

Converting UML to OWL ontologies

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

Uncertainty modeling process for semantic technology

Uncertainty modeling process for semantic technology

UML Profile for OWL

Modeling Ontology Views

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About