Ontology meta-model for building a situational picture of catastrophic events

Designing ontologies for higher level fusion

“…These basic relations prove to be very useful for designing ontologies whose structure serves to capture the most basic kinds of ontological connectivity, suitable for applications and domains that contain uncomplicated items. However, taxonomic relations such as subsumption and mereonomy are not powerful enough to represent highly context-dependent situated items, which require reasoning about complicated relations like causation, reciprocal versus one-sided dependence, or intention [11,12]. The structure of most relations necessary for higher level fusion are too complicated to be described by basic relations such as 'ParentOf', 'SiblingOf', 'SuperclassOf', 'LocatedAt', 'HasPropertyOf', or the like.…”

“…It is divided into two orthogonal sub- ontologies called SNAP and SPAN [11][12][13][19][20][21]27] that correspond to the theory of continuants and occurrents, respectively, which are also found in other upper ontologies such as Sowa's Hierarchy of Top-Level Categories [28,29]. SNAP items (i.e., continuents) are substantial entities that possess attributes (i.e., tropes) and occupy spatial regions.…”

“…It is well recognized now that ontologies offer a necessary framework for reasoning about situations by providing structured domain knowledge (objects, their attributes, and relations between them) to represent situations and support this matching process [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. A majority of ontologies designed for fusion applications are constructed in the web ontology language (OWL) and thus represent their information as RDF triples, which capture such items in the form of subject-predicate-object.…”

Open Networks: Generalized Multi-Sensor Characterization

“…Models and methods of threat assessment have been developed in programs for diverse national security and commercial applications [5,6]. In general, threats are characterized, predicted and recognized in terms of the indications and constraints on their actions imposed by their capability, opportunity and intent to carry out various actions.…”

Extending ontology queries with Bayesian network reasoning

“…So, according to this approach, an upper ontology provides a type of assumed god s eye view of reality, independent of human observations. By their very nature, human observations presume certain epistemic (i.e., mindor knowledge-dependent assertions about reality (e.g., as discussed in the lengthy philosophical debates between realist and conceptualist theories of reality) (Lit06b), (Lit05). At the upper-most levels, for example, an ontology normally contains non-recursive categorical relations such as: a TerroristAgent is − a Person, an IED is − a Explosive, an ObjectShape is dependent on Substance).…”