er2013 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ER2013 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ER2013

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 9

ER2013 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 121 Views
  • Uploaded on

ER2013. KSE Lab Meeting December 2013. Paper 1: Ontologies for International Standards for Software Engineering. Addresses issue of terminological and semantic differences between International standards

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'ER2013' - duy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
er2013

ER2013

KSE Lab Meeting

December 2013

paper 1 ontologies for international standards for software engineering
Paper 1: Ontologies for International Standards for Software Engineering
  • Addresses issue of terminological and semantic differences between International standards
  • The solution: A hierarchy of ontologies that begin at the foundational level and then become more specific for a single or group of standards/technical working groups

Authors: Brian Henderson-Sellers, Tom McBride - Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney

Graham Low - School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales

Cesar Gonzalez-Perez - Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

core structure
Core Structure
  • Create a foundational ontology sourced from ontology engineering field e.g. sortals
    • DEO – Definitional Element Ontology
      • Represents a taxonomy of rigorously defined terms and the relationships between them
    • CDO stands for Configured Domain Ontology
      • Effectively a customised “copy” of the DEO
    • SDO stands for Standard Domain Ontology
      • A metamodel that a standard or technical working groups can instantiate to build their own ontology

Authors: Brian Henderson-Sellers, Tom McBride - Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney

Graham Low - School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales

Cesar Gonzalez-Perez - Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

paper 2 semantic based mappings
Paper 2: Semantic-Based Mappings
  • Traditionally mappings are developed between source and target schema
  • Investigates how the mapping process changes when a conceptual schema for a target database is available
  • Contribution
    • Employs non-recursive Datalog with limited negation
    • Rewrite algorithm based on the idea of unfolding views in mapping conclusions
      • More complex when view definition language allows negation

Authors: Giansalvatore Mecca - Universit`a della Basilicata – Potenza, Italy

GuillemRull, Ernest Teniente - UniversitatPolit`ecnica de Catalunya – Barcelona, Spain

Donatello Santoro - Universit`a Roma Tre – Roma, Italy

slide5

Mappings represented using tgds and egds

  • Evaluation based on following factors
    • Effectiveness
      • Compares size of the source-to-semantic mapping users need to specify vs auto-generated mappings
      • Auto-generated increases size of dependency graph by an average 70%
    • Scalability
      • Large Scenarios testing unfolding algorithm with increasing levels of negation
        • Source level relations ranged from 10k – 80k
        • View definitions ranged from 30k – 240k
        • Target level relations ranged from 60k – 480k
        • Results do not exceed 0.9 secs compared to standard algorithms which take hours for small scenarios
    • Large Datasets
      • Scales well (up to 1 million database tuples)

Authors: Giansalvatore Mecca - Universit`a della Basilicata – Potenza, Italy

GuillemRull, Ernest Teniente - UniversitatPolit`ecnica de Catalunya – Barcelona, Spain

Donatello Santoro - Universit`a Roma Tre – Roma, Italy

paper 3 towards ontological foundations for the conceptual modeling of events
Paper 3: Towards Ontological Foundations for the Conceptual Modeling of Events
  • Goal: To provide a more rigorous ontological account of events
  • Motivation
    • To provide a more complete ontological account of events
  • Extends Unified Foundational Ontology: UFO-B
  • Formalises
    • Notion of events as manifestations of object dispositions
    • parthood in events
    • Temporal relations
    • Situations (bound to specific time-points)

Authors: Giancarlo Guizzardi, Ricardo de Almeida Falbo, Renata S.S. Guizzardi and Joao Paulo A. Almeida

Ontology and Conceptual Modelling Research Group (NEMO), Fed. Uni. of Espírito Santo (UFES), Brazil

GerdWagner - Institute of Informatics, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany

slide7

Contribution(s)

    • Extends previous ontological treatment of events from previous work
    • Provides a comprehensive axiomatisation
  • Relevance to my research
    • Potential for implementation in our ontology as events are covered in ISO 15926
      • Would need to check compatibility to ‘Event’ in YAMATO and suitability to ISO 15926

Authors: Giancarlo Guizzardi, Ricardo de Almeida Falbo, Renata S.S. Guizzardi and Joao Paulo A. Almeida

Ontology and Conceptual Modelling Research Group (NEMO), Fed. Uni. of Espírito Santo (UFES), Brazil

GerdWagner - Institute of Informatics, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany

paper 4 is traditional conceptual modelling becoming obsolete
Paper 4: Is Traditional Conceptual Modelling Becoming Obsolete?
  • Authors claim that with heterogeneous distributed information systems, analysis of requirements is very difficult and is likely to guarantee certain users will not be represented in the formal model
  • Representation by abstraction pre-supposes consensus among stakeholders but is limited in the above case
  • Authors lists several approaches to resolve issue:
    • Reduce the extent and depth of specification (i.e. barely good enough models)
    • Domain ontologies – although authors write this off by stating they may neglect all valid views and thereby inhibit domain understanding (self-author citation)
    • Allow users to dynamically modify model but points out that issues arise concerning cooperative schema evolution, etc

Authors: Roman Lukyanenkoand Jeffrey Parsons - Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland

slide9

Author proposes ‘instance-based’ data models

    • Users can provide information based on their own conceptualisation of reality
  • Evaluation
    • Authors state multiple statistical-based tests
    • Focus on ‘citizen-science’
    • Users can simply add new attributes to instances
      • e.g. ‘Mallard Duck’ has-attribute ‘has webbed feet’

Authors: Roman Lukyanenkoand Jeffrey Parsons - Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland