59407107 Ontology engineering Assignment 1

LECTURE NOTES ON ONTOLOGY

ENGINEERING CONCEPTS

WHAT IS AN ONTOLOGY?

The definition for ontologies is a widely argued topic which seems to generate a lot of
controversy in discussions about Artificial Intelligence. It has a long history in philosophy, in
which it refers to the subject of existence. It is also often confused with epistemology, which is
about knowledge and knowing. The word ontology comes from two Greek words “Onto” which
describes existence, or being real and “Logia” which means science, or study. The word
ontology is used both in a philosophical and non-philosophical context. In philosophical context
ontology is described as the study of what exists in general and in a non-philosophical context it
is the description of what exists specifically within a determined field, for example, every part
that exists in a specific information system. This includes the relationships and hierarchy
between these parts. Gruber(1993) simply put it as “specification of a representational
vocabulary for a shared domain of discourse– definitions of classes, relations, functions and
other objects.” Borst,H. & Top (1997) have elaborated Gruber’s definition as: “Ontologies are
defined as formal specification of a shared conceptualization.” Studer, Benjamins & Fensel
(1998) has combined both Gruber and Borst’s definition defining ontologies as “explicit formal
specification of a shared conceptualization.” Studer (1998) has explained the term as follows:

 Explicit: The type of concepts used and the constraints on their use are explicitly
defined.
 Formal: The ontology should be machine readable which includes natural language.
 Shared: Reflects the notion that an ontology captures consensual knowledge, that is, it
is not private to some individual but accepted by a group.
 Conceptualization: abstract model of some phenomenon in the world by having
identified the relevant concepts of that phenomenon. Every knowledge base, knowledge-
based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization,
explicitly or implicitly.

Mike Uschold(1998) holds the view that: “an ontology may take a variety of forms, but
necessarily it will include a vocabulary of terms, and some specification of their meaning. This
includes definitions and an indication of how concepts are inter-related which collectively
impose a structure on the domain and constrain the possible interpretations of terms. Guarino
(1998) further explains an ontology “as a logical theory that constraints the intended models of a
logical language.” He subscribes to the formal machine readable intensional description of the
domain of discourse models as ontology. His suggested terminological differentiation between
the philosophical branch Ontology with a capital ‘O’ and ‘ontology’ as knowledge engineering

1
and AI perspective with a small ‘o’, is now widely accepted. Barry Smith (2004) defines ontology
in information system as: “an ontology is a software (or formal language) artifact designed with
specific set of uses and computational environments in mind. An ontology is often something
that is ordered by specific client in a specific context and in relation to specific practical needs
and resources.” Guarino, Oberle and Staab(2009) offer a widely cited analysis of the term
“ontology”. According to them an ontology is, “roughly speaking, a logical theory, which models
approximate, as best as possible, the intended models according to a given ontological
commitment (which is based on a conceptualization)”. According to Becker (2015) an ontology
“is virtually always the manifestation of a shared understanding of a domain that is agreed
between a number of agents. Such agreement facilitates accurate and effective communication
of meaning, which in turn leads to other benefits such as inter-operability, reuse and sharing”.

As we see from this discussion, there is no clear consensus on the definition of ontology in the
context of Information Systems. It can range from being a formal logical theory to abstract
conceptual models.

Design Criteria for Ontologies

Preliminary set of design criteria for ontologies whose main functionality is sharing knowledge
and interoperation amongst programs based on a shared conceptualization are:

 Clarity: An ontology should communicate the propose meaning of defined terms.

Definitions should be objective and should be independent of social and computational
context. A complete definition (a predicate defined by necessary and sufficient
conditions) is preferred over a partial definition (defined by only necessary or sufficient
conditions). All definitions should be documented with natural language.
 Coherence: Ontology should permit inferences that are consistent with the definitions.
At the least, the defining axioms should be logically consistent. Coherence should also
apply to the concepts that are defined informally, such as those described in natural
language documentation and examples. If a sentence that can be inferred from the
axioms contradicts a definition or example given informally, then the ontology is
incoherent.
 Extensibility: Ontology should be designed to anticipate the uses of the shared
vocabulary. It should offer a conceptual foundation for a range of anticipated tasks and
the representation should be crafted so that one can extend and specialize the ontology
monotonically. In other words, one should be able to define new terms for special uses
based on the existing vocabulary, in a way that does not require the revision of the
existing definitions.
 Minimal encoding bias: The conceptualization should be specified at the knowledge
level without depending on a particular symbol-level encoding. An encoding bias results
when representation choices are made purely for the convenience of notation or
implementation. Encoding bias should be minimized because knowledge-sharing agents
may be implemented in different representation systems and styles of representation.
 Minimal ontological commitment: Ontology should require the minimal ontological
commitment sufficient to support the intended knowledge sharing activities. Ontology
should make as few claims as possible about the world being modeled, allowing the
parties committed to the ontology freedom specializes and instantiate the ontology as
needed.

2
Ontology development process

 Determine scope (This phase tries to answer questions such as (what is the domain
that the ontology will cover?, for what are we going to use the ontology?, For what types
of questions the information in the ontology should provide answers(competency
questions)? )).
 Consider re use (This phase tries to find answers in questions such as (why reuse
other ontologies?)).
 Enumerate terms
 Define classes (e.g a class is a concept in the domain, a class is a collection of
elements with properties).
 Define properties
 Define constraints (a Property constraint (facets) describe or limits the set of possible
values for a slot).
 Create instances (Create instances of class, assign slot values for the instance frame).

Why are ontologies important?

Ontological analysis clarifies the structure of knowledge. Given a domain, its ontology forms the
heart of any system of knowledge representation for that domain. Without ontologies, or the
conceptualizations that underlie knowledge, there cannot be a vocabulary for representing
knowledge. Thus, the first step in devising an effective knowledge representation system, and
vocabulary, is to perform an effective ontological analysis of the field, or domain. Weak analyses
lead to incoherent knowledge bases. An example of why performing good analysis is necessary
comes from the field of databases. Consider a domain having several classes of people (for
example, students, professors, employees, females, and males). This study first examined the
way this database would be commonly organized: students, employees, professors, males, and
female would be represented as types-of the class humans. However, some of the problems
that exist with this ontology are that students can also be employees at times and can also stop
being students. Further analysis showed that the terms students and employee do not describe
categories of humans, but are roles that humans can play, while terms such as females and
males more appropriately represent subcategories of humans. Therefore, clarifying the
terminology enables the ontology to work for coherent and cohesive reasoning purposes.
Second, ontologies enable knowledge sharing. Suppose we perform an analysis and arrive at a
satisfactory set of conceptualizations, and their representative terms, for some area of
knowledge—for example, the electronic-devices domain. The resulting ontology would likely
include domain-specific terms such as transistors and diodes; general terms such as functions,
causal processes, and modes; and terms that describe behavior such as voltage. The ontology
captures the intrinsic conceptual structure of the domain. In order to build a knowledge
representation language based on the analysis, we need to associate terms with the concepts
and relations in the ontology and devise a syntax for encoding knowledge in terms of the
concepts and relations. We can share this knowledge representation language with others who

3
have similar needs for knowledge representation in that domain, thereby eliminating the need
for replicating the knowledge-analysis process. Shared ontologies can thus form the basis for
domain-specific knowledge-representation languages. In contrast to the previous generation of
knowledge-representation languages (such as KL-One), these languages are content-rich; they
have a large number of terms that embody a complex content theory of the domain. Shared
ontologies let us build specific knowledge bases that describe specific situations. For example,
different electronic devices manufacturers can use a common vocabulary and syntax to build
catalogs that describe their products. Then the manufacturers could share the catalogs and use
them in automated design systems. This kind of sharing vastly increases the potential for
knowledge reuse.

THE SEMANTIC AND ITS ORIGINS AND USES

Semantic Web is actually an extension of the current one in that it represents information more
meaningfully for humans and computers alike. It enables the description of contents and
services in machine-readable form, and enables annotating, discovering, publishing, advertising
and composing services to be automated. It was developed based on Ontology, which is
considered as the backbone of the Semantic Web. In other words, the current Web is
transformed from being machine-readable to machine-understandable. Semantic Web
describes properties of the content and dependencies between different content, which allows
unambiguous exchange of information between people and computers. The first form of
semantic data on the Internet was the metadata that represent data about the data. Multimedia
metadata is type of metadata used for describing multimedia content. Architecture of the
Semantic Web can be displayed using the Semantic Web Stack. Three important standards that
make architecture of the Semantic Web and that are used in multimedia annotation are XML,
RDF and ontologies. (Daconta et al., 2003)

The Semantic Web is a vision: the idea of having data on the Web defined and linked in a way
that it can be utilized by machines not just for display purposes, but for automation, integration
and reuse of data across various applications. In order to make this vision a reality for the Web,
supporting standards, technologies and policies must be designed to enable machines to make
more sense of the Web, with the result of making the Web more useful for humans.

Origin: The term “Semantic Web” refers to the W3C’s vision of the Web of linked data.
Semantic Web technologies enable people to create data stores on the Web, build
vocabularies, and write rules for handling data. Linked data are empowered by technologies
such as RDF, SPARQL, OWL, and SKOS. The first time people talked and wrote about
semantic models for representing structured knowledge was in the early sixties. However the
term Semantic Web was coined by Tim Berners Lee, the father of the World Wide Web and the
director of the World Wide Web Consortium ("W3C"), which now oversees the development of
proposed Semantic Web standards. "The Semantic Web is not a separate Web but an
extension of the current one, in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling
computers and people to work in cooperation. It extends the network of hyperlinked human-

4
readable web pages by inserting machine-readable metadata about pages and how they are
related to each other, enabling automated agents to access the Web more intelligently and
perform tasks on behalf of users. Sir Tim Berners Lee defines the Semantic Web as "a web of
data that can be processed directly and indirectly by machines."

Purpose of Semantic web: The main purpose of the Semantic Web is driving the evolution of
the current Web by enabling users to find, share, and combine information more easily. The
semantic web is a vision of information that can be readily interpreted by machines, so
machines can perform more of the tedious work involved in finding, combining, and acting upon
information on the web.

Uses of Semantic web: Semantic Web technologies can be used in a variety of application
areas; for example: in data integration, whereby data in various locations and various formats
can be integrated in one, seamless application; in resource discovery and classification to
provide better, domain specific search engine capabilities; in cataloging for describing the
content and content relationships available at a particular Web site, page, or digital library;
by intelligent software agents to facilitate knowledge sharing and exchange; in content rating; in
describing collections of pages that represent a single logical “document”; for
describing intellectual property rights of Web pages (see, eg, the Creative Commons), and in
many others. According to (Antoniou & van Harmelen, 2004) semantic webs can be used to :

 Improve e-business processes

 Improve business-to-business (B2B) communication
 assist human users in their day-to-day online activities

(Daconta et al., 2003) mentioned that semantic webs can be used for :

 build knowledge and understanding from raw data

 Improve knowledge management
 Improve information retrieval
 Automate tasking
 Integrate data Maximize customer value and profits
 Integrate data – internally and externally

MAJOR USES FOR ONTOLOGIES

A key use of ontology is to share information between people, databases and applications.
Ontologies capture, represent and model domain knowledge in a machine readable way so that
it can be understood, interpreted and reused by humans and machines alike. Ontology plays a
major part in solving the problem of interoperability between applications across different
organizations, by providing a shared understanding of common domains. Ontologies for

5
information systems were first proposed to contribute to solving the issues with data integration.
An ontology provides the common vocabulary for the applications that is at one level of
abstraction higher up than conceptual data models such as EER diagrams and UML Class
Diagrams. Over the years, it has been used also for other purposes such as describing real life
relationships. For example (Todd) is an instance of class person whereas (Spry,Inc) is an
instance of class organization. Ontologies capture the relationships between these two
instances. According to Obitko (2001) ontologies “can be used for expressing domain-general
terms in a top-level ontology, for knowledge sharing and reuse, for communication in multi-
agent systems, natural language understanding, and to ease document search to mention some
of them”.

Noy and McGuinness (2001) have proposed the following possible uses for an ontology
(ontology in their perspective is from a reusable knowledge base perspective, which consists of
concepts, their attributes and their relationships):

 to share common understanding of the structure of information(among people and

among software agents)
 To enable reuse of domain knowledge (to avoid “re-inventing the wheel” and to introduce
standards to allow interoperability).
 To make domain assumptions explicit (easier to change domain assumptions (consider
a genetics knowledge base) and to make it easier to understand and update legacy
data).
 To separate domain knowledge from the operational knowledge (re-use domain and
operational knowledge separately (e.g configuration based on constraints)).
 To analyze domain knowledge.

All the above uses support inferencing capabilities. The first one could be targeted towards
human understanding in which case we could use conceptual graphs, topic maps or UML class
diagrams as representation medium. The second one presupposes the use of a common
language for representation. For example reuse of other ontologies defined in different formats
like KIF, LOOM, or OWL needs to be mapped or translated. The third application of ontology, to
make implicit or tacit knowledge available, has a vital application for many domains like in the
medical, legal and military domains. The fourth and fifth use as proposed by Noy & McGuinness
(2001) is oriented towards the architectural design and end application uses. In addition to the
above, ontology is being used as a central knowledge pool for a variety of Information Systems
applications and services like for web services, document management systems, enterprise
management systems, contract management systems amongst others. Thus in the specific
context of interoperability of Information Systems, we may summarize the potential use of
ontologies as:

Ontology can be used as a central component of interoperability of Information Systems

application at data, information, knowledge and meta level. Ontology supports interoperability at
different levels like:

6
Interoperability at Data Level: Ontology by themselves achieve interoperability at the lowest
data level syntactic integration /schema integration by means of mapping of ontology or
translation to existing knowledge base or data base formats.

Interoperability at Information Level: Information level of interoperability requires a set of

methodologies in addition to the central ontology. Query and search facilities like that of Xpath,
Xquery, SparQL and RACER enable interoperability between like-minded ontologies.

Interoperability at Knowledge Level: Interoperability at knowledge level requires the ontology

to be visualized at the conceptual model level, or meta data model level as is popularly known in
Information Systems. This segregation of specificity is similar to most modeling architectures
like the MDA 1; DoDAF 2; NAF 3; and the Zachman Framework (1987). This research is
focused on the knowledge level conceptualization, and thus our interest lies in the possible use
of ontologies for information to facilitate ‘knowledge level interoperability’ or ‘semantic
interoperability’ as it is better known.

Uschold and Gruninger(1996) specify three different categories where ontologies can be used.
 The first one is Communication, ontologies can be used to increase and facilitate
communication among people. They can be used to create a network of relationships, to
keep track of what is linked, and use this to navigate and explore. Ontologies provide
unambiguous definitions of terms, meaning that people use terms in the same way, and
with the same meaning and intention. A shared ontology can be seen as a standardized
terminology for all objects and relations in the domain.

 The second usage area defined is Inter-Operability. Ontologies can serve as an

integrating environment for different software tools.

 The third usage is Systems Engineering, in which ontologies can play an important part
in the design and development of software systems. They can help to identify
requirements of a system and to explicitly define relationships among components of a
system. They can also be used to support reuse of modules among different software
systems.

McGuinness (2001) also mentioned several other application areas for ontologies, where he
clearly specified that ontologies provide a controlled and shared vocabulary. They can be used
for navigation, browsing and search support. Consistency checking can also be handled with
ontologies to some extent. Ontologies can provide configuration support and support validation
and verification testing of data.

AN OVERVIEW ON DESCRIPTION LOGICS

Description Logics is a popular knowledge representation formalism in the context of the
Semantic Web (Baader et al., 2003). DL can be used for configuration knowledge
representation, especially for the design of component type hierarchies (ontologies) and for
coherence analysis. A Description Logic knowledge base consists of two major elements: the
TBox introduces concepts, relationships, and constraints of the (product) domain, the ABox
contains assertions about individuals. Thus, the TBox can be used to represent the
configuration model and the ABox the resulting configuration. Description Logics have been
successfully applied for the development of configuration systems—for a detailed related
discussion refer to Hotz et al. (2006) and McGuinness and Wright (1998). Felfernig et al. (2003)
have analyzed the applicability of Description Logics for the representation of configuration

7
knowledge. DL can be used to represent configuration knowledge, however, some specific
constraint types are supported in a restricted fashion. For example, no aggregation functions
are provided and constraints on complex connection structures (via ports) cannot be defined
due to the lower (but decidable) expressiveness of many DL dialects. Furthermore, because
there is no standard inference method that provides automatic instantiation, the DL-Reasoner
has to be included in an architecture that creates individuals from outside. This is needed
because of the incremental aspects of configuration processes. Beside this analysis, Felfernig
et al. (2003) also introduce a formal definition of a configuration problem and its solution in
Description Logic and show the equivalence of this definition with a predicate logic-based
definition.

What are they good for and how are they used?
DL systems have been used in a range of application domains, including configuration (e.g., of
telecommunications equipment), software information and documentation systems and
databases, where they have been used to support schema design, schema and data
integration, and query answering. More recently, DLs have played a central role in the semantic
web, where they have been adopted as the basis for ontology languages such as OWL, and its
predecessors OIL and DAML+OIL, and DL knowledge bases are now often referred to as
ontologies. This has resulted in a more widespread use of DL systems, with applications in
fields as diverse as agriculture, astronomy, biology, defence, education, energy management,
geography, geoscience, medicine, oceanography and oil and gas.
In a typical application, the first step will be to determine the relevant vocabulary of the
application domain and then formalize it in a suitable TBox. This ontology engineering process
may be manual or (semi-) automatic. In either case a DL reasoner is invariably used to check
satisfiability of concepts and consistency of the ontology as a whole. This reasoner is often
integrated in an ontology editing tool such as Protégé. Some applications use only a
terminological ontology (i.e., a TBox), but in others the ontology is subsequently used to
structure and access data in an ABox or even in a database. In the latter case a DL reasoner
will again be used to compute query answers. The use of DLs in applications throws the above
mentioned expressivity versus complexity trade-off into sharp relief. On the one hand, using a
very restricted DL might make it difficult to precisely describe the concepts needed in the
ontology and forces the modelling to remain at a high level of abstraction; on the other hand,
using a highly expressive DL might make it difficult to perform relevant reasoning tasks in a
reasonable amount of time. The OWL ontology language is highly expressive, and hence also
highly intractable; however, the currently used OWL 2 version of OWL also specifies several
profiles, fragments of the language that are based on less expressive but tractable DLs.

THE OWL ONTOLOGY LANGUAGE AND ITS LINK TO THE SEMANTIC WEB

The Semantic Web is a vision for the future of the Web in which information is given explicit
meaning, making it easier for machines to automatically process and integrate information
available on the Web. The Semantic Web will build on XML's ability to define customized
tagging schemes and RDF's flexible approach to representing data. The first level above RDF
required for the Semantic Web is an ontology language that can formally describe the meaning
of terminology used in Web documents. If machines are expected to perform useful reasoning
tasks on these documents, the language must go beyond the basic semantics of RDF Schema.
The OWL Use Cases and Requirements Document provides more details on ontologies,

8
motivates the need for a Web Ontology Language in terms of six use cases, and formulates
design goals, requirements and objectives for OWL. OWL has been designed to meet this need
for a Web Ontology Language. OWL is part of the growing stack of W3C recommendations
related to the Semantic Web.

XML provides a surface syntax for structured documents, but imposes no semantic constraints
on the meaning of these documents.

XML Schema is a language for restricting the structure of XML documents and also extends
XML with data types.

RDF is a data model for objects ("resources") and relations between them, provides a simple
semantics for this data model, and these data models can be represented in an XML syntax.

RDF Schema is a vocabulary for describing properties and classes of RDF resources, with a
semantics for generalization-hierarchies of such properties and classes. OWL adds more
vocabulary for describing properties and classes: among others, relations between classes (e.g.
disjointness), cardinality (e.g. "exactly one"), equality, richer typing of properties, characteristics
of properties (e.g. symmetry) and enumerated classes.

Web Ontology Language (OWL) is a language for defining and instantiating web ontologies.
OWL ontology includes description of classes, properties and their instances. OWL is used to
explicitly represent the meaning of terms in vocabularies and the relationships between those
terms. Such representation of terms and their interrelationships is called ontology. OWL has
facilities for expressing meaning and semantics and the ability to represent machine
interpretable content on the Web. OWL is designed for use by applications that need to process
the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. This is used for
knowledge representation and also is useful to derive logical consequences from OWL formal
semantics.

Characteristics of properties can also be defined by OWL. Description Logic (DL) provides a
formal basis for the definition of the OWL. Scientific research group W3C Web Ontology
Working Group has defined three different types of OWL languages:

 OWL Lite contains simple constraints and the classification hierarchy. It is used for
simple ontologies and useful for quick migration path for thesauri and other taxonomies.
(It is least expressive and suitable for simple class hierarchy).

 OWL DL has maximum expressiveness with the restriction that all conclusions can be
computed and that all calculations can be completed in a finite time. It is used for
expressive ontologies and it is (based on Description Logic).

 OWL Full has a maximum expressiveness and the syntatic freedom, but with no
guarantee of computation but allows an ontology to augment the meaning of the pre-
defined (RDF or OWL) vocabulary and is not suitable for auto-reasoning). It is used
when compatibility with RDF and RDF Schema is primary.

OWL DL sublanguage is an extension of OWL Lite sublanguage, while OWL Full sublanguage
is an extension of OWL DL sublanguage. Those extensions refer in what can be validly

9
concluded and legally expressed from its simpler predecessor. Following relations hold for OWL
sublanguages, but their inverses do not :
 Every legal OWL Lite ontology is a legal OWL DL ontology.
 Every legal OWL DL ontology is a legal OWL Full ontology.
 Every valid OWL Lite conclusion is a valid OWL DL conclusion.
 Every valid OWL DL conclusion is a valid OWL Full conclusion.

OWL languages provide additional formal vocabulary with added semantics that allows better
communication with computers than XML, RDF and RDF Schema provide. Multimedia
ontologies created using OWL enable creation of high quality multimedia metadata.

References
[1] H.-T. Chang, “Automatic web image annotation for image retrieval systems”, Proceedings of
the 12th WSEAS international conference on Systems (ICS'08), Stevens Point, Wisconsin,
USA, 2008, pp. 670-674.

[2] T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, O. Lassila, “The Semantic Web”, Scientific American, vol. 284,
no. 5, May 2001, pp. 34-43.

[3] N. F. Foy, D. L. McGuinness, “Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first
ontology”, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford
Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, March 2001.

[4] G. Stamou, J. van Ossenbruggen, J. Z. Pan, G. Schreiber, “Multimedia annotations on the

Semantic Web”, IEEE MultiMedia, vol. 13, no. 1, January-March 2006, pp. 86-90.

[5] T. Berners-Lee, “Semantic Web – XML2000”, Talk, [Online]. Available:

http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl

[6] The Unicode Consortium, “The Unicode Standard Version 6.2 – Core Specification”, Unicode
Inc., Mountain View, California, USA, September 2012.
[7] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masitner, “Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic
Syntax”, Network Working Group, January 2005. [Online].Available:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

[8] H. S. Thompson, D. Beech, M. Maloney, N. Mendelsohn, P. Hayes, XML Schema Part 1:

Structures Second edition, W3C Recommendation, October 2004. [Online]. Available:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/

[9] P. Hayes, “RDF Semantics”, W3C Recommendation, February 2004. [Online]. Available:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/

[10] D. L. McGuinness, F. van Harmelen, “OWL Web Ontology Language overview”, W3C
Recommendation, February 2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

10
[11] F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. L. McGuinness, D, Nardi, P. F. Patel- Schneider, The
Description Logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications, 2nd ed., Cambridge
University Press, 2010.

[12] M. Hausenblas, “Multimedia vocabularies on the Semantic Web”, W3C Multimedia

Semantics Incubator Group Report, July 2007. [Online]. Available:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-vocabularies/

[13] Camera & Imaging Products Association, “Exchangeable image file format for digital still
cameras: Exif Version 2.3”, CIPA DC-008-2010 & JEITA CP-3451B Standard, April 2010.

[14] Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, “Dublin Core Metadata element set”,Version 1.1, ISO
Standard 15836:2009, February 2009. [Online].Available: http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/

[15] Visual Resource Association Oversight Committee, “VRA Core 4.0 element description”,
November 2007.

[16] National Information Standards Organization, “Data dictionary – technical metadata for
digital still images”, ANSI/NISO Z39.87-2006 (R2011) Standard, May 2011.

[17] DIG35 Phase 2 Initiative Group, “DIG35 specification: metadata for digital images – version
1.1 working draft”, Digital Imaging Group, April 2001.

[18] J. M. Martínez, “MPEG-7 overview (version 10)”, ISO/IECJTC1/SC29/WG11, ISO/IEC,

October 2004.

[19] J. Hunter, “An overview of the MPEG-7 description definition language (DDL)”, Circuits and
Systems for Video Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 11, no. 6, June 2001, pp. 765-772.
[20] Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, “Material Exchange Format (MXF) –
File Format Specification - Amendment 1”, ST 377-1:2011 Am1:2012 Standard, 2012.

[21] E. Dahlström, P. Dengler, A. Grasso, C. Liley, C. McCormack, D.Schepers, J. Watt,

“Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.1 (second edition)”,W3C Recommendation, August 2011.
[Online]. Available:http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/

[22] J. van Ossenbruggen, F. Nack, L. Hardman, “That obscure object of desire:multimedia

metadata on the Web”, Part 1, IEEE Multimedia, vol. 11, no.4, October-December 2004, pp. 38-
48.
[23] R. Troncy, J. Z. Pan, “W3C Multimedia Semantics XG”, Talk, [Online]. Available:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/talks/SWCG2007/

[24] R. Troncy, J. van Ossenbruggen, J. Z. Pan, G. Stamou, “Image annotation on the Semantic
Web”, W3C Multimedia Semantics Incubator Group Report, August 2007. [Online]. Available:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-image-annotation/

[25] C. Dorai, S. Venkatesh, “Bridging the Semantic Gap with computational

media Aesthetics”, IEEE Multimedia, vol. 10, no. 2, April-June 2003, pp.15-17.

11
[26] C. Pino, R. Di Salvo, “A survey of semantic multimedia retrieval systems”, Proceedings of
the 13th WSEAS international conference on Mathematical and computational methods in
science and engineering (MACMESE '11), Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA, 2011, pp. 353-358.

[27] W. Zheng, Y. Ouyang, J. Ford, F. S. Makedon, “Ontology-based image retrieval”,

Proceedings of Proceedings of WSEAS MMACTEE-WAMUSNOLASC,Vouliagmeni, Athens,
Greece, 2003

[28] M. Hausenblas, W. Bailer, T. Bürger, R. Troncy, “Deploying multimedia metadata on the

Semantic Web”, Poster proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Semantics And
digital Media Technologies SAMT 07, Genova, Italy, December 2007, pp. 9-10.

[29] B. Adida, M. Birbeck, S. McCarron, I. Herman, “RDFa Core 1.1: Syntax and processing
rules for embedding RDF through attributes”, W3C Recommendation, June 2012. [Online].
Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/

[30] R. Verborgh, D. van Deursen, E. Mannens, C. Poppe, R. van de Walle,“Enabling context-

aware multimedia annotation by a novel generic semantic problem-solving platform”, Multimedia
Tools and Applications,vol. 61, no. 1, January 2011, pp. 105-129.

[31] M. G. Manzato, R. Goularte, “Automatic annotation of tagged content using predefined

semantic concepts”, WebMedia '12, Proceedings of the 18th Brazilian symposium on
Multimedia and the web, Sao Paulo, Brazil, October 2012, pp. 237-244.

[32] V. Vijay, I. J. Jacob, “Combined approach of user specified tags and content-based image
annotation”, 2012 International Conference on Devices, Circuits and Systems (ICDCS),
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India, March 2012, pp. 162-166.
[33] A. T. Schreiber, B. Dubbeldam, J. Wielemaker, B. Wielinga, “Ontologybased photo
annotation”, IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 16, no. 3, May/June 2001, pp. 66-74.

[34] N. F. Noy, R. W. Fergerson, M. A. Musen, “The Knowledge Model of Protégé-2000:

Combining Interoperability and Flexibility“, Knowledge Enineering and Knowledge Managment
Methods, Models and Tools: 12th International Conference, EKAW 2000, Lecture notes in
Artifical Intelligence, vol. 1937, Springer, Paris, France, October 2000, pp. 17-32.

[35] K. Ntalianis, A. Doulamis, N. Tsapatsoulis, N. Doulamis, “Automatic annotation of

multimedia content by user clickthroughs: enhancing the performance of multimedia search
engines”, Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS international conference on Mathematical methods,
computational techniques and intelligent systems (MAMECTIS'08), Stevens Point, Wisconsin,
USA, 2008, pp. 439-446.

[36] Willem Nico Borst. Construction of engineering ontologies for knowledge sharing and reuse.
PhD thesis,Institute for Telematica and Information Technology, University of Twente,
Enschede, The Netherlands,1997.

[37] Thomas R Gruber. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge

acquisition,5(2):199–220, 1993.

[38] Nicola Guarino. Formal ontology in information systems. In Nicola Guarino, editor, Formal
Ontology in Information Systems. Proceedings of FOIS’98, Trento, Italy, 6-8 June 1998, pages
3–15. IOS Press.

12
[39] Nicola Guarino and Pierdaniele Giaretta. Ontologies and knowledge bases: towards a
terminological clarification. In N.J.I. Mars, editor, Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases, pages
25–32. IOS Press, 1995.

[40] Nicola Guarino, Daniel Oberle, and Steffen Staab. What is an ontology? In Handbook on
ontologies,pages 1–17. Springer, 2009.

[41] Boris Motik, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Bijan Parsia,
and Uli Sattler.Owl 2 web ontology language direct semantics (second edition).
https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-directsemantics/,
2012.

[42] Barry Smith. Beyond concepts: ontology as reality representation. In Proceedings of the
third international
conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2004), pages 73–84. IOS Press,
Amsterdam, 2004.

[43] Rudi Studer, Richard Benjamins, and Dieter Fensel. Knowledge engineering: Principles and
methods.Data & knowledge engineering, 25(1-2):161–197, 1998.

[44] CMMI Product Team: CMMI for Development. Accessed by 6 Nov., 2014, SEI, Carnegie
Mellon University: http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetID=9661, Ver. 1.3,
CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, (2010)

[45] PMBOK: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Fifth Edition, Project
Management Institute, USA, ISBN: 978-1-935589-67-9, (2013)

[46] Basili, V.R., Lindvall, M., Regardie, M., Seaman, C., Heidrich, J., Jurgen, M., Rombach,
D.,Trendowicz, A.: Linking Software Development and Business Strategy through
Measurement. IEEE Computer, 43(4), pp. 57–65, (2010)

[47] Olsina, L., Papa, F., Molina, H.: How to Measure and Evaluate Web Applications in a
Consistent Way. In Springer HCIS book Web Engineering: Modeling and Implementing Web
Applications; Rossi, Pastor, Schwabe, and Olsina (Eds.), pp. 385-420, (2008)

[48] Kitchenham, B.A., Hughes, R.T., Linkman, S.G.: Modeling Software Measurement Data.
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(9), pp. 788-804, (2001)

[49] Papa, F.: Toward the Improvement of an M&E Strategy from a Comparative Study. In
LNCS 7703, Springer: Current Trends in Web Engineering, ICWE Int’l Workshops, M.
Grossniklauss and M. Wimmer (Eds.), pp. 189-203, (2012)

[50] Becker, P., Lew, P., Olsina, L.: Specifying Process Views for a Measurement, Evaluation
and Improvement Strategy. Advances in Software Engineering, Software Quality Assurance
Methodologies and Techniques, Vol. 2012, pp. 1-27, (2012)

[51] Olsina L., Lew P., Dieser A., Rivera B.: Using Web Quality Models and a Strategy for
Purpose-Oriented Evaluations, Journal of Web Engineering, Rinton Press, US, 10 (4), pp. 316-
352, (2011)

13
[52] Olsina, L., Martin, M.: Ontology for Software Metrics and Indicators. Journal of Web
Engineering, Rinton Press, US, 2(4), pp. 262-281, (2004)

[53] Curtis, B., Kellner, M., Over, J.: Process Modelling. Com. of ACM , 35 (9), pp. 75-90, (1992)

[54] Becker, P., Papa, F., Olsina, L.: Enhancing the Conceptual Framework Capability for a
Measurement and Evaluation Strategy, LNCS 8295. Springer, Q.Z. Sheng and J. Kjeldskov
(Eds.): ICWE 2013 Workshops, Aalborg, Denmark, pp. 104–116, (2013)

[55] Becker, P., Papa, M.F., Olsina, L.: Process Conceptual Base for Enriching a Measurement
and Evaluation Ontology. In: CIbSE’14, 17th Iberoamerican Conference on Software
Engineering. ISBN: 978-956-236-247-4, pp. 53-66, Pucón, Chile, (2014)

[56] Olsina, L., Covella, G., Dieser, A.: Metrics and Indicators as Key Organizational Assets for
ICT Security Assessment. Chapter 2, In: Emerging Trends in ICT Security, Elsevier (Morgan
Kaufmann), 1st Edition, Akhgar & Arabnia (Eds.), pp. 25-44, ISBN: 9780124114746, (2013)

[57] van Heijst, G., Schreiber, A. Th., Wielinga, B. J.: Using Explicit Ontologies in KBS
Development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol 46, pp. 183-292,
Academic Press, Inc. Duluth, MN, USA, (1997)

[58] Ruiz, F., and Hilera, J.R.: Using Ontologies in Software Engineering and Technology.
Chapter 2, In: Ontologies in Software Engineering and Software Technology, Calero, C., Ruiz,
F., Piattini, M. (Eds). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.49-102, (2006)

[59] Feiler, P.H., Humphrey, W.S.: Software Process Development and Enactment: Concepts
and Definitions. Int'l Conference of Software Process (ICSP). Berlin, Germany: IEEE Computer
Society, pp. 28-40, (1993)

[60] Conradi, R., Fernström, C., Fuggetta, A.: A Conceptual Framework for Evolving Software
Processes. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes , 18 (4), 26-35, (1993)

[61] Lonchamp, J.: A Structured Conceptual and Terminological Framework for Software
Process Engineering. International Conference on the Software Process (ICSP). Berlin,
Germany: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 41-53, (1993)

[62] ISO/IEC 12207: Systems and software engineering - Software life cycle processes, (2008)

[63] Acuña, S., De Antonio, A., Ferré, X., López, M., Maté, L.: The Software Process: Modeling,
Evaluation and Improvement. In S. K. Chang, Handbook of Software Engineering and
Knowledge Engineering. World Scientific Publishing Company, Vol.1, pp. 193-237, (2001)

[64] Esteban, N., Olsina, L.: Hacia un Catálogo de Actividades para el Desarrollo de Sitios y
Aplicaciones Web. En Proceedings del VI Workshop Iberoamericano de Ingeniería de
Requisitos y Ambientes Software (IDEAS), (2003)

[65] OMG-SPEM: Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification V2.0,
(2008)

[66] OPEN Process Framework. Retrieved 07/19/2014, from http://www.opfro.org/

14
[67] Bringuente, A., Falbo, R., Guizzardi, G.: Using a Foundational Ontology for Reengineering
a Software Process Ontology. Journal of Information and Data Management, Vol. 2, pp. 511-
526, (2011)

[68] Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.: Grounding Software Domain Ontologies in the
Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO): The case of the ODE Software Process Ontology. En
Proceedings de la XI Conferencia Iberoamericana de Software Engineering (CIbSE 2008), pp.
127-140, (2008)

[69] García, F., Bertoa, F., Calero, C., Vallecillo, A., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., Genero, M.: Towards a
consistent terminology for software measurement, Information & Software Technology, 48(8),
pp. 631–644, (2006)

[70] Goethert, W., Fisher, M.: Deriving Enterprise-Based Measures Using the Balanced
Scorecard and Goal-Driven Measurement Techniques. Software Engineering Measurement and
Analysis Initiative, CMU/SEI-2003-TN-024, (2003)

[71] Olsina L. and Rossi G. Measuring Web Application Quality with WebQEM. IEEE
Multimedia, 9 (4), pp. 20-29, (2002)

[72] García, F., Ruiz, F., Bertoa, M.F., Calero, C., Genero, M., Olsina, L., Martín, M., Quer, C.,
Condori, N., Abrahao, S., Vallecillo, A., Piattini, M.: An Ontology for Software Measurement.
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain, TR. UCLM DIAB-04-02-2, (2004)

[73] García, F., Piattini, M., Ruiz, F., Canfora, G., and Visaggio, C. A.. FMESP: Framework for
the modeling and evaluation of software processes. Journal of Systems Architecture, pp. 627-
639 52(11), (2006).

[74] Barcellos M.P., Falbo R., Dal Moro R.: A Well-Founded Software Measurement Ontology.
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference FOIS 2010, A. Galton and R. Mizoguchi
(Eds.). IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 213-226, (2010)

[75] Moro, R., Falbo, R.: Uma Ontologia para o Domínio de Qualidade de Software com Foco
em Produtos e Processos de Software. In Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Ontologies and
Metamodels for Software and Data Engineering (WOMSDE'08), Campinas, Brazil, pp. 37-48,
(2008)

[78] ISO/IEC 15939: Software Engineering - Software Measurement Process, (2002)

[79] ISO/IEC 25000: Software Engineering - Software product Quality Requirements and
Evaluation (SQuaRE) - Guide to SQuaRE, (2005)

[80] ISO/IEC 14598-5: IT - Software product evaluation - Part 5: Process for evaluators, (1998)

[81] Molina, H.; Rossi G., Olsina, L.: Context-Based Recommendation Approach for
Measurement and Evaluation Projects, In: Journal of Software Engineering and Applications
(JSEA), Irvine, USA, Vol. 3 N. 12, pp. 1089-1106, ISSN Print 1945-3116, (2010)

[82] Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):
pp. 199–220, 1993.

15
[83] Uschold, M.: Knowledge Level Modelling: Concepts and Terminology. The Knowledge
Engineering Review, 13 (1): pp. 5-29, (1998)

[84] Corcho, O., Fernández-López, M., Gómez-Pérez, A.: Methodologies, tools and languages
for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point? Data & Knowledge Engineering 46(1), 41–
64, (2003)

[85] Pisanelli, D.M., Gangemi, A., Steve, G.: Ontologies and Information Systems: the Marriage
of the Century? New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques, pp. 125-133,
(2002)

[86] OMG-UML: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, v2.3, (2010)

[42] Kitchenham B., Travassos G., Von Mayrhauser A., Niessink F., Schneidewind N., Singer J.,
Takada S., Vehvilainen R., and Yang H.: Towards an Ontology of Software Maintenance.
Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Vol. 11, pp.
365–389, (1999)

[87] Diván, M., Olsina, L.: Process View for a Data Stream Processing Strategy based on
Measurement Metadata, In: SADIO Electronic Journal of Informatics and Operations Research
(EJS), Special Issue, June 2014, Díaz Pace, J.A., and Colla P. (Eds.), 13(1), pp. 1-19, ISSN
1514-6774, (2014)

[88] Anquetil, N., de Oliveira, K. M., and Dias, M. G.: Software Maintenance Ontology. Chapter
5, In: Ontologies in Software Engineering and Software Technology, Calero, C., Ruiz, F.,Piattini,
M. (Eds). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 153-173, (2006)

PRESENTATION ON ONTOLOGY
ENGINEERING CONCEPTS

16
The slides below are a reflection on how I would do my presentation for my fellow
Ontology engineering students.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24