solutions for semantic web (OWL ontologies, SPARQL, reasoning) and model driven development (metamodel, model design, model transformation, code generation)

Showing posts with label owl ontology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label owl ontology. Show all posts

Templates in OWL Ontologies

| Friday, September 10, 2010

Extend Ecore with OWL by Ecore Annotations of OWL Axioms

| Friday, August 27, 2010
Do you want more expressiveness than Ecore can offer?

In this video we show how to use an ecore textual language for annotating ecore metamodels with OWL axioms. Afterwards, you can use the OWLizer to transform metamodel and model into OWL.


OWL, UML, SPARQL, templates: TwoUse examples

| Friday, August 6, 2010
This video shows how to start using the twouse toolkit by examples:
  • SPARQL Querying
  • OWL Ontology Template
  • OWL Graphical Notation
  • OWL Functional Syntax
  • SWRL Rule Graphical Notation
  • SWRL Rule with UML Profile for SWRL
  • SPARQLAS Query
  • OWL Ontology with UML Profile for OWL

OWL + Metamodel: Model Bridge

| Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Model bridges connect software models and ontologies on the modeling layer M1. They are de fined in the metamodeling layer M2 between diff erent metamodels. The figure below exemplifies a model bridge.

Model Bridge


Integration bridges merge information of the models from the software modeling and from the ontology space. This allows the building of integrated models (on modeling layer M1) using constructs of both modeling languages in a combined way, e.g. to integrate UML class diagrams and OWL.

A transformation bridge describes a (physical) transformation between models in layer M1. The models are kept separately in both modeling spaces. The information is moved from one model to the model in the other modeling space according to the transformation bridge.

OWL + Ecore: Language Bridges

|
The figure below depicts the general architecture of a language bridge, combining software languages and ontology technologies. The bridge itself is de fined at the M3 layer, where a metametamodel like Ecore is considered and bridged with the OWL metamodel. Here we diff er between two kinds of bridges: M3 Integration Bridge and M3 Transformation Bridge.

Language Bridge
The design of an M3 integration bridge consists mainly of identifying concepts in the Ecore metametamodel and the OWL metamodel which are combined.

The M3 Transformation Bridge allows language designers and language users to achieve representations of software languages (Metamodel/Model) in OWL. It provides the transformation of software language constructs like classes and properties into corresponding OWL constructs.

Using Templates in OWL Ontologies

|
Integrating model-driven development and semantic web resulted in metamodels
and model-driven tools for the semantic web. However, these metamodels or tools
do not provide dedicated support for dealing with templates in ontology
engineering.

Using Templates with OWL and UML Notation
Templates are useful for encapsulating knowledge and modeling
recurrent sets of axioms like ontology design patterns. We propose an extension
of existing metamodels and tools to support ontology engineers in modeling
OWL ontology templates. Our approach allows ontology engineers to keep template
specifications as first-class citizens, reducing complexity and increasing
reusability in ontology engineering.

Bridging Software Languages and Ontology Technologies: Tutorial at SPLASH 2010

|
Current model-driven development approaches allow for a more productive way of developing software systems. However, building tools and languages for software development still suffer a neglect of semantics in modeling and metamodeling.

An interest to strengthen semantics in modeling and metamodeling that gained scientific and commercial attention is the integration of ontology technology and software development. Ontology formalisms for consistency validation and dynamic classification as well as semantic web technologies for enabling shared terminologies and automated reasoning provide means for leveraging metamodeling and language engineering.

This tutorial on Bridging Software Languages and Ontology Technologies  at SPLASH 2010 enlightens the potential of ontology and semantic web technology for modeling and metamodeling in software development, positioning it among modeling standards like UML, and MOF; and (2) illustrates ontology-enabled software development with real application scenarios in areas like software design patterns, domain-specific languages and variability management.

Model Driven Engineering with Ontology Technologies

|
Ontologies constitute formal models of some aspect of the world that may be used for drawing interesting logical conclusions even for large models. Software models capture relevant characteristics of a software artifact to be developed, yet, most often these software models have no formal semantics, or the underlying (often graphical) software language varies from case to case in a way that makes it hard if not impossible to fix its semantics.

At the Reasoning Web Summer School 2010: Semantic Technologies for Software Engineering we present a lecture on the use of ontology technologies for software modeling in order to carry over advantages from ontology technologies to the software modeling domain. It will turn out that ontology-based metamodels constitute a core means for exploiting expressive ontology reasoning in the software modeling domain while remaining flexible enough to accommodate varying needs of software modelers.

Ecore Models | Metamodels -> OWL Ontologies = OWLizer

| Wednesday, July 28, 2010
We show how to use TwoUse's OWLizer to transform Ecore Models and Metamodels into OWL ontologies. In this example, the UML class diagram model elements are transformed into OWL individuals of the UML ontology and the UML metamodel classes are transformed into OWL classes.

UML + OWL Ontology and SPARQL

|
This demo of the TwoUse Toolkit shows UML class diagram, OWL ontology and SPARQL to dynamically classify instances at runtime. We model the variations of the class SalesOrder with the web ontology language, namely USSalesOrder and GermanSalesOrder. Later, we write a query operation that asks for the most specific type of the contextual object.

BPMN process model -> OWL ontology = Validating Process Refinements

| Monday, July 19, 2010
"A crucial task in business process management is the validation of business process refinements. A business process refinement is a process description in a more fine-grained representation. The refinement is either with respect to an abstract model or with respect to component's principle behavior model. This video shows a process refinement based on the execution set semantics. Predecessor and successor relations of the activities are described in an OWL ontology in which the refinement is represented and validated by concept satisfiability checking."

More information on this paper

OWL ontology with UML Class Diagram Profile for OWL

| Sunday, July 11, 2010
How to create a simple OWL ontology using the OMG UML Profile for OWL with the TwoUse Toolkit.

Improving Software Design Patterns with UML, OWL and SPARQL

|
We deal with problems in common design patterns and proposes OWL to remedy these issues. We exploit the TwoUse approach, which integrates OWL and UML class diagrams to overcome drawbacks of the Strategy Pattern, that are also extensible to the Abstract Factory Pattern.

UML, OWL and SPARQL with TwoUse Toolkit - Demo

| Friday, June 25, 2010



Since MDE and OWL provide complementary benefits, contemporary software development should make use of both approaches. This demo presented at the Sixth European Conference on Modeling Foundations and Applications enlightens the improvements from an integrated approach.

The Camtasia Studio video content presented here requires a more recent version of the Adobe Flash Player. If you are using a browser with JavaScript disabled please enable it now. Otherwise, please update your version of the free Flash Player by downloading here.

OWLizer = Software Languages -> OWL Ontologies Part II

| Thursday, May 27, 2010
The OWLizer transforms software language (Ecore Metamodel/Model) into OWL ontologies. In the following we present an extension of this simple model transformation approach. It is extended by transforming specific EAnnotations to specific OWL constructs. For example by annotating elements in the metamodel with „#Class“- as well as „#ObjectProperty“, EClassifiers and EReferences can be marked as appropriate OWL -Entities. Starting at the „#Class“-EAnnotation, further OWL-Classaxioms can be annotated, that means, by creating further nested EAnnotations.
An example is given in the following:


Here the OWLizer transforming the metamodel (depicted in figure 1) would result the following OWL ontology axioms and class expressions. EquivalentClasses(Cisco7603 ObjectMinCardinality(1 hasConfiguration. Configuration7603)).
Here the OWLizer is able to interpret the annotations and creates corresponding axioms in ontology (e.g. #ObjectMinCardinality means the creation of the corresponding class expressions in the ontology; #EquivalentClasses means the creation of the corresponding axiom).
In general we have built an annotation profile for annotating Ecore-based metamodels. The metamodel itself and in addition its annotations are transformed to a pure ontology by the OWLizer . Thus we extended the expressivity of the Ecore metamodeling language to a new comprehensive approach that combines standard metamodeling with using ontology-based expressions and axioms in an integrated manner.

Filling the Gap between Semantic Web and Model Driven Engineering

| Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Since model driven engineering and semantic web provide complementary benefits, contemporary software development and code generation should make use of both approaches. This talk enlightens the improvements on both fields from an integrated approach: the TwoUse approach.

OWLizer: Software Languages -> OWL ontologies Part I

| Monday, March 29, 2010
Software development consists of multiple phases, from inception to production. During each software development phase, developers and other actors generate many artifacts, eg. documents, models, diagrams, code, tests and bug reports. Although some of these artifacts are integrated, they are usually handled as islands inside the software development process.

Many of these artifacts (graphical or textual) are written using a structured language, which has a defined grammar. In a model-driven environment, concepts of software languages are represented by metamodels, whereas the artifacts written in those software languages are represented by models, which are described by the language metamodel. Thus, by transforming software metamodels and models into OWL and by aligning the OWL ontologies corresponding to software languages, we are able to link multiple data sources of a software development process, creating a linked-data repository for software development.

Let us consider an example of integrating two data sources: UML diagrams and Java Code. Regardless of generating Java code from UML diagrams, developers would like to have a consistent view of corresponding classes and methods in UML and Java, i.e., developers might want to consult UML diagrams looking for a corresponding Java class. In this scenario, OWL and ontology technologies play an important role.

Fig. 1 depicts the usage of M3 transformations together with ontology technologies [1]. UML metamodel and model as well as Java grammar (metamodel) and java code (model) are transformed into OWL ontologies. Ontology alignment techniques [] might identify some concepts in common between the two ontologies (UML and Java), e.g., package, class, method. Moreover, individuals with the same name in these two ontologies are likely the same.

Once the two ontologies are aligned, queries against the Java ontology also retrieve elements defined in UML diagrams. Now it is possible to retrieve sequence diagrams including a given Java class, since the two artifacts (UML diagrams and Java code) are now linked. This is only one example of the great potential provided by linking software engineering artifacts using OWL technologies.

[1] Gröner, G., Silva Parreiras, F., Staab, S., Walter, T.: Software Modeling Using Ontology Technologies. In: Rudi Studer - A Review on Semantic Web Research. Springer Verlag (2011)

Using Templates in OWL Ontologies with the OWL Editor

| Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The OWL Editor allows to create UML-like Templates for OWL Ontologies. Templates are parameterised elements which identify the pattern for a group of model elements of a particular type. You can generate new classes or elements with the same characteristics as the Template by binding classes or other elements to the Template.

The OWL Editor allows to bind Classes, ClassExpressions, ObjectProperties, DataProperties and Individuals.

Example


This example shows an Ontology using Templates

In this example 2 Classes and 1 ObjectProperty are bound to a Template. The Template (on the right site) named AgentRole has 3 Elements (Role, Agent, hasRole) needing a binding. The Pattern (on the left site) named Music binds elements to the Template.
After the generation the Class "Agent" is transformed to "Musician", "Role" is transformed to "Position" and the ObjectProperty "hasRole" is transformed to "plays". All other elements are not changed so that the generated Ontology looks like this.




By using more patterns and bindings to the Template, the Template is used to generate more than one instance.

Querying OWL Ontologies with OWL Syntax

| Sunday, February 14, 2010
Writing SPARQL queries for OWL ontologies can be time-consuming for those who do not do it everyday. Therefore, Mark Schneider has built a handy language, allowing users querying using OWL syntax -- SPARQLAS. These queries are translated into SPARQL queries that can be executed in a SPARQL engine that supports the OWL DL entailment regime, e.g., pellet.

The syntax is simple: You use the OWL Functional Syntax or a shortened version of it, and you can use variables wherever you have an entity (Class, Datatype, ObjectProperty, DataProperty, NamedIndividual) or a literal. You can construct nested expressions that use these variables.

Example

All subclasses of pizza that have as topping some topping with spiciness hot.

In SPARQLAS OWL Functional Syntax:
Namespace ( = <http://www.co-ode.org/ontologies/pizza/pizza.owl#> )
Query (
  SubClassOf ( ?x ObjectIntersectionOf ( Pizza ObjectSomeValuesFrom ( hasTopping ObjectIntersectionOf ( PizzaTopping ObjectSomeValuesFrom ( hasSpiciness Hot ) ) ) ) )
)

In SPARQLAS Shortened Functional Syntax:
Namespace ( = <http://www.co-ode.org/ontologies/pizza/pizza.owl#> )
Query (
  SubClassOf ( ?x And ( Pizza Some ( hasTopping And ( PizzaTopping Some (hasSpiciness Hot ) ) ) ) )
)


You can try it in two different ways:

Integrate it in your application