On the importance of truly ontological distinctions for standardizations: A case study in the domain of telecommunications

Standards are documents that aim to define norms and common understanding of a subject by a group of people. In order to accomplish this purpose, these documents must define its terms and concepts in a clear and unambiguous way. Standards can be written in two different ways: by informal specification (e.g. natural language) or formal specification (e.g. math-based languages or diagrammatic ones). Remarkable papers have already shown how well-founded ontology languages provide resources for the specification's author to better distinguish concepts and relations meanings, resulting in a better specification. This paper has the objective to expose the importance of truly ontological distinctions for standardizations. To achieve this objective, we evaluate a math-based formal specification, in Z notation, using a well-founded ontology language for a telecommunications case study, the ITU-T Recommendation G.805. The results confirm that truly ontological distinctions are essential for clear and unambiguous specifications. Standards must define its terms and concepts in a clear and unambiguous way.Standards can be written in informal specification or formal specification.Well-founded ontology languages provides resources for distinction of meanings.A Z notation formal specification is evaluated for a telecommunications case study.Results confirm that ontological distinctions are vital for unambiguous standards.

[1]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  Modal Aspects of Object Types and Part-Whole Relations and the de re/de dicto Distinction , 2007, CAiSE.

[2]  Robert Hoehndorf,et al.  A top-level ontology of functions and its application in the Open Biomedical Ontologies , 2006, ISMB.

[3]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  Using the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) as a Foundation for General Conceptual Modeling Languages , 2010 .

[4]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  The Problem of Transitivity of Part-Whole Relations in Conceptual Modeling Revisited , 2009, CAiSE.

[5]  Paola Grosso,et al.  Path finding using the multi-layer network description language , 2008 .

[6]  Kevin Lano,et al.  UML 2 Semantics and Applications , 2009 .

[7]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  Ontological evaluation of the ITU-T Recommendation G.805 , 2011, 2011 18th International Conference on Telecommunications.

[8]  Jan G. Kooij,et al.  Ambiguity in natural language: An investigation of certain problems in its linguistic description , 1971 .

[9]  Fernanda Araujo Baião,et al.  On the Importance of Truly Ontological Distinctions for Ontology Representation Languages: An Industrial Case Study in the Domain of Oil and Gas , 2009, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[10]  Indrakshi Ray,et al.  On challenges of model transformation from UML to Alloy , 2008, Software & Systems Modeling.

[11]  Anilton Salles Garcia,et al.  An Automated Transformation from OntoUML to OWL and SWRL , 2013, ONTOBRAS.

[12]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  On Ontology, ontologies, Conceptualizations, Modeling Languages, and (Meta)Models , 2007, DB&IS.

[13]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  The Ontological Level: Revisiting 30 Years of Knowledge Representation , 2009, Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications.

[14]  Simon K. Milton,et al.  An Ontology of Data Modeling Languages: A Study Using a Common-Sense Realistic Ontology , 2004, J. Database Manag..

[15]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  An ontological foundation for conceptual modeling datatypes based on semantic reference spaces , 2013, IEEE 7th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS).

[16]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models , 2005 .

[17]  Giancarlo Guizzardi.  Representing Collectives and Their Members in UML Conceptual Models: An Ontological Analysis , 2010, ER Workshops.

[18]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars , 1993, Inf. Syst. J..

[19]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  Using a Foundational Ontology to Investigate the Semantics Behind the Concepts of the i* Language , 2013, iStar.

[20]  J. Michael Spivey,et al.  An introduction to Z and formal specifications , 1989, Softw. Eng. J..

[21]  Werner Ceusters,et al.  Ontological Theory for Ontological Engineering: Biomedical Systems Information Integration , 2004, KR.

[22]  Jonathan P. Bowen.  Formal Specification and Documentation Using Z: A Case Study Approach , 1996 .

[23]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Ontological evaluation of enterprise systems interoperability using ebXML , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[24]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

[25]  Andreas Bollin,et al.  Coupling-based transformations of Z specifications into UML diagrams , 2011, Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering.

[26]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  An ontological analysis of the notion of community in the RM-ODP enterprise language , 2013, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[27]  G. Guizzardi,et al.  Identification of Semantic Anti-Patterns in Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling via Visual Simulation , 2012 .

[28]  Steven Fortune.  Equivalence and generalization in a layered network model , 2015, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[29]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  ONTOLOGY BASED MODEL FOR THE ITU-T RECOMMENDATION G.805: TOWARDS THE SELF - MANAGEMENT OF TRANSPORT NETWORKS , 2010 .

[30]  Renata S. S. Guizzardi,et al.  An Ontology Reference Model for Normative Acts , 2013, ONTOBRAS.

[31]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  Design Patterns and Inductive Modeling Rules to Support the Construction of Ontologically Well-Founded Conceptual Models in OntoUML , 2011, CAiSE Workshops.

[32]  Daniel Jackson,et al.  Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation , 2002, TSEM.

[33]  Cees T. A. M. de Laat,et al.  Using RDF to describe networks , 2006, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[34]  Cees T. A. M. de Laat,et al.  A multi-layer network model based on ITU-T G.805 , 2008, Comput. Networks.

[35]  Peter Loos,et al.  Ontological Analysis of Reference Models , 2005 .

[36]  Giancarlo Guizzardi.  Ontological Foundations for Conceptual Part-Whole Relations: The Case of Collectives and Their Parts , 2011, CAiSE.

[37]  Anilton Salles Garcia,et al.  OOTN -an ontology proposal for optical transport networks , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Ultra Modern Telecommunications & Workshops.