Using a hydro-reference ontology to provide improved computer-interpretable semantics for the groundwater markup language (GWML2)

ABSTRACT Comprehensive water data management requires semantically integrating various data models and ontologies that represent hydrologic knowledge. But integration is hampered by nuances in the use of water-related vocabulary (e.g. terms such as water body, aquifer, reservoir, well, etc.) across water representations and by the reliance on a mix of formal and informal specifications of how these terms are interpreted in each representation. Reconciliation of only partially formal encodings of the semantics of water representations requires manual inspection using tools from ontological analysis. This paper investigates as to what extent a domain reference ontology that is fully formalized in first-order logic can guide the ontological analysis. In particular, it is studied as to what extent the Hydro Foundational Ontology (HyFO), which encodes the semantics of a small set of unifying water concepts and associated relations in first-order logic, can serve as a reference ontology for the water domain to steer the ontological analysis of individual water representations, and to formalize their semantics more fully. This is specifically tested on the Groundwater Markup Language (GWML2). The result is GWML2-FOL, a concise logical description of GWML2’s key terms as a logical extension of HyFO. GWML2-FOL is structured into three layers of terms (mostly classes) of increasing specificity. The top layer consists of terms shareable across the earth and physical sciences, an intermediate layer includes HyFO’s hydro terms that span surface and subsurface water storage, and the bottom layer encapsulates groundwater specific GWML2 terms. The analysis and stratification uncover semantic ambiguities in GWML2 and suggest terminological and semantic clarifications and modifications in preparation for integrating GWML2 with other semantic water representations. The analysis also identifies two necessary additions to the HyFO: the concept of a hydro rock body as a hybrid of water and solid matter, which generalizes key groundwater terms such as aquifers or wells, and the concept of dependent hydrologic features such as springs, water tables, or divides. More broadly, differences between domain ontologies and a domain-reference ontology and their respective complementary roles in semantic-enabled geosciences are outlined.

[1]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  Ontology Patterns: Clarifying Concepts and Terminology , 2013, WOP.

[2]  Torsten Hahmann,et al.  An Ontological Framework for Characterizing Hydrological Flow Processes , 2017, COSIT.

[3]  Shirly Stephen Ontological Analysis and Formal Grounding of the Groundwater Markup Language (GWML2) with the Hydro Foundational Ontology (HYFO) , 2016 .

[4]  J. Euzenat,et al.  Ontology Matching , 2007, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[5]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  The Emerging Field of Semantic Scientific Knowledge Integration , 2009, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[6]  Fernanda Araujo Baião,et al.  The Role of Foundational Ontologies for Domain Ontology Engineering: An Industrial Case Study in the Domain of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..

[7]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Ontology Evaluation , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

[8]  Boyan Brodaric,et al.  OGC WaterML 2: Part 4 – GroundWaterML 2 (GWML2) , 2017 .

[9]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  WonderWeb Deliverable D18 Ontology Library , 2003 .

[10]  Marko Grobelnik,et al.  A SURVEY OF ONTOLOGY EVALUATION TECHNIQUES , 2005 .

[11]  Christoph Lange,et al.  Three Semantics for the Core of the Distributed Ontology Language , 2012, FOIS.

[12]  Alia I. Abdelmoty,et al.  Semantics, ontologies and eScience for the geosciences , 2009, Comput. Geosci..

[13]  Chris Mungall,et al.  The environment ontology in 2016: bridging domains with increased scope, semantic density, and interoperation , 2016, Journal of Biomedical Semantics.

[14]  Michael Healy,et al.  Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications , 2010 .

[15]  Christopher Menzel,et al.  Reference Ontologies - Application Ontologies: Either/Or or Both/And? , 2003, KI Workshop on Reference Ontologies and Application Ontologies.

[16]  Patrick J. Hayes,et al.  The second naive physics manifesto , 1995 .

[17]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  Grounding Software Domain Ontologies in the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO): The case of the ODE Software Process Ontology , 2008, CIbSE.

[18]  Torsten Hahmann,et al.  Modular first-order ontologies via repositories , 2012, Appl. Ontology.

[19]  Natalya F. Noy,et al.  Semantic integration: a survey of ontology-based approaches , 2004, SGMD.

[20]  Natalya Fridman Noy,et al.  SWEET ontology coverage for earth system sciences , 2014, Earth Science Informatics.

[21]  M. Egenhofer,et al.  Point-Set Topological Spatial Relations , 2001 .

[22]  Mark Gahegan,et al.  Ontology use for semantic e-Science , 2010, Semantic Web.

[23]  Kei-Hoi Cheung,et al.  Semantic Web: Revolutionizing Knowledge Discovery in the Life Sciences , 2006 .

[24]  Cornelius Rosse,et al.  A Reference Ontology for Bioinformatics: The Foundational Model of Anatomy , 2003 .

[25]  Rim Djedidi,et al.  ONTO-EVOAL an Ontology Evolution Approach Guided by Pattern Modeling and Quality Evaluation , 2010, FoIKS.

[26]  Patrick J. Hayes,et al.  Naive physics I: ontology for liquids , 1989 .

[27]  Torsten Hahmann,et al.  A Naive Theory of Dimension for Qualitative Spatial Relations , 2011, AAAI Spring Symposium: Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning.

[28]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Measuring Similarity between Ontologies , 2002, EKAW.

[29]  Torsten Hahmann Ontology Repositories: A Treasure Trove for Content Ontology Design Patterns , 2014, WoMO@FOIS.

[30]  Thomas Bittner From Top-Level to Domain Ontologies: Ecosystem Classifications as a Case Study , 2007, COSIT.

[31]  José L. V. Mejino,et al.  CARO - The Common Anatomy Reference Ontology , 2008, Anatomy Ontologies for Bioinformatics.

[32]  Torsten Hahmann,et al.  Voids and material constitution across physical granularities , 2014, FOIS.

[33]  G. Guizzardi,et al.  The role of Foundational Ontologies for Domain Ontology Engineering: a case study in the Software Process Domain , 2008, IEEE Latin America Transactions.

[34]  Florian Probst,et al.  Enabling Cross-Disciplinary E-Science by Integrating Geoscience Ontologies with Dolce , 2009, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[35]  Torsten Hahmann,et al.  The Void in Hydro Ontology , 2012, FOIS.

[36]  David Poole,et al.  Semantic Science: Ontologies, Data and Probabilistic Theories , 2008, URSW.

[37]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Validating Ontologies with OOPS! , 2012, EKAW.

[38]  T. Hahmann A Reconciliation of Logical Representations of Space: from Multidimensional Mereotopology to Geometry , 2013 .

[39]  Boyan Brodaric,et al.  GroundWater Markup Language (GWML) - enabling groundwater data interoperability in spatial data infrastructures , 2012 .

[40]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  TOWARDS AN ONTOLOGICAL THEORY OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS , 1996 .

[41]  Anthony G. Cohn,et al.  Qualitative Spatial Representation and Reasoning with the Region Connection Calculus , 1997, GeoInformatica.

[42]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  An Environment for Merging and Testing Large Ontologies , 2000, KR.

[43]  Tim Duffy,et al.  GeoSciML: Development of a generic GeoScience Markup Language , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[44]  José L. V. Mejino,et al.  A reference ontology for biomedical informatics: the Foundational Model of Anatomy , 2003, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[45]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  Theoretical foundations and engineering tools for building ontologies as reference conceptual models , 2010, Semantic Web.

[46]  Patrick J. Hayes,et al.  The Naive Physics Manifesto , 1990, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[47]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  Changing Focus on Interoperability in Information Systems:From System, Syntax, Structure to Semantics , 1999 .

[48]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Evaluation of ontologies , 2001, International Journal of Intelligent Systems.

[49]  Torsten Hahmann,et al.  Toward A Foundational Hydro Ontology For Water Data Interoperability , 2014 .

[50]  Robert G. Raskin,et al.  Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET) , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[51]  Stefano Borgo,et al.  The Role of Foundational Ontologies in Manufacturing Domain Applications , 2004, CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE.

[52]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  Data Driven Ontology Evaluation , 2004, LREC.

[53]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

[54]  Yannis Kalfoglou,et al.  Ontology mapping: the state of the art , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[55]  Ajay Tripathi,et al.  Developing a modular hydrogeology ontology by extending the SWEET upper-level ontologies , 2008, Comput. Geosci..

[56]  GeoSciML Modeling Team OGC Geoscience Markup Language 4.1 (GeoSciML) , 2017 .

[57]  Torsten Hahmann,et al.  Interdependence among material objects and voids , 2014, FOIS.

[58]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[59]  Torsten Hahmann,et al.  Kinds of Full Physical Containment , 2013, COSIT.

[60]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  A Double Classification of Common Pitfalls in Ontologies , 2010 .