Reconciling Practice and Rigour in Ontology-Based Heterogeneous Information Systems Construction

Ontology integration addresses the problem of reconciling into one single semantic framework different knowledge chunks defined according to its own ontology. This field has been subject of analysis and many consolidated theoretical results are available. Still, in practice, ontology integration is difficult in heterogeneous information systems (HIS) that need to integrate assets already built and running which cannot be changed. Furthermore, in practice, the composed assets are usually not really defined according to an ontology but to a data model which is less rigorous but fit for the purpose of defining a data schema. In this paper, we propose a method for integrating assets participating in a HIS using a domain ontology, aimed at finding an optimal balance between semantic rigour and feasibility in terms of adoption in a real-world setting. The method proposes the use of data models describing the semantics of existing assets; their analysis in order to find commonalities and misalignments; the definition of the domain ontology, considering also other sources as standards, to express the main concepts in the HIS domain; the connection of the local models with this domain ontology; and its abstraction into a metamodel to facilitate further extensions. The method is an outcome of a collaborative software development project, OpenReq, aimed at delivering an ontology for requirements engineering (RE) designed to serve as baseline for the data model of an open platform offering methods and techniques to the RE community. The construction process of this ontology will be used to illustrate the method.

[1]  Romain Rouvoy,et al.  App Store 2.0: From Crowdsourced Information to Actionable Feedback in Mobile Ecosystems , 2017, IEEE Software.

[2]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Ontology-Based Integration of Information - A Survey of Existing Approaches , 2001, OIS@IJCAI.

[3]  Stuart E. Madnick,et al.  Representing and reasoning about semantic conflicts in heterogeneous information systems , 1997 .

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

[5]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction , 2000 .

[6]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Using Ontologies for Semantic Data Integration , 2018, A Comprehensive Guide Through the Italian Database Research.

[7]  Axel Polleres,et al.  Integrating Distributed Configurations With RDFS and SPARQL , 2014, Configuration Workshop.

[8]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  An Analysis of Ontology Mismatches; Heterogeneity versus Interoperability , 2007 .

[9]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[10]  Walid Maalej,et al.  Mining User Rationale from Software Reviews , 2017, 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[11]  Martin K. Purvis,et al.  UML as an Ontology Modelling Language , 1999, Intelligent Information Integration.

[12]  Carme Quer,et al.  A Metamodel for Software Requirement Patterns , 2010, REFSQ.

[13]  Romain Rouvoy,et al.  App Store 2.0: From Crowd Information to Actionable Feedback in Mobile Ecosystems , 2018, ArXiv.

[14]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A Translation Approach to Portable Ontologies , 1993 .

[15]  Tomi Männistö,et al.  Kumbang: A domain ontology for modelling variability in software product families , 2007, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[16]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Ontology of Integration and Integration of Ontologies , 2001, Description Logics.