Ontologies for Describing the Context of Scientific Experiment Processes

The re-usability and repeatability of e-Science experiments is widely understood as a requirement of validating and reusing previous work in data-intensive domains. Experiments are, however, often complex chains of processing, involving a number of data sources, computing infrastructure, software tools, or external and third-party services, rendering repeatability a challenging task. Another important aspect of many experiments is in the social and organisational dimension - very often, knowledge on how experiments are performed is tacit and remains with the researcher, and the collaborative and distributed aspects especially of larger collaborative experiments adds to this challenge. Therefore, a number of approaches have tackled this issue from various angles -- initiatives for data sharing, code versioning and publishing as open source, the use of workflow engines to formalise the steps taken in an experiment, to ways to describe the complex environment an experiment is executed in, e.g. via Research Objects. In this paper, we present a model that has a specific focus on the technical infrastructure that is the basis of the research experiment. We demonstrate how this model can be applied to describe e-Science experiments, and align and compare it to Research Objects.

[1]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  Provenir Ontology: Towards a Framework for eScience Provenance Management , 2009 .

[2]  Deanna B. Marcum The preservation of digital information , 1996 .

[3]  Marc M. Lankhorst Enterprise Architecture at Work - Modelling, Communication and Analysis, 3rd Edition , 2005, The Enterprise Engineering Series.

[4]  David L. Giaretta,et al.  Managing Risks in the Preservation of Research Data with Preservation Networks , 2012, Int. J. Digit. Curation.

[5]  James C. French,et al.  Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Scientific and statistical database management , 1994 .

[6]  Andreas Rauber,et al.  Towards Time-resilient MIR Processes , 2012, ISMIR.

[7]  José Luis Borbinha,et al.  Using Ontologies for Enterprise Architecture Integration and Analysis , 2014, Complex Syst. Informatics Model. Q..

[8]  Maria-Eugenia Iacob,et al.  ArchiMate 2.0 Specification , 2012 .

[9]  Sarah Higgins,et al.  The dcc curation lifecycle model , 2008, JCDL '08.

[10]  Raúl Palma,et al.  Research Objects for Audio Processing: Capturing Semantics for Reproducibility , 2014, Semantic Audio.

[11]  Leyla Jael García Castro,et al.  An open annotation ontology for science on web 3.0 , 2011, J. Biomed. Semant..

[12]  Stewart Granger,et al.  Emulation as a Digital Preservation Strategy , 2000, D Lib Mag..

[13]  Sarah Higgins PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata , 2009 .

[14]  Boris Motik,et al.  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: structural specification and functional-style syntax , 2008 .

[15]  Pietro Abate,et al.  Description of the CUDF Format , 2008 .

[16]  Carole A. Goble,et al.  Why workflows break — Understanding and combating decay in Taverna workflows , 2012, 2012 IEEE 8th International Conference on E-Science.

[17]  Carole A. Goble,et al.  Taverna, Reloaded , 2010, SSDBM.

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

[19]  Oscar Corcho,et al.  Workflow-centric research objects: First class citizens in scholarly discourse. , 2012, ESWC 2012.

[20]  Koen De Bosschere,et al.  Towards an Extensible Context Ontology for Ambient Intelligence , 2004, EUSAI.

[21]  Marta Indulska,et al.  A Reference Methodology for Conducting Ontological Analyses , 2004, ER.

[22]  Carole A. Goble,et al.  Towards the Preservation of Scientific Workflows , 2011, iPRES.

[23]  Matthias Hemmje,et al.  Modeling Context for Digital Preservation , 2010, Smart Information and Knowledge Management.