Exploiting Natural Language Definitions and (Legacy) Data for Facilitating Agreement Processes

In IT, ontologies to enable semantic interoperability is only of the branches in which agreement between a heterogeneous group of stakeholders are of vital importance. As agreements are the result of interactions, appropriate methods should take into account the natural language used by the community. In this paper, we extend a method for reaching a consensus on a conceptualization within a community of stakeholders, exploiting the natural language communication between the stakeholders. We describe how agreements on informal and formal descriptions are complementary and interplay. To this end, we introduce, describe and motivate the nature of some of the agreements and the two distinct levels of commitment. We furthermore show how these commitments can be exploited to steer the agreement processes. Concepts introduced in this paper have been implemented in a tool for collaborative ontology engineering, called GOSPL, which can be also adopted for other purposes, e.g., the construction a lexicon for larger software projects.

[1]  Zahir Tari,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE, OTM Confederated International Conferences, CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE 2006, Montpellier, France, October 29 - November 3, 2006. Proceedings, Part I , 2006, OTM Conferences.

[2]  York Sure-Vetter,et al.  The DILIGENT knowledge processes , 2005, J. Knowl. Manag..

[3]  Rolf Schwitter A Controlled Natural Language Layer for the Semantic Web , 2005, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[4]  J. V. R. Wintraecken,et al.  The NIAM Information Analysis Method: Theory and Practice , 1990 .

[5]  E. Prud hommeaux,et al.  SPARQL query language for RDF , 2011 .

[6]  Robert Meersman,et al.  Semantic Interoperation of Information Systems by Evolving Ontologies through Formalized Social Processes , 2011, ADBIS.

[7]  Shichao Zhang,et al.  AI 2005: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 18th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sydney, Australia, December 5-9, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[8]  Robert Meersman,et al.  Business semantics management: A case study for competency-centric HRM , 2010, Comput. Ind..

[9]  Robert Meersman,et al.  Semantically Unlocking Database Content Through Ontology-Based Mediation , 2004, SWDB.

[10]  Robert Meersman,et al.  GOSPL: Grounding Ontologies with Social Processes and Natural Language , 2010, ITNG.

[11]  Christoph Tempich,et al.  Ontology Engineering: A Reality Check , 2006, OTM Conferences.

[12]  Christoph Bussler,et al.  Semantic Web and Databases, Second International Workshop, SWDB 2004, Toronto, Canada, August 29-30, 2004, Revised Selected Papers , 2005, SWDB.

[13]  Satya S. Sahoo,et al.  A Survey of Current Approaches for Mapping of Relational Databases to RDF , 2009 .

[14]  Steffen Staab,et al.  The Semantic Web - ISWC 2008, 7th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26-30, 2008. Proceedings , 2008, SEMWEB.

[15]  J. J. V. R. Wintraecken,et al.  The NIAM Information Analysis Method , 1990, Springer Netherlands.

[16]  George A. Vouros,et al.  Human-centered ontology engineering: The HCOME methodology , 2006, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[17]  Samson W. Tu,et al.  Supporting Collaborative Ontology Development in Protégé , 2008, SEMWEB.

[18]  Elena Paslaru Bontas Simperl,et al.  Human Intelligence in the Process of Semantic Content Creation , 2010, World Wide Web.

[19]  Robert Meersman,et al.  The Use of Lexicons and Other Computer-Linguistic Tools in Semantics, Design and Cooperation of Database Systems , 1999, CODAS.

[20]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Ontological Engineering: With Examples from the Areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web , 2004, Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing.

[21]  Robert Meersman,et al.  GOSPL: A Method and Tool for Fact-Oriented Hybrid Ontology Engineering , 2012, ADBIS.