OntoKADS A core ontology to develop expertise models of the CommonKADS methodology Bruaux S. & Kassel G. LaRIA – University Jules Verne of Picardie - FRANCE Workshop on Core Ontologies in Ontology Engineering Held in conjunction with EKAW 2004 8th October 2004 Laboratory for Research in Computer Science – Amiens (FRANCE) http://www.laria.u-picardie.fr

Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS Broad outlines 1. Introduction 2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview 3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview 4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology 5. Conclusion and perspectives 1. Introduction 2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview 3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview 4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology 5. Conclusion and perspectives Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS Introduction (1/7) Motivations Previous works: Previous works: Modelling 3 tasks of simulation codes calibration [Bruaux, 2002] Previous works: Modelling 3 tasks of simulation codes calibration [Bruaux, 2002] Modelling a “generic” task of calibration with the CommonKADS methodology A limitation of the method: the primitive of “knowledge role” [Bru.,Kas.& Mor., 2003] Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The CommonKADS’ “knowledge role” primitive [Schreiber & al., 1999] Introduction (2/7) The CommonKADS’ “knowledge role” primitive [Schreiber & al., 1999] roles are inputs/outputs of inferences roles are expressed by means of abstract names  roles are inputs/outputs of inferences roles are expressed by means of abstract names  Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Problem: the identification of roles (1/3) Introduction (3/7) Problem: the identification of roles (1/3) Role ? inference role “simulation parameter” y = ax + b Domain concept ? Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Problem: the identification of roles (2/3) Introduction (4/7) Problem: the identification of roles (2/3)  abstract names (Data, Result) + understandable inference structure  easy distinction between “concrete roles” and domain concepts (SimulationCode, ModelParameter)  abstract names (Data, Result) + understandable inference structure  dedicated terms (CodeToCalibrate, SimulationParameter) = knowledge roles  dedicated terms (CodeToCalibrate, SimulationParameter) = knowledge roles  easy distinction between “concrete roles” and domain concepts (SimulationCode, ModelParameter) Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Problem: the identification of roles (3/3) Introduction (5/7) Problem: the identification of roles (3/3) In short: Abstract roles Concrete roles Knowledge role domain concept Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

First attempts to clarify the meaning of the notion of role Introduction (6/7) First attempts to clarify the meaning of the notion of role Reynaud C. and al. (1997). The Notion of Role in Conceptual Modeling. In Proceedings of the 10th European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop: EKAW’97, San Feliu de Guixolls, Bonn: Springer Verlag, p. 221-236. Kassel G. (1999). PHYSICIAN is a role played by an object, whereas SIGN is a role played by a concept. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’99 Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods: Lessons Learned and Future Trends, Stockholm (Sweden), August 2, 1999, p. 6-1-6-9. Conjecture [Kassel, 1999]: “It is necessary to distinguish the roles played by objects from the roles played by concepts.” The “abstract roles” or “knowledge roles” in the sense of CommonKADS are roles played by concepts. Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS Introduction (7/7) Using a formal framework to precise the meaning of CommonKADS’ modelling primitives The ontology of Particulars DOLCE [Masolo & al., 2003], which contains top-level concepts and relations e.g.: PHYSICAL OBJECT, EVENT, ParticipatesIn, IsAgentOf The ontology of Particulars DOLCE [Masolo & al., 2003], which contains top-level concepts and relations e.g.: PHYSICAL OBJECT, EVENT, ParticipatesIn, IsAgentOf The Formal Ontology of Properties [Guarino & Welty, 2000], which introduces meta-concepts e.g.: SORTAL, FORMAL ROLE, TYPE, QUASI-TYPE Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS Broad outlines 1. Introduction 2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview 3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview 4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology 5. Conclusion and perspectives Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

OntoKADS The OntoKADS methodology Overview OntoKADS First step: using OntoKADS to build an application ontology OntoKADS OntoKADS Problem-solving-driven application ontology Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The OntoKADS methodology Overview Second step: translating the application ontology into a CommonKADS’ expertise model Task Task Method Problem-solving-driven application ontology CommonKads’ expertise model Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS Broad outlines 1. Introduction 2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview 3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview 4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology 5. Conclusion and perspectives Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The OntoKADS ontology Overview (1/7) DOLCE in short (1/2) participates Particular Endurant Perdurant  e.g., object, substance...  e.g., event, process... DOLCE Particular Endurant Perdurant  e.g., object, substance...  e.g., event, process... DOLCE Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The OntoKADS ontology Overview (2/7) DOLCE in short (2/2) The relation of participation: PC(x,y,t) def. “x (ED) participates in y (PD) during t”  e.g.: the AUTHOR (APO) of an article PARTICIPATES in the WRITING (AC) of the article” Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The OntoKADS ontology Overview (3/7) Using the Formal Ontology of Properties in short (1/2) Person Author Rigid Anti-rigid classifies Person Author Rigid Anti-rigid Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

e.g.: “SABINE (instance) is the AUTHOR (concept) of the article” The OntoKADS ontology Overview (4/7) Using the Formal Ontology of Properties in short (2/2) The relation of classification: Cf(x,y,t) def. “The type x classifies the instance y during t” e.g.: “SABINE (instance) is the AUTHOR (concept) of the article” “The AUTHOR (concept) is ANTI-RIGID (meta-concept)” Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The OntoKADS ontology Overview (5/7) The problem-solving sub-ontology: an extension of DOLCE The problem-solving ontology implements two main categories of entities: The problem-solving ontology implements two main categories of entities: acts of Reasoning intervening in problem-solving situations - e.g.: Diagnosing, Calibrating The problem-solving ontology implements two main categories of entities: acts of Reasoning intervening in problem-solving situations - e.g.: Diagnosing, Calibrating entities intervening in these Reasonings - e.g.: Person, KnowledgeExpression, Agent, Data Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The OntoKADS ontology Overview (6/7) The sub-ontology of meta-concepts The ontology of meta-concepts implements the CommonKADS’ modelling primitives to “classify” the OntoKADS’ concepts: The ontology of meta-concepts implements the CommonKADS’ modelling primitives to “classify” the OntoKADS’ concepts: cover sign hypothesis output role input role inference CF(Task, diagnosis, t), CF( Inference, cover, t), CF(KnowledgeRole, sign, t), CF(DomainConcept, car, t) Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The OntoKADS ontology Overview (7/7) Structure of the OntoKADS’ ontology DOLCE __ Particular OntoKADS __ Endurant Perdurant Domain Concepts Domain Concepts Roles Action Reasoning Communicating Tasks, Inferences Transfert Functions Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS Broad outlines 1. Introduction 2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview 3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview 4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology 5. Conclusion and perspectives Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (1/5) Conjecture [Bruaux & Kassel, 2004]: “Entities bearing on Reasonings in terms of data/results are expressions of knowledge.” Conjecture [Bruaux & Kassel, 2004]: “Entities bearing on Reasonings in terms of data/results are expressions of knowledge.” This knowledge is expressed by means of an expression code (a language) and inscribed on a support. Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (2/5) LowBatteryLevel car EmptyFuelTank LowBatteryLevel Diagnosis Task car EmptyFuelTank LowBatteryLevelComplaint EmptyFuelTankHypothesis Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (3/5) simulation code Calibration Task y = ax + b equations of a numerical model Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (4/5) The I&DA ontology introduces ContentBearingObjects which are expressions (signifiers) of a Content (signified). The I&DA sub-ontology [Fortier & Kassel, 2004] to account for: the different means of expression; the expressed different knowledge/contents. Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (5/5) DOLCE __ ED I&DA __ POB NPOB Inscription ContentBearingObject Content LinguisticObject Discourse Proposition Concept Term IconicObject Information Assertion Text Hypothesis Complaint Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology The sub-ontology of “participative roles” EndParticipant BeginningParticipant ED Determinant Patient Agent Substrate Data Result CalibratedCode CodeToCalibrate Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The ontology of meta-concepts Ontological definition of knowledge roles (1/4) Three meta-concepts of the Formal Ontology of Properties [Guarino & Welty, 2000] are interesting for our study: role: an anti-rigid concept dependent of an external entity formal role: a role lacking an identity criterion e.g.: PATIENT, INSTRUMENT material role: a role carrying an identity criterion e.g.: STUDENT Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The ontology of meta-concepts Ontological definition of knowledge roles (2/4) Definition of a MATERIAL ROLE: example of the EMPLOYEE concept (TYPE) PERSON (FORMAL ROLE) HUMAN RESOURCE (MATERIAL ROLE) EMPLOYEE Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The ontology of meta-concepts Ontological definition of knowledge roles (3/4) By analogy with the previous definitions, we define three notions of "knowledge role": KnowledgeRole: a role dependent on a Reasoning FormalKnowledgeRole: a KnowledgeRole lacking an identity criterion (e.g.: CalibrationData, DiagnosisResult) MaterialKnowledgeRole: a FormalKnowledgeRole carrying an identity criterion, which it inherits from a Type constrained to be a Proposition (e.g.: CodeToCalibrate) Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The ontology of meta-concepts Ontological definition of knowledge roles (4/4) ED OntoKADS __ (I&DA __) (Content) (Proposition) Data Result Code Hypothesis CalibrationData DiagnosisResult CodeToCalibrate DiagnosisHypothesis Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS Broad outlines 1. Introduction 2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview 3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview 4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology 5. Conclusion and perspectives Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Conclusion and perspectives Synthesis of our main contributions (1/2) The OntoKADS ontology has led us to revisit CommonKADS’ modelling primitives: in particular, the KnowledgeRole meta-concept differs from the meaning given to the “knowledge role” notion in CommonKADS. The OntoKADS ontology has led us to revisit CommonKADS’ modelling primitives: in particular, the KnowledgeRole meta-concept differs from the meaning given to the “knowledge role” notion in CommonKADS. The participants in Reasonings (Tasks) are not objects or state of objects (DomainConcepts) but Propositions (KnowledgeRole) having DomainConcepts as subjects. Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Conclusion and perspectives Synthesis of our main contributions (2/2) Two categories of KnowledgeRoles: FormalKnowledgeRoles, referring to particular Reasonings ►e.g.: CalibrationData, DiagnosisResult Two categories of KnowledgeRoles: Two categories of KnowledgeRoles: FormalKnowledgeRoles, referring to particular Reasonings ►e.g.: CalibrationData, DiagnosisResult MaterialKnowledgeRoles, referring to particular Reasonings and to particular Contents ►e.g.: CodeToCalibrate, CalibratedCode Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Conclusion and perspectives Future works Works presented here are progressing in three main directions: Works presented here are progressing in three main directions: the evaluation of the CommonKADS’ primitives to specify problem-solving methods: in particular, force the methods’ Inputs/Outputs to be KnowledgeRoles would have some consequences on these methods Works presented here are progressing in three main directions: the evaluation of the CommonKADS’ primitives to specify problem-solving methods: in particular, force the methods’ Inputs/Outputs to be KnowledgeRoles would have some consequences on these methods the integration in OntoKADS of all generic Reasonings identified in analytic and synthetic Reasonings Works presented here are progressing in three main directions: the evaluation of the CommonKADS’ primitives to specify problem-solving methods: in particular, force the methods’ Inputs/Outputs to be KnowledgeRoles would have some consequences on these methods the integration in OntoKADS of all generic Reasonings identified in analytic and synthetic Reasonings the devolopment of a software, at a conceptual level, based on the TERMINAE platform to support the OntoKADS methodology Bruaux S. & Kassel G. 03/01/2019 Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

Thank you for your attention To contact the authors of this paper : Sabine Bruaux, mailto: bruaux@laria.u-picardie.fr Gilles Kassel, mailto: kassel@laria.u-picardie.fr For + infos about team works : http://www.laria.u-picardie.fr/equipe_ingenierie_connaissances.html 03/01/2019 Conférence IC'2003 - Etude Critique de CommonKADS