ER2013 KSE Lab Meeting December 2013

Paper 1: Ontologies for International Standards for Software Engineering Addresses issue of terminological and semantic differences between International standards The solution: A hierarchy of ontologies that begin at the foundational level and then become more specific for a single or group of standards/technical working groups Authors: Brian Henderson-Sellers, Tom McBride - Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney Graham Low - School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales Cesar Gonzalez-Perez - Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

Core Structure Create a foundational ontology sourced from ontology engineering field e.g. sortals – DEO – Definitional Element Ontology Represents a taxonomy of rigorously defined terms and the relationships between them – CDO stands for Configured Domain Ontology Effectively a customised “copy” of the DEO – SDO stands for Standard Domain Ontology A metamodel that a standard or technical working groups can instantiate to build their own ontology Authors: Brian Henderson-Sellers, Tom McBride - Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney Graham Low - School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales Cesar Gonzalez-Perez - Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

Paper 2: Semantic-Based Mappings Traditionally mappings are developed between source and target schema Investigates how the mapping process changes when a conceptual schema for a target database is available Contribution – Employs non-recursive Datalog with limited negation – Rewrite algorithm based on the idea of unfolding views in mapping conclusions More complex when view definition language allows negation Authors: Giansalvatore Mecca - Universit`a della Basilicata – Potenza, Italy Guillem Rull, Ernest Teniente - Universitat Polit`ecnica de Catalunya – Barcelona, Spain Donatello Santoro - Universit`a Roma Tre – Roma, Italy

Mappings represented using tgds and egds Evaluation based on following factors – Effectiveness Compares size of the source-to-semantic mapping users need to specify vs auto-generated mappings Auto-generated increases size of dependency graph by an average 70% – Scalability Large Scenarios testing unfolding algorithm with increasing levels of negation – Source level relations ranged from 10k – 80k – View definitions ranged from 30k – 240k – Target level relations ranged from 60k – 480k – Results do not exceed 0.9 secs compared to standard algorithms which take hours for small scenarios – Large Datasets Scales well (up to 1 million database tuples) Authors: Giansalvatore Mecca - Universit`a della Basilicata – Potenza, Italy Guillem Rull, Ernest Teniente - Universitat Polit`ecnica de Catalunya – Barcelona, Spain Donatello Santoro - Universit`a Roma Tre – Roma, Italy

Paper 3: Towards Ontological Foundations for the Conceptual Modeling of Events Goal: To provide a more rigorous ontological account of events Motivation – To provide a more complete ontological account of events Extends Unified Foundational Ontology: UFO-B Formalises – Notion of events as manifestations of object dispositions – parthood in events – Temporal relations – Situations (bound to specific time-points) Authors: Giancarlo Guizzardi, Ricardo de Almeida Falbo, Renata S.S. Guizzardi and Joao Paulo A. Almeida Ontology and Conceptual Modelling Research Group (NEMO), Fed. Uni. of Espírito Santo (UFES), Brazil Gerd Wagner - Institute of Informatics, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany

Contribution(s) – Extends previous ontological treatment of events from previous work – Provides a comprehensive axiomatisation Relevance to my research – Potential for implementation in our ontology as events are covered in ISO Would need to check compatibility to ‘Event’ in YAMATO and suitability to ISO Authors: Giancarlo Guizzardi, Ricardo de Almeida Falbo, Renata S.S. Guizzardi and Joao Paulo A. Almeida Ontology and Conceptual Modelling Research Group (NEMO), Fed. Uni. of Espírito Santo (UFES), Brazil Gerd Wagner - Institute of Informatics, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany

Paper 4: Is Traditional Conceptual Modelling Becoming Obsolete? Authors claim that with heterogeneous distributed information systems, analysis of requirements is very difficult and is likely to guarantee certain users will not be represented in the formal model Representation by abstraction pre-supposes consensus among stakeholders but is limited in the above case Authors lists several approaches to resolve issue: – Reduce the extent and depth of specification (i.e. barely good enough models) – Domain ontologies – although authors write this off by stating they may neglect all valid views and thereby inhibit domain understanding (self-author citation) – Allow users to dynamically modify model but points out that issues arise concerning cooperative schema evolution, etc Authors: Roman Lukyanenko and Jeffrey Parsons - Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Author proposes ‘instance-based’ data models – Users can provide information based on their own conceptualisation of reality Evaluation – Authors state multiple statistical-based tests – Focus on ‘citizen-science’ – Users can simply add new attributes to instances e.g. ‘Mallard Duck’ has-attribute ‘has webbed feet’ Authors: Roman Lukyanenko and Jeffrey Parsons - Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland