1. Lars, Bart, Michel , Jaap, Edo
Ontologies in V-Con
Lars, Bart, Michel , Jaap, Edo
Please, note that we use the perspective of RWS and CB-NL, because these slides will also be used for discussion in NL with CB-NL and within RWS.

2. Purpose Explain the main structure for ontologies in V-Con
Explain the rationale for the structure
Explain the relationships with existing ontologies of interest for V- Con:
Internationally
In the Netherlands
In Sweden

3. Main structure (RWS-View)
Specialization
(of ontology)
Mapping
Context ontologies
Common ontology
Context ontologies
Inspire
Ifc4Roads
(incl. IfcAlignment)
International
Infra
(incl. Top Level)
CityGML
BSAB
NEN
TEiP
Etim
NL-specific
(incl. CBNL taxonomy)
SE-specific
ANDA
IMgeo2.0
Provecy
RWS-specific
TRV-specific
RWS-OTL 2.0

4. Main structure (TRV-View)
Specialization
(of ontology)
Mapping
Context ontologies
Common ontology
Context ontologies
Inspire
Ifc4Roads
(incl. IfcAlignment)
International
Infra
(incl. Top Level)
CityGML
BSAB
NEN
TEiP
Etim
NL-specific
(incl. CBNL taxonomy)
SE-specific
ANDA
IMgeo2.0
Provecy
RWS-specific
TRV-specific
TRV-OTL 1.0

5. 2 issues to decide upon in NL
General approach to ontologies and place of RWS-OTL in V-Con Sept 2015
Position of CB-NL irt RWS-OTL
Ad 1. Basically two alternatives
Alt 1: RWS-OTL 2.0 = Common = SUM (top level onto, INT onto, Nat Onto, RWS Onto)
Alt 2: RWS-OTL 2.0 = Context ontology of Common ontology (which only has layers: top, int, nat)
Ad 2. Basically also two alternatives
Alt A: CB-NL is completely incorporated in NL Common (and ….)
Alt B: CB-NL is input for NL Common, but remains as a context ontology
First we’ll discuss these items separately; later we’ll combine them into one proposal

6. Development process of Alt 1
Analyse input ontologies (RWS-OTL 1.4, CB-NL, KernGis, IFCRoad, BSAB, TEIP, etc.); if an ontology doesn’t exist yet: develop it
Identify shared elements (classes, properties, etc.)
Distribute those elements to layered structure of common ontologies;
aim at placing shared elements as high as possible
Note: the RWS Onto only contains RWS specific extension of the layers above => RWS Onto ≠ RWS-OTL 1.4!
Status of the input ontologies after the distribution:
Some input ontologies end up completely in the common and disappear (e.g. RWS- OTL 1.4 in this example)
Some input ontologies remain as context ontologies (e.g. KernGIS), because they are needed to communicate to someone who ‘doesn’t speak the Common Ontology’

7. Consequences of Alt 1
Agreement must be reached with higher layers (e.g. on Top Level and Modelling Guide); this might include compromises; this might include losing control
=> only put restrictions up if really, really necessary; too many restrictions on the higher levels might imply problems for the lower levels!
INT onto, Common NL, Common RWS will share the modelling guide and the top level ontology
To be more precise: the MG of the lower level ontologies should not contradict MG of the higher level ontologies; they might extend this into extra restrictions e.g. on higher level rules for definition of classes; on lower level also rules for definition of properties
Note that you can always define new concepts on the lower level

8. Issue 1, Alt 2: RWS-OTL = Context
Specialization
Common ontology
Mapping
Context ontologies
CityGML
Context ontologies
ifcRoads
(incl ifcAlignment)
Common
International
(inc. Top Level)
Inspire
NEN
Common NL
Common
Sweden
BSAB
KernGis
RWS-OTL 1.4

9. Development process of Alt 2
Analyse input ontologies (RWS-OTL 1.4, CB-NL, KernGis, IFCRoad, BSAB, TEIP, etc.); if an ontology doesn’t exist yet: develop it
Identify shared elements (classes, properties, etc.)
Distribute those elements to the layered structure of the common ontologies (Top, INT, NAT)
Status of the input ontologies after the distribution:
Some input ontologies end up completely in the common and disappear
Some input ontologies remain as context (e.g. RWS-OTL 1.4), because they are needed to communicate to someone who ‘doesn’t speak the Common Ontology’

10. Consequences of Alt 2
For TOP, INT and NAT: Agreement must be reached with higher layers; this might include compromises; this might include losing control
INT, NAT will share the same modelling guide and the same top level ontology
RWS-OTL 1.4 remains a context; two-way mapping has to be defined with the common ontology
To be determined: how to deal with the context ontologies of context ontologies (e.g., KernGis as a context of the RWS-OTL context)

11. Conclusion of Issue 1. General approach
Proposal:
We are in favour of Alternative 1.
The most synergy NL – Sw
The most synergy per country
The least mapping
Fits best to the scope of the V-Con Solution = support information management of project organisation of a road authority

12. Issue 2: place of CB-NL Two options
Alt A: CB-NL is completely incorporated in NL Common (and ….)
Alt B: CB-NL is input for NL Common, but remains as a context ontology
In both options, CB-NL is an input ontology => its common elements will be distributed to the INT and NAT-NL ontology of the common ontologies
Difference between Alt A and B is the status of the CB-NL after this distribution
Alt A: CB-NL ends up completely in the common ontology in the INT and NAT-NL ontology
Alt B: CB-NL remains a context ontology
Note that CB-NL ‘only’ contains the taxonomy (= definition of classes and properties); for use in V-Con we also need additional restrictions (e.g. which properties belong to which classes, and instantiation)

13. Consequences of the alternatives for CB-NL
Alt A: CBNL = Common INT + NL
Less mapping
Partly the same top level and MG
More compromise RWS-CBNL
Easy to explain to the market
Alt B: CBNL remains context
More mapping
Different top and MG (the more difference, the more mapping)
RWS and CBNL less dependent
Difficult to explain to the market

14. Conclusion of Issue 2. Position CB-NL
Proposal:
We are in favour of Alternative A.
The most synergy CB-NL and RWS
The least mapping
Fits best with ambition of RWS in national context (BIR, CB-NL) and internally (RWS-BIM Program)
Each ontology can be split into a taxonomy and ‘additional restrictions’

15. Overall proposal: Alt 1A
We propose Alt 1A:
Alt 1: RWS-OTL 2.0 = Common = SUM (..)
Alt A: CB-NL is completely incorporated in NAT-NL ontology
As CB-NL contains the taxonomy, we add an additional NL-ONT ontology, containing other restrictions needed on national level, when instantiating into data sets and transferring these data sets (e.g. with NEN )
We probably need a similar split between taxonomy and ‘the rest’ on international level
This is the most obvious and clear solution; this is our direction; we start working on it and we’ll see how far we get

16. Issues SE Role of BSAB Role of TEiP Role of ANDA BSAB == Common SE
BSAB == A context ontology mapped to a common SE
Role of TEiP
TEiP == Common TRV
TEiP == A context ontology mapped to a common TRV
Role of ANDA
ANDA == Common TRV
ANDA == A context ontology mapped to a common TRV

17. Proposal for V-Con regarding Swedish ontologies
Proposal: Create a separate common ontology at SE and TRV levels using BSAB, TEiP and ANDA as input
Pro:s
Ensure that common SE and TRV comply with the V-Con modelling guide
Easier to make common SE/TRV as ”pure specializations” of common TOP/INT
Easier to achieve within the timeframe of the V-Con project. Reduces coupling with activities outside the control of V-Con
Ontology development within ANDA can occur as a separate activity
Con:s
Common SE will not be a sanctioned ontology outside the V-Con project
BSAB, TEiP and ANDA will have to be mapped to Common SE/TRV

18. Methodology for development SE
OWL:ify selected parts (for use in V-Con use cases) of the application schema for ANDA
OWL:ify selected parts (for use in V-Con use cases) from the BSAB classification (Building elements, Work results)
OWL:ify selected parts (for use in V-Con use cases) from the TEiP ontology
From the above, extract necessary definitions and add to Common SE/TRV (perhaps only SE level is needed for V-Con?)
Make sure that common SE/TRV are properly defined according to MG and in relation to Common TOP/INT.
Negotiate definitions to Common INT together with Common NL/RWS
In the same process, define mappings between the concepts
Provide all schemas and mappings for use in V-Con test cases

19. Issues international contexts
Concepts from IfcRoads, InfraGML, CityGML needs to be OWL:ified and mapped to Common INT
Using a documented method (EXPRESS=>OWL, xsd=>OWL, UML=>OWL)
May require additions to Common INT
Provide ontologies and mappings for use in V-Con test cases
bsDD vs OWL ontologies
Issue when using IFC with ”dynamic content”
Propose to use a way of linking from ”generic” IFC/SPFF (entities/attributes) to ”specific” OWL concepts
Reduce the need to involve additional parties in this work
Specify and document!