Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDinah McDowell Modified over 9 years ago
1
GAS ontology: an ontology for collaboration among ubiquitous computing devices International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (May 2005) Presented By Eleni Christopoulou, Achilles Kameas Research Academic Computer Technology Institute Design of Ambient Intelligent Systems Group, Greece Summerized By Jaeseok Myung
2
Copyright 2008 by CEBT Introduction eGadget Project A research project funded by EU IST/FET The goal of this project is to deliver an architectural framework that supports the composition of ubiquitous computing systems – GAS (Gadgetware Architectural Style) A key issue in the project is the heterogeneity of the devices GAS Ontology Represents basic concepts and their inter-relations – A common language – Semantic interoperability among the heterogeneous devices Should be flexible and extensible – so that new concepts can be added and represented Center for E-Business Technology
3
Copyright 2008 by CEBT Basic Concepts eGadgets (eGts) Everyday physical objects enhanced with sensing, acting, processing and communication abilities Building blocks to form GadgetWorlds Plugs Software classes that make visible the eGt capabilities to people and to other eGts Synapses Associations between two plugs eGadgetWorlds Dynamic, distinguishable, and functional configurations of associated eGts, which communicate and/or collaborate in order to realized a collective behaviour. Center for E-Business Technology
4
Copyright 2008 by CEBT Constructing eGadgetWorlds The Notion of eGadgetWorlds Center for E-Business Technology
5
Copyright 2008 by CEBT Need for GAS Ontology Conceptualization of eGadgetWorlds Provide a new world view constituted of the set of basic terms, their definitions and their inter-relations which are defined by the GAS Semantic Interoperability among eGadgets The eGts have to use the same language and a common vocabulary – Although each may implement a different mechanism to interpret them Dynamic Nature of eGadgetWorlds Synapses between eGts can be created and removed dynamically We need formal rules in order to handle some changes and failures Semantic Service Discovery We can use the semantic description of the eGts’ capabilities – so that we can discover all the relevant services Center for E-Business Technology
6
Copyright 2008 by CEBT GAS Ontology Design Ontology Layers GAS Core Ontology(GAS-CO) GAS Higher Ontology(GAS-HO) The GAS-CO provides eGts with the necessary common language that we need in order to describe their acquired knowledge represented by the GAS-HO Center for E-Business Technology
7
Copyright 2008 by CEBT GAS Core Ontology As a Common Language All eGts must have same GAS-CO to communicate each other Cannot be changed either from the manufacturer or from an user Should contain only the necessary information in order to be small Center for E-Business Technology
8
Copyright 2008 by CEBT GAS Higher Ontology Describes instances of the classes defined from the GAS-CO Represents the private knowledge of each eGadget The size can be ‘unlimited’ and depending on eGt’s memory Can be changed dynamically GAS-HO-static eGt’s plugs, services GAS-HO-volatile Synapses Center for E-Business Technology
9
Copyright 2008 by CEBT GAS Ontology Development GAS ontology is written in DAML+OIL Protégé-2000 is selected as an ontology development tool Center for E-Business Technology
10
Copyright 2008 by CEBT Summary The ontologies can help us to address some key issues of ubiquitous computing environments Knowledge representation Semantic interoperability Service discovery The GAS Ontology Describes the semantics of the basic concepts and their relations Provides a common language for the communication and collaboration among the heterogeneous devices Supports the service discovery mechanism Center for E-Business Technology
11
Copyright 2008 by CEBT Paper Evaluation Strong Points Provide a new world view (eGadgetWorlds) Provide a new way for layering ontologies – general and domain-specific vs. common and private Weak Points Too simple example Explanation is poor – for the architecture – for the development tools and languages Center for E-Business Technology
12
Copyright 2008 by CEBT Discussion GAS vs. CONON vs. SOUPA As a candidate for representing real-world contexts Who can make a standard ontology? How the standard ontology is maintained? Center for E-Business Technology
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.