How to Find Suitable Ontologies Using an Ontology-based WWW Broker

Knowledge reuse by means of outologies now faces three important problems: (1) there are no standardized identifying features that characterize ontologies from the user point of view; (2) there are no web sites using the same logical organization, presenting relevant information about ontologies; and (3) the search for appropriate ontologies is hard, time-consuming and usually fruitless. To solve the above problems, we present: (1) a living set of features that allow us to characterize ontologies from the user point of view and have the same logical organization; (2) a living domain ontology about ontologies (called ReferenceOntology) that gathers, describes and has links to existing ontologies; and (3) (ONTO)2Agent, the ontology-based www broker about ontologies that uses the Reference Ontology as a source of its knowledge and retrieves descriptions of ontologies that satisfy a given set of constraints. (ONTO)~Agent is available at http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/REFERENCE ONTOLOGY

A unified framework for building ontological theories with application and testing in the field of clinical trials

The objective of this research programme is to contribute to the establishment of the emerging science of Formal Ontology in Information Systems via a collaborative project involving researchers from a range of disciplines including philosophy, logic, computer science, linguistics, and the medical sciences. The re­searchers will work together on the construction of a unified formal ontology, which means: a general framework for the construction of ontological theories in specific domains. The framework will be constructed using the axiomatic-deductive method of modern formal ontology. It will be tested via a series of applications relating to on-going work in Leipzig on medical taxonomies and data dictionaries in the context of clinical trials. This will lead to the production of a domain-specific ontology which is designed to serve as a basis for applications in the medical field

Overview of methodologies for building ontologies

A few research groups are now proposing a series of steps and methodologies for developing ontologies. However, mainly due to the fact that Ontological Engineering is still a relatively immature discipline, each work group employs its own methodology. Our goal is to present the most representative methodologies used in ontology development and to perform an analysis of such methodologies against the same framework of reference. So, the goal of this paper is not to provide new insights about methodologies, but to put it all in one place and help people to select which methodology to use

Evaluating Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Capabilites of Ontology Specification Languages

The interchange of ontologies across the World Wide Web (WWW) and the cooperation among heterogeneous agents placed on it is the main reason for the development of a new set of ontology specification languages, based on new web standards such as XML or RDF. These languages (SHOE, XOL, RDF, OIL, etc) aim to represent the knowledge contained in an ontology in a simple and human-readable way, as well as allow for the interchange of ontologies across the web. In this paper, we establish a common framework to compare the expressiveness of "traditional" ontology languages (Ontolingua, OKBC, OCML, FLogic, LOOM) and "web-based" ontology languages. As a result of this study, we conclude that different needs in KR and reasoning may exist in the building of an ontology-based application, and these needs must be evaluated in order to choose the most suitable ontology language(s)

Semantics and Ontology:\ud On the Modal Structure of an Epistemic Theory of Meaning

In this paper I shall confront three basic questions.\ud First, the relevance of epistemic structures, as formalized\ud and dealt with by current epistemic logics, for a\ud general Theory of meaning. Here I acknowledge M. Dummett"s\ud idea that a systematic account of what is meaning of\ud an arbitrary language subsystem must especially take into\ud account the inferential components of meaning itself. That\ud is, an analysis of meaning comprehension processes,\ud given in terms of epistemic logics and semantics for epistemic\ud notions.\ud The second and third questions relate to the ontological\ud and epistemological framework for this approach.\ud Concerning the epistemological aspects of an epistemic\ud theory of meaning, the question is: how epistemic logics\ud can eventually account for the informative character of\ud meaning comprehension processes. "Information� seems\ud to be built in the very formal structure of epistemic processes,\ud and should be exhibited in modal and possibleworld\ud semantics for propositional knowledge and belief.\ud However, it is not yet clear what is e.g. a possible world.\ud That is: how it can be defined semantically, other than by\ud accessibility rules which merely define it by considering its\ud set-theoretic relations with other sets-possible worlds.\ud Therefore, it is not clear which is the epistemological status\ud of propositional information contained in the structural\ud aspects of possible world semantics. The problem here\ud seems to be what kind of meaning one attributes to the\ud modal notion of possibility, thus allowing semantical and\ud synctactical selectors for possibilities. This is a typically\ud Dummett-style problem.\ud The third question is linked with this epistemological\ud problem, since it is its ontological counterpart. It concerns\ud the limits of the logical space and of logical semantics for a\ud of meaning. That is, it is concerned with the kind of\ud structure described by inferential processes, thought, in a\ud fregean perspective, as pre-conditions of estentional\ud treatment of meaning itself. The second and third questions\ud relate to some observations in Wittgenstein"s Tractatus.\ud I shall also try to show how their behaviour limits the\ud explicative power of some semantics for epistemic logics\ud (Konolige"s and Levesque"s for knowledge and belief)

Organising the knowledge space for software components

Software development has become a distributed, collaborative process based on the assembly of off-the-shelf and purpose-built components. The selection of software components from component repositories and the development of components for these repositories requires an accessible information infrastructure that allows the description and comparison of these components. General knowledge relating to software development is equally important in this context as knowledge concerning the application domain of the software. Both form two pillars on which the structural and behavioural properties of software components can be addressed. Form, effect, and intention are the essential aspects of process-based knowledge representation with behaviour as a primary property. We investigate how this information space for software components can be organised in order to facilitate the required taxonomy, thesaurus, conceptual model, and logical framework functions. Focal point is an axiomatised ontology that, in addition to the usual static view on knowledge, also intrinsically addresses the dynamics, i.e. the behaviour of software. Modal logics are central here – providing a bridge between classical (static) knowledge representation approaches and behaviour and process description and classification. We relate our discussion to the Web context, looking at Web services as components and the Semantic Web as the knowledge representation framewor