14 research outputs found

    International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

    Get PDF
    This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

    International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

    Get PDF
    This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini\u27s opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom\u27s incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

    International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

    Get PDF
    This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

    Making object-oriented databases more knowledgeable (From ADAM to ABEL)

    Get PDF
    Tesis leida en la Universidad de Aberdeen. 178 p.The salient points of this thesis are as follows: ‱ Object-Oriented Databases can help in solving the impedance mismatch problem by introducing methods. However, methods have sometimes been overused in the sense th at the code encapsulated refers not only to how the operation is implemented but also to other kinds of knowledge that are implicit in the code. The disadvantages of this approach for modelling integrity constraints, user-defined relationships and active behaviour are pointed out. ‱ The ADAM Object-Oriented Database has been extended to allow the designer to specify integrity constraints declaratively. A constraint equation approach is implemented th at supports the inheritance of constraints. ‱ A need for semantic-rich user-defined relationships has been identified. In this thesis, relationships are represented as objects. An approach to enhance the semantics of relationships in both its structural and behavioural aspects is presented. The most novel idea of the approach presented is the support of the inferred properties and the operational semantics of relationships. ‱ Active Databases have recently become an im portant area of research. This thesis shows how to extend an Object-Oriented Database with active capabilities. The principal contribution lies in representing as ‘first-class’ objects not only the active rules but also the rule manager itself. Hence, besides handling active rules as any other object in the system, future requirements can be supported just by specialising the current rule manager. ‱ Active rules have been proposed for several purposes. Several examples, are given of the direct use of rules. However, higher level tools can be provided of which rule

    Studies related to the process of program development

    Get PDF
    The submitted work consists of a collection of publications arising from research carried out at Rhodes University (1970-1980) and at Heriot-Watt University (1980-1992). The theme of this research is the process of program development, i.e. the process of creating a computer program to solve some particular problem. The papers presented cover a number of different topics which relate to this process, viz. (a) Programming methodology programming. (b) Properties of programming languages. aspects of structured. (c) Formal specification of programming languages. (d) Compiler techniques. (e) Declarative programming languages. (f) Program development aids. (g) Automatic program generation. (h) Databases. (i) Algorithms and applications

    Towards ontological foundations of research information systems

    Get PDF
    Despite continuous advancements in information system technologies it is still not simple to receive relevant answers to Science-related queries. Getting answers requires a gathering of information from heterogeneous systems, and the volume of responses that semantically do not match with the queried intensions overwhelms users. W3C initiatives with extensions such as the Semantic Web and the Linked Open Data Web introduced important technologies to overcome the issues of semantics and access by promoting standard representation formats – formal ontologies – for information integration. These are inherent in architectural system styles, where increased openness challenges the traditional closed-world and often adhocly designed systems. However, technology on its own is not meaningful and the information systems community is increasingly becoming aware of foundations and their importance with guiding system analyses and conceptual design processes towards sustainable and more integrative information systems. As a contribution, this work develops a formal ontology FERON – Field-extensible Research Ontology – following the foundations as introduced by Mario Bunge and applied to information systems design by Wand and Weber, i.e. Bunge- Wand-Weber (BWW). Nevertheless, FERON is not aimed at the modelling of an information system as such, but at the description of a perceived world – the substantial things – that an information system ought to be able to model. FERON is a formal description of the Research domain – a formal ontology according to latest technological standards. Language Technology was chosen as a subdomain to demonstrate its field extensibility. The formal FERON ontology results from a hybrid modelling approach; it was first described top-down based on a many years activity of the author and then fine-tuned bottom-up through a comprehensive analysis and re-use of openly available descriptions and standards. The entire FERON design process was accompanied by an awareness of architectural system levels and system implementation styles, but was at first aimed at a human domain understanding, which according to the General Definition of Information (GDI) is achievable through well-formed meaningful data.Trotz kontinuierlich verbesserter Informationssystemtechnologien ist es nicht einfach möglich, relevante Antworten auf forschungsverwandte Suchanfragen zu erhalten. Dies liegt unter anderem daran, dass Informationen in verschiedenen Systemen bereitgestellt werden, und dass die Beschreibung der bereitgestellten Informationen nicht mit den Beschreibungen der gestellten Fragen ĂŒbereinstimmen. Neuere Technologien wie das Semantische Web oder Linked Open Data ermöglichen zwar verbesserte Beschreibungen und Zugriffe – jedoch sind die Technologien an sich auch nicht bedeutungsvoll. Weitergehende, fundierende AnsĂ€tze zur Beschreibung von Informationenen finden daher zunehmend Anerkennung und Zuspruch in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinde, diese beinflussen konsequenterweise die Systemanalyse sowie das Systemdesign. Die vorliegende Arbeit entwickelt eine formale Ontologie einer Forschungswelt die disziplinenĂŒbergreifend skaliert, namentlich FERON – Field-extensible Research Ontology, basierend auf den AnsĂ€tzen der Bunge-Wand-Weber (BWW) Ontologie. Der Titel der Arbeit “Towards Ontological Foundations of Research Information Systems” ĂŒbersetzt: „Zur ontologischen Fundierung von Forschungsinformationssystemen“. Im Titel ist ontologisch zuallererst im philosophischen Sinne zu verstehen, und nicht zu verwechseln mit der dann resultierenden Ontologie im technologischen Sinne einer formalen Beschreibung der wahrgenommenen Forschungswelt – namentlich FERON. Eine KlĂ€rung der Begriffe Ontologie, Konzept, EntitĂ€t, Daten und Information zum VerstĂ€ndnis der vorliegenden Arbeit wird in Kapitel 2.5 versucht, ein VerstĂ€ndnis wurde als kritisch fĂŒr die QualitĂ€t der resultierenden formalen Ontologie FERON, aber auch als hilfreich fĂŒr den Leser vorweggenommen, insbesondere weil die genannten Begriffe ĂŒber Disziplinen hinweg oftmals sehr unterschiedlich wahrgenommen werden. Die Analyse und Modellierung von FERON basiert auf der Bedeutung dieser grundlegenden Begriffe wie die philosophische und wissenschaftliche Literatur verschiedener Disziplinen sie belegt. Die vorliegende Arbeit entwickelt FERON, und modelliert eine Welt der Forschung in disziplinenĂŒbergreifender Weise mittels neuester technologischer Standards – formal in RDF/OWL. Die fachspezifische Erweiterbarkeit ist durch Eingliederung von Beschreibungen des Gebietes Sprachtechnologie demonstriert. Die Modellierung wurde durchgehend von der Theorie Mario Bunges begleitet, welche Wand und Weber fĂŒr eine Anwendung wĂ€hrend der Systemanalyse und Systemgestaltung interpretierten und welche im Kapitel 3.1.1 vorgestellt wird. Die Idee ist als Bunge-Wand-Weber Ontologie (BWW) zunehmend bekannt und demgemĂ€ĂŸe ontologische Ansichten sind teilweise in formalen Beschreibungssprachen und Werkzeugen eingebunden, und damit bei der Modellierung explizit nutzbar. Neben BWW werden kurz die FundierungsansĂ€tze von DOLCE, SUMO und Cyc vorgestellt und deren Relevanz fĂŒr FERON verdeutlicht. Eine fehlende Fundierung in der Disziplin Informationssysteme wurde lange Zeit als wesentliche Ursache fĂŒr die vermisste wissenschaftliche Akzeptanz der Disziplin betrachtet; grĂ¶ĂŸtenteils wurden Informationssysteme pragmatisch und adhoc entwickelt und skalierten daher nicht konsistent. Zunehmend wird jedoch eine theoretische und insbesondere die ontologische Fundierung von Informationssystemen als wertvoll anerkannt – von der Idee bis hin zur Implementierung aber auch wĂ€hrend der Umgestaltungsphasen. Konzepte fundierter Informationssysteme im funktional-technischen Sinne sind als modellgetriebene Architektur bekannt und werden hier durch die AnsĂ€tze von Zachmann und Scheer verdeutlicht. In der kurzen Geschichte IT-basierter Informationssysteme wurden phasenweise immer wieder strukturell unterschiedliche Modelle angewandt. Diese werden daher im Kapitel 3.2 Modellierungsgrammatiken untersucht und deren Unterschiede dargestellt – namentlich das Entity-Relationship-Modell, semantische Netzwerke, das relationale Modell, hierarchische Modelle und objekt-orientierte Modelle. DarĂŒberhinaus sind insbesondere formale Ontologien durch die Web StandardisierungsaktivitĂ€ten und W3C Empfehlungen ein rasant wachsendes Segment, verstĂ€rkt durch politische Entscheidungen fĂŒr offene Daten und implizierend offene Systeme. Im Vergleich zu traditionellen und weitestgehend geschlossenen sogenannten closed-world Systemen sind hinsichtlich der Modellierung bestimmte Aspekte zu beachten. Diese unterliegen im Gegensatz zu offenen Systemen dem Paradigma des kompletten Wissens und sind sozusagen vorschreibend; im System aktuell nicht vorhandene Information wird als nicht existent interpretiert. Dahingegen gehen offene open-world Systeme davon aus, dass nicht vorhandene Information aktuell unbekannt ist – und die bekannte Information nicht vorschreibt sondern beschreibt. Weitere Unterschiede die es bezĂŒglich der Modellierung zu beachten gilt, befassen sich mit zeitlich geprĂ€gten VerknĂŒpfungen – ĂŒber sogenannte Links oder Relationships – aber auch mit EntitĂ€ten und deren IdentitĂ€ten. Da FERON keine Ontologie eines Informationssystems selbst modelliert, sondern eine Welt fĂŒr eine mögliche Umsetzung in einem Informationssystem bechreibt sind weitergehende Modellierungsaspekte in Kapitel 3.3 lediglich erklĂ€rt und es wird auf Beispiele verwiesen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird keine explizite Anwendung empfohlen, weil ein Informationssystem immer derjenigen Form entsprechen sollte, welche einer bestimmten Funktion folgt, und weil die Vorwegnahme von Funktionen eine Dimension darstellt die weit ĂŒber das Maß der vorliegenden Arbeit hinaus geht. FERON beschreibt eine Welt der Forschung; vorhandene ModellierungsansĂ€tze von Forschungsinformationssystemem werden mit Kapitel 4.1 den AnsĂ€tzen verwandter Arten gegenĂŒbergestellt – nĂ€mlich, wissenschaftlichen Repositorien, Datenrepositorien, Digitalen Bibliotheken, Digitalen Archiven und Lehre Systemen. Die untersuchten Modelle offenbaren neben inhaltlichen Unterschieden auch die Verschiedenheit der ModellierungsansĂ€tze von z.B. Referenzmodellen gegenĂŒber formalen Datenmodellen oder offenen Weltbeschreibungen, und damit auch die einhergehende Schwierigkeit von Integration. Insbesondere formale Ontologien erlauben ĂŒber die traditionellen AnsĂ€tze hinweg, automatische Schlußfolgerungen und BeweisfĂŒhrungen, welche jedoch hier nicht weitergehend erörtert werden. FERON war von Anfang an fĂŒr den menschlichen Leser konzipiert, wenn auch formal beschrieben. Der Modellierungsansatz in FERON ist hybrid und wird in Kapitel 7 erlĂ€utert. Eine hybride Modellierung war möglich durch eine mehr als zehn-jĂ€hrige Erfahrung und TĂ€tigkeit der Autorin in diesem Bereich, auch belegt durch zahlreiche Peer-Review Publikationen. Der erste Entwurf von FERON erfolgte demgemĂ€ĂŸ zuallererst im Top-Down Verfahren (Figure 29), bevor mittels umfassender Analyse (dokumentiert in den Kapiteln 5 und 6) von verfĂŒgbaren DomĂ€nenbeschreibungen sukszessive eine Bottom-Up Anpassung von FERON vorgenommen wurde (Figure 68), welche bereits standardisierte und bereits definierte Beschreibungen und Eigenschaften wenn möglich integrierte (Figure 67). FERON ist eine ontologisch fundierte, formale Beschreibung – eine formale Ontologie – einer Forschungswelt zur vereinfachten, konsistenten Umsetzung von standardisierten, integrativen Forschungsinformationssystemen oder Fachinformationssystemen. Substantielle EntitĂ€ten wurden grundsĂ€tzlich erkannt, und deren Eigenschaften sowie VerknĂŒpfungen formal beschrieben (Kapitel 7): Ressource unterschieden nach Nicht-Informations-Ressource und Informations-Ressource. Erstere unterscheidet nach Agent (Person, Organisationseinheit), AktivitĂ€t (Methode, Projekt, Bildung, Ereignis), Förderung (Programm, Einkommen), Messung und Infrastruktur (Werkzeug, Dienst, Einrichtung), zweitere nach Publikation, Literatur, Produkt (Daten), Wissensorganisationssystem, auch bekannt als KOS (Knowledge Organisation System), wie in der im Dokument integrierten Graphik (Figure 1) demonstriert. Kapitel 7 prĂ€sentiert FERON und dessen formale Einbindung von ĂŒbergreifenden Eigenschaften wie Sprache, Zeit, Geographie, zeitlich geprĂ€gte VerknĂŒpfung, ontologische Verpflichtung, Namensraum, Klasse, Eigenschaft, funktionales Schema, EntitĂ€t und IdentitĂ€t. Seine inherente Struktur erlaubt eine einfache Disziplinen- oder DomĂ€nenerweiterung. Die Sprachtechnologie (englisch: Language Technology – abgekĂŒrzt LT) wird als Gebiet zur Demonstration der Erweiterung von FERON formal eingebunden, und mit Kapitel 6 insbesondere seine substantiell fach-spezifischen EntitĂ€ten wie Methode, Projekt, Daten, Service, Infrastruktur, Messung, aber auch KOS untersucht. Eine Erweiterung der Ontologie FERON fĂŒr explizit-funktionale Anforderungen an ein Informationssystem, oder fĂŒr weitergehende disziplinen-spezifische Eigenschaften, z.B. einer linguistisch verbesserten Anwendung fĂŒr sprachtechnologische Weiterverarbeitung, ist möglich, erfordert jedoch tiefergehendes Fachwissen. Ziel der Arbeit war es zuallererst, das VerstĂ€ndnis fĂŒr die DomĂ€ne Forschung zu verbessern – mit weiterreichendem Blick auf eine allgemeine integrative system-technische Entwicklung zur Verbesserung von Informationszugriff und InformationsqualitĂ€t. Daneben wurden historische, gesellschaftliche aber auch politische Faktoren beobachtet, welche helfen, die wachsenden Anforderungen jenseits der Technologie zu bewĂ€ltigen. FERON ist als formales Model FERON.owl valide und wird mit der vorliegenden Arbeit sozusagen als Template zur weiteren BefĂŒllung bereitgestellt. Darauf basierend sind formale Restriktionen sowie disziplinen-spezifische und terminologische Erweiterungen direkt möglich. Daten-Instanzen wie in den prĂ€sentierten Beispielen sind mittels FERON.pprj verfĂŒgbar
    corecore