Dependencies between modularity metrics towards improved modules

Recent years have seen many advances in ontology modularisation. This has made it difficult to determine whether a module is actually a good module; it is unclear which metrics should be considered. The few existing works on evaluation metrics focus on only some metrics that suit the modularisation technique, and there is not always a quantitative approach to calculate them. Overall, the metrics are not comprehensive enough to apply to a variety of modules and it is unclear which metrics fare well with particular types of ontology modules. To address this, we create a comprehensive list of module evaluation metrics with quantitative measures. These measures were implemented in the new Tool for Ontology Module Metrics (TOMM) which was then used in a testbed to test these metrics with existing modules. The results obtained, in turn, uncovered which metrics fare well with which module types, i.e., which metrics need to be measured to determine whether a module of some type is a ‘good’ module

A foundation for ontology modularisation

There has been great interest in realising the Semantic Web. Ontologies are used to define Semantic Web applications. Ontologies have grown to be large and complex to the point where it causes cognitive overload for humans, in understanding and maintaining, and for machines, in processing and reasoning. Furthermore, building ontologies from scratch is time-consuming and not always necessary. Prospective ontology developers could consider using existing ontologies that are of good quality. However, an entire large ontology is not always required for a particular application, but a subset of the knowledge may be relevant. Modularity deals with simplifying an ontology for a particular context or by structure into smaller ontologies, thereby preserving the contextual knowledge. There are a number of benefits in modularising an ontology including simplified maintenance and machine processing, as well as collaborative efforts whereby work can be shared among experts. Modularity has been successfully applied to a number of different ontologies to improve usability and assist with complexity. However, problems exist for modularity that have not been satisfactorily addressed. Currently, modularity tools generate large modules that do not exclusively represent the context. Partitioning tools, which ought to generate disjoint modules, sometimes create overlapping modules. These problems arise from a number of issues: different module types have not been clearly characterised, it is unclear what the properties of a 'good' module are, and it is unclear which evaluation criteria applies to specific module types. In order to successfully solve the problem, a number of theoretical aspects have to be investigated. It is important to determine which ontology module types are the most widely-used and to characterise each such type by distinguishing properties. One must identify properties that a 'good' or 'usable' module meets. In this thesis, we investigate these problems with modularity systematically. We begin by identifying dimensions for modularity to define its foundation: use-case, technique, type, property, and evaluation metric. Each dimension is populated with sub-dimensions as fine-grained values. The dimensions are used to create an empirically-based framework for modularity by classifying a set of ontologies with them, which results in dependencies among the dimensions. The formal framework can be used to guide the user in modularising an ontology and as a starting point in the modularisation process. To solve the problem with module quality, new and existing metrics were implemented into a novel tool TOMM, and an experimental evaluation with a set of modules was performed resulting in dependencies between the metrics and module types. These dependencies can be used to determine whether a module is of good quality. For the issue with existing modularity techniques, we created five new algorithms to improve the current tools and techniques and experimentally evaluate them. The algorithms of the tool, NOMSA, performs as well as other tools for most performance criteria. For NOMSA's generated modules, two of its algorithms' generated modules are good quality when compared to the expected dependencies of the framework. The remaining three algorithms' modules correspond to some of the expected values for the metrics for the ontology set in question. The success of solving the problems with modularity resulted in a formal foundation for modularity which comprises: an exhaustive set of modularity dimensions with dependencies between them, a framework for guiding the modularisation process and annotating module, a way to measure the quality of modules using the novel TOMM tool which has new and existing evaluation metrics, the SUGOI tool for module management that has been investigated for module interchangeability, and an implementation of new algorithms to fill in the gaps of insufficient tools and techniques

Towards Understanding Reasoning Complexity in Practice

Although the computational complexity of the logic underlying the standard OWL 2 for the Web Ontology Language (OWL) appears discouraging for real applications, several contributions have shown that reasoning with OWL ontologies is feasible in practice. It turns out that reasoning in practice is often far less complex than is suggested by the established theoretical complexity bound, which reflects the worstcase scenario. State-of-the reasoners like FACT++, HERMIT, PELLET and RACER have demonstrated that, even with fairly expressive fragments of OWL 2, acceptable performances can be achieved. However, it is still not well understood why reasoning is feasible in practice and it is rather unclear how to study this problem. In this paper, we suggest first steps that in our opinion could lead to a better understanding of practical complexity. We also provide and discuss some initial empirical results with HERMIT on prominent ontologie

Ensuring Cyber-Security in Smart Railway Surveillance with SHIELD

Modern railways feature increasingly complex embedded computing systems for surveillance, that are moving towards fully wireless smart-sensors. Those systems are aimed at monitoring system status from a physical-security viewpoint, in order to detect intrusions and other environmental anomalies. However, the same systems used for physical-security surveillance are vulnerable to cyber-security threats, since they feature distributed hardware and software architectures often interconnected by ‘open networks’, like wireless channels and the Internet. In this paper, we show how the integrated approach to Security, Privacy and Dependability (SPD) in embedded systems provided by the SHIELD framework (developed within the EU funded pSHIELD and nSHIELD research projects) can be applied to railway surveillance systems in order to measure and improve their SPD level. SHIELD implements a layered architecture (node, network, middleware and overlay) and orchestrates SPD mechanisms based on ontology models, appropriate metrics and composability. The results of prototypical application to a real-world demonstrator show the effectiveness of SHIELD and justify its practical applicability in industrial settings

Ontology selection: ontology evaluation on the real Semantic Web

The increasing number of ontologies on the Web and the appearance of large scale ontology repositories has brought the topic of ontology selection in the focus of the semantic web research agenda. Our view is that ontology evaluation is core to ontology selection and that, because ontology selection is performed in an open Web environment, it brings new challenges to ontology evaluation. Unfortunately, current research regards ontology selection and evaluation as two separate topics. Our goal in this paper is to explore how these two tasks relate. In particular, we are interested to get a better understanding of the ontology selection task and filter out the challenges that it brings to ontology evaluation. We discuss requirements posed by the open Web environment on ontology selection, we overview existing work on selection and point out future directions. Our major conclusion is that, even if selection methods still need further development, they have already brought novel approaches to ontology evaluatio

A framework for developing engineering design ontologies within the aerospace industry

This paper presents a framework for developing engineering design ontologies within the aerospace industry. The aim of this approach is to strengthen the modularity and reuse of engineering design ontologies to support knowledge management initiatives within the aerospace industry. Successful development and effective utilisation of engineering ontologies strongly depends on the method/framework used to develop them. Ensuring modularity in ontology design is essential for engineering design activities due to the complexity of knowledge that is required to be brought together to support the product design decision-making process. The proposed approach adopts best practices from previous ontology development methods, but focuses on encouraging modular architectural ontology design. The framework is comprised of three phases namely: (1) Ontology design and development; (2) Ontology validation and (3) Implementation of ontology structure. A qualitative research methodology is employed which is composed of four phases. The first phase defines the capture of knowledge required for the framework development, followed by the ontology framework development, iterative refinement of engineering ontologies and ontology validation through case studies and experts’ opinion. The ontology-based framework is applied in the combustor and casing aerospace engineering domain. The modular ontologies developed as a result of applying the framework and are used in a case study to restructure and improve the accessibility of information on a product design information-sharing platform. Additionally, domain experts within the aerospace industry validated the strengths, benefits and limitations of the framework. Due to the modular nature of the developed ontologies, they were also employed to support other project initiatives within the case study company such as role-based computing (RBC), IT modernisation activity and knowledge management implementation across the sponsoring organisation. The major benefit of this approach is in the reduction of man-hours required for maintaining engineering design ontologies. Furthermore, this approach strengthens reuse of ontology knowledge and encourages modularity in the design and development of engineering ontologies