Lenguajes austeros de modelado conceptual de datos basados en evidencias

Multiple logic-based reconstructions of UML class diagram, Entity Relationship diagrams, and Obect-Role Model diagrams exists. They mainly cover various fragments of these Conceptual Data Modelling Languages and none are formalised such that the logic applies simultaneously for the three language families as a unifying mechanism. This hampers interchangeability, interoperability, and tooling support. In addition, due to the lack of a systematic design process of the logic used for the formalisation, hidden choices permeate the formalisations that have rendered them incompatible. We aim to address these problems, first, by structuring the logic design process in a methodological way. We generalise and extend the DSL design process to logic language design. In particular, a new phase of ontological analysis of language features is included, to apply to logic language design more generally and, in particular, by incorporating an ontological analysis of language features in the process. Second, we specify minimal logic profiles availing of this extended process, including the ontological commitments embedded in the languages, of evidence gathered of language feature usage, and of computational complexity insights from Description Logics (DL). The profiles characterise the essential logic structure needed to handle the semantics of conceptual models, therewith enabling the development of interoperability tools. No known DL language matches exactly the features of those profiles and the common core is in the tractable DL ACJfl. Although hardly any inconsistencies can be derived with the profiles, it is promising for scalable runtime use of conceptual data models.Existen varias reconstrucciones basadas en lógica de lenguajes de modelado conceptual como EER, diagramas de clases UML y ORM. Principalmente cubren fragmentos de estos lenguajes, y sus formalizaciones no están hechas para que se apliquen simultáneamente a estas tres familias de lenguajes como un mecanismo de unificación. Este hecho atenta contra el intercambio y la interoperabilidad de los modelos y el desarrollo de herramientas de soporte. Además, dada la falta de un proceso sistemático de diseño, ciertas decisiones ocultas en la representación lógica hacen que las formalizaciones sean incompatibles. En este trabajo nos proponemos atacar este problema, proponiendo primero un proceso de diseño lógico que puede ser aplicado en forma metodológica. Se generaliza y extiende el proceso DSL para que se pueda aplicar al diseño de lenguajes lógicos en general, incorporando análisis ontológico de las características del lenguaje. Segundo, se especifican perfiles lógicos minimales que sacan provecho de este proceso extendido, incluyendo los compromisos ontológicos asumidos, de evidencia de uso de las características del lenguaje, y de los propiedades computacionales de las Lógicas Descriptivas (DL, description logics). Estos perfiles caracterizan la estructura lógica esencial que se necesita para manejar la semántica de los modelos conceptuales, habilitando el desarrollo de herramientas automáticas de interoperabilidad. No existe correspondencia exacta directa entre estos perfiles y fragmentos conocidos de lenguajes DL, y el núcleo común es pequeño (la lógica tratable ACNT). Aunque es muy poca la posibilidad de derivar inconsistencias dentro de estos perfiles, es prometedor su uso en modelos conceptuales dado su complejidad en tiempo escalable.Facultad de Informátic

Pitfalls in Ontologies and TIPS to Prevent Them

Abstract. A growing number of ontologies are already available thanks to development initiatives in many different fields. In such ontology developments, developers must tackle a wide range of difficulties and handicaps, which can result in the appearance of anomalies in the resulting ontologies. Therefore, ontology evaluation plays a key role in ontology development. OOPS! is an on-line tool that automatically detects pitfalls, considered as potential errors or problems-and thus may help ontology developers to improve their ontologies. To gain insight in the existence of pitfalls and to assess whether there are differences among ontologies developed by novices, a random set of already scanned ontologies, and existing well-known ones, data of 406 OWL ontologies were analysed on OOPS!'s 21 pitfalls, of which 24 ontologies were also examined manually on the detected pitfalls. The various analyses performed show only minor differences between the three sets of ontologies, therewith providing a general landscape of pitfalls in ontologies. We also propose guidelines to avoid the inclusion of such common pitfalls in new ontologies, the Typical pItfalls Prevention Scheme (TIPS), so as to increase the baseline quality of OWL ontologies