Next Generation of ISO/IEC 11179 Metadata Registries Applicability for Open Ontology Repositories

1. Next Generation of ISO/IEC 11179 Metadata Registries Applicability for Open Ontology Repositories Bruce Bargmeyer University of California/Berkeley Lab May 22, 2008 “Metadata DownUnder”:11th Open Forum on Metadata Registries Sydney, NSW Australia Sharing and advancing knowledge and experience about standards, technologies and implementations. 

2. Topics • Use cases for Edition 3 of 11179 • Proposals for Edition 3 • Related effort: Open Ontology Repository • Requirements for OOR • ISO/IEC 11179 and 19763 and OOR • Potential Applications for 11179 and OOR

3. Contamination Biological Radioactive Chemical mercury lead cadmium Use Case: Combine Data, Metadata & Concept Systems Inference Search Query: “find water bodies downstream from Fletcher Creek where chemical contamination was over 10 micrograms per liter between December 2001 and March 2003” Concept system: Data: Metadata:

4. Use Case: Find and process non-explicit data For example… Patient data on drugs contains brand names (e.g. Tylenol, Anacin-3, Datril,…); However, want to study patients taking analgesic agents Analgesic Agent Non-Narcotic Analgesic Analgesic and Antipyretic Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drug Acetominophen Datril Tylenol Anacin-3

5. Use Case: Specify and compute across Relations, e.g., within a food web in an Arctic ecosystem An organism is connected to another organism for which it is a source of food energy and material by an arrow representing the direction of biomass transfer. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_web#Food_web (from SPIRE)

6. Use case: Use data from systems that record the same facts with different terms • Reduce the human toil of drawing information together and performing analysis -> shift to computer processing.

7. Dublin Core Registries Software Component Registries Common Content Common Content Use Case: Use data from systems that record the same facts with different terms Database Catalogs Common Content ISO 11179Registries UDDIRegistries Table Column Data Element Common Content Common Content Business Specification Country Identifier OASIS/ebXMLRegistries CASE Tool Repositories XML Tag Attribute Common Content Common Content Business Object TermHierarchy Coverage OntologicalRegistries Common Content

8. Name: Country Identifiers Context: Definition: Unique ID: 5769 Conceptual Domain: Maintenance Org.: Steward: Classification: Registration Authority: Others DataElementConcept Algeria Belgium China Denmark Egypt France . . . Zimbabwe Same Fact, Different Terms Data Elements Algeria Belgium China Denmark Egypt France . . . Zimbabwe L`Algérie Belgique Chine Danemark Egypte La France . . . Zimbabwe DZ BE CN DK EG FR . . . ZW DZA BEL CHN DNK EGY FRA . . . ZWE 012 056 156 208 818 250 . . . 716 Name: Context: Definition: Unique ID: 4572 Value Domain: Maintenance Org. Steward: Classification: Registration Authority: Others ISO 3166 3-Alpha Code ISO 3166 English Name ISO 3166 French Name ISO 3166 2-Alpha Code ISO 3166 3-Numeric Code

9. Use Case: Draw information together from a broad range of studies, databases, reports, etc.

10. Use Case: Gain Common Understanding of meaning between Data Creators and Data Users text text data data environ agriculture climate human health industry tourism soil water air ambiente agricultura tiempo salud hunano industria turismo tierra agua aero 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 3268 0825 1348 5038 2708 0000 2178 3268 0825 1348 5038 2708 0000 2178 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 3268 0825 1348 5038 2708 0000 2178 3268 0825 1348 5038 2708 0000 2178 A common interpretation of what the data represents EEA USGS text data environ agriculture climate human health industry tourism soil water air DoD 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 3268 0825 1348 5038 2708 0000 2178 3268 0825 1348 5038 2708 0000 2178 Users text data environ agriculture climate human health industry tourism soil water air EPA 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 3268 0825 1348 5038 2708 0000 2178 3268 0825 1348 5038 2708 0000 2178 text data 3268 0825 1348 5038 2708 0000 2178 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 ambiente agricultura tiempo salud huno industria turismo tierra agua aero 123 345 445 670 248 591 308 3268 0825 1348 5038 Others . . . Users Information systems Data Creation

11. Users Metadata Registry Concept SystemThesaurus Themes Ontology GEMET Data Standards Structured Metadata Concept System Store Concept systems: Keywords Controlled Vocabularies Thesauri Taxonomies Ontologies Axiomatized Ontologies (Essentially graphs: node-relation-node + axioms) } ISO/IEC 11179 Metadata Registry

12. Users Metadata Registry Concept SystemThesaurus Themes Ontology GEMET Data Standards Structured Metadata Management of Concept Systems Concept system: Registration Harmonization Standardization Acceptance (vetting) Mapping (correspondences) } ISO/IEC 11179 Metadata Registry

13. Users Metadata Registry Concept SystemThesaurus Themes Ontology GEMET Data Standards Structured Metadata Life Cycle Management } Life cycle management: Data and Concept systems (ontologies) ISO/IEC 11179 Metadata Registry

14. Users Metadata Registry Concept SystemThesaurus Themes Ontology GEMET Data Standards Structured Metadata Grounding Semantics Metadata Registries Semantic Web RDF Triples Subject (node URI) Verb (relation URI) Object (node URI) Ontologies ISO/IEC 11179 Metadata Registry

15. Proposals for ISO/IEC 11179 Edition 3 • Work underway since Edition 2 was published about 5 years ago. • Revisions proposed for UML model in 11179 Part 3 • UML model is also translated to an OWL ontology • Proposals discussed in WG 2 and National Body SDOs. • Proposals posted to Bugzilla at: issues.metadata-standards.org • Some proposals initiated by the eXtended Metadata Registry (XMDR) project. • See XMDR.org Wiki for current proposed UML model and ontology

16. Progress on Edition 3 • Committee Draft was balloted for ISO/IEC 11179 Part 3, hundreds of comments were received. All comments were resolved at December 2007, Korea meeting of WG2. However many detailed model changes and new text are required. • Work is underway to revise text and model to prepare Committee Draft 2 of ISO/IEC 11179 Part 3. • Ray Gates from Canada is the Editor for Part 3, Kevin Keck from USA developed many of the proposed changes and maintains the model.

17. Progress on Edition 3 • XMDR project built a prototype to test and validate proposals for Edition 3. • Live prototype is at xmdr.org • Prototype is loaded with content representing 11179 Edition 2 (for backward compatibility) and new types of content envisioned for Edition 3: concept systems including ontologies.

18. Third Party Software Modular XMDR Archtitecture USERS Web Browsers…..Client Software Metadata Sources concept systems, data elements Content Loading & Transformation (Lexgrid & custom) Application Program Interface (REST) Human User Interface (HTML fromJSP and javascript; Exhibit) Authentication Service Validation (XML Schema) Mapping Engine Search & Content Serving (Jena, Lucene) Metamodel specs (UML & Editing) (Poseidon, Protege) XMDR data model & exchange format XML, RDF, OWL Logic Indexer (Jena & Pellet) Text Indexer (Lucene) Registry Store standard XMDR files XMDR metamodel (OWL & xml schema) standard XMDR files Text Index Logic Index standard XMDR files standard XMDR files Postgres Database

19. Related Effort Open Ontology Repository • You are invited to participate

20. Ontology Summit • NIST, NSF, MITRE, National Center for Ontological Research (NCOR), and others organized an Ontology Summit meeting held in April 2008. (The third in a series.) • The theme of the 2008 Ontology Summit was the vision for an Open Ontology Repository. This vision forms a base for the international Open Ontology Repository community. • This year's summit supported development of such a repository (or set of repositories) by serving as a venue - both virtual and face-to-face - in which many of the issues relating to the design, implementation, and ongoing use of an ontology repository were discussed and a communiqué was issues. • This was the third in a series of Ontology Summit meetings 

21. Two Thrusts • The theoretical aspects are discussed in Ontology-Summit Forum • See: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008 • See: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008 • The practical aspects of building an Open Ontology Repository are pursued in the OOR-Forum. • See: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository

22. OOR Charter • Promote the global use and sharing of ontologies by: • Establishing a hosted registry-repository • Enabling and facilitating open, federated, collaborative ontology repositories; • Establishing best practices for expressing interoperable ontology and taxonomy work in registry-repositories.

23. Key Issues • OpenOntologyRepository_Scope - documentation related to this OOR initiative's mission, charter, objectives, goals, terms of reference, definitions, scope, ... etc. • OpenOntologyRepository_Requirement - documentation related to the requirements of the "open ontology repository" to be implemented through the OOR initiative. • OpenOntologyRepository_UseCases • OpenOntologyRepository_Approach - documentation related to this OOR initiative's approach, and the process to use. • OpenOntologyRepository_Architecture - documentation related to the architecture of the "open ontology repository" to be implemented through the OOR initiative. • OpenOntologyRepository_Plan - documentation related to the OOR initiative's deliverables, timeline, milestones & deadlines, project plans, etc.

24. Scope • An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed.

25. Message from Leo Obrst (MITRE) “I'd advise folks to look over xmdr.org (eXtended Metadata Registry) before they re-invent 95% of the wheels, including definitions, architecture, requirements, use cases, etc. Although XMDR, like the ISO “11179 Metadata Registry standard, is concerned with more than an ontology registry/repository, their notions are extremely salient to our effort. And no, I am not involved in XMDR, and am only interested in seeing that good work is recognized, and possible duplication of effort is avoided.”

26. Functional Requirements of a Repository for RDF/OWL * • Provide Capability to Submit an Ontology to the Repository • Extract administrative and descriptive data from the metadata fields of an OWL ontology • Metadata should follow existing metadata standards • Submitted items should be tracked with version numbers (after determining the levels of granularity needed for versioning) • Generate a meta-card entry for the ontology • Provide Centralized Data Storage. • Ontology metadata (ontology metadata includes the source, date, version number and other core metadata as defined by appropriate standards bodies) • OWL ontology • RDF store • Linkage to XML and database data and documents • Metrics and Logging Requirements. • Provide data access and storage metrics. • Provide audit logs of repository activity * Functional requirements proposed by LeoObrst on 2008.01.03

27. Functional Requirements of a Repository for RDF/OWL (2) • Provide User Services via a Web Interface to • Search metadata indices • Link from the metadata index to the specific OWL or RDF storage location • Browse repository contents • Provide visual representation of ontologies • Search RDF instance stores with ontology-assistance • Specify agent-directed searches of instance store content • Machine User Services • Query repository and triples store using a conceptual query language, such as SPARQL • Query the repository and triples store using REST • Query the repository and triples store using SOAP • Use an API to programmatically create, view, and modify repository contents • Define machine services in appropriate machine-interpretable format, such as OWL-S

28. Functional Requirements of a Repository for RDF/OWL (3) • Provide a Repository of Downloadable Web Tools • Define a process with criteria for determining what kinds of tools to make available • Provide an index to available tools • Provide search capability to available tools • Validation Requirements • Validate an OWL ontology to ensure that it is valid OWL • Confirm the RDF against its terminology defined in RDFS

29. Functional Requirements of a Repository for RDF/OWL (4) • OWL Services • Browsing Services • Query Services • Indexing Services • Provides services for external search engines and entity extractors to index and mine repository contents • Visualization Services • Edit Services • Validation Services • Annotation Services • Web-Page Markup • Semantic Search Services • Crawl and Index

30. Functional Requirements of a Repository for RDF/OWL (5) • Reasoning Services • Provide services to check ontology consistency, build classification, verify concepts’ satisfiability and check entailment • Provide services to support rules and execute minimally automated deductive reasoning and proof • Import Services • Support importing of modular ontologies into larger ontologies; this is at least partially a function of the knowledge representation language itself.

31. Functional Requirements of a Repository for RDF/OWL (6) • Semantic Mapping Services • Schema Translation • Automatically generate translation code between database schemas with an OWL mapping specification • Visually-aided Mapping • A user would generate a mapping between an existing ontology and the ontology expected by the custom visualization tool. The data would then be translated according to the mappings. The resulting data can then be viewed by the custom visualization tool • Disambiguation • A user would generate a mapping between multiple ontologies to identify where classes and properties are the same. The data from multiple sources could then be imported into a repository where a reasoning tool can determine what objects are the same. The results could then be viewed in a browser

32. Functional Requirements of a Repository for RDF/OWL (7) • Ontology and Instance Versioning Services • Provide services to support semantic versioning of ontologies and knowledge bases (instances).   • Terminology to Concept Mapping Services • Provide services to support mapping user terminology to the concepts that represent the meaning of that terminology, using thesauri, lexicons, and other terminological resources.   

33. ISO/IEC 11179 & 19763 and OOR Ontology Evolution Common Facility for MDR/MMF ISO/IEC19502(MOF) ISO/IEC11179 (MDR) ISO/IEC 19763 (MMF) Content Management Metamodels for Basic Ontology Constructs Registration Metamodel XMDR Registry Query Service ODM Metamodel f or CL Normative Basic Elements ODM Metamodel for OWL Terminology Basic Classes Basic Relationship Ontologies Analysis and Extraction Registering From Prof. Hajime Horiuchi

34. eXtended Metadata Registry (XMDR) What XMDR Brings to the Table: • Use cases and Requirements • Potential design specifications • Proposed specifications for ISO/IEC 11179 Edition 3 – A UML Model, definitions, and OWL ontology • Modular software architecture and open source software modules • Open Source XMDR software • Test content – concept systems including thesauri, taxonomies, ontologies • A group of participants (XMDR project) that has considerable experience in this area. See: XMDR.org

35. GEO/GEOSS/GMES • The work addresses information challenges identified by major initiatives including the Intergovernmental Group on Earth Observations (GEO), Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES). The techniques and technologies developed will be useful for GEO/GEOSS/GMES. In particular, this work addresses priority challenges identified by the GEOSS Architecture & Data Management (ADM) committee to “enable increased interoperability across existing data management systems: • Identify & address integration gaps in data management systems • Utilize community standards for data & metadata • Enable integrated measurements, data, products & predictive models • Examine the need for future data management requirements.” • Architecture & Data Management (ADM) Working Group Report February 22, 2007. See: http://usgeo.gov/docs/USGEO%20Progress%20Report%202007-0321.pdf

36. GEOSS Architecture • The OOR effort presents an opportunity to • move the XMDR results from R&D & Standards toward provision of key infrastructure for GEOSS & GMES • Demonstrate the utility of ISO/IEC 11179 and ISO/IEC 19763 • As the OOR group proceeds, we can convey the OOR developments to GEO/GEOSS/GMES, particularly the GEOSS ADM for inclusion in the registry portion of the GEOSS architecture.

37. Next Steps • Presentations to OOR participants about ISO/IEC 11179, ISO/IEC 19763 and XMDR • Interaction with the OOR effort • Extend the OOR and XMDR efforts to propose use by GEOSS ADM and GMES • Demonstrate XMDR in Ecoinformatics Test Bed • For GEOSS, do the work necessary to register the components (GEMET, XMDR) and register the services

38. Acknowledgements • Hajime Horiuchi, Tokyo International University • Kevin Keck, LBNL • John McCarthy LBNL • Leo Obrst, MITRE • Harold Solbrig, Apelon • Peter Yim, CIM Engineering, Inc. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0637122, and USEPA. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, USEPA or USDOD.