ER2013

1. ER2013 KSE Lab Meeting December 2013

2. Paper 1: Ontologies for International Standards for Software Engineering • Addresses issue of terminological and semantic differences between International standards • The solution: A hierarchy of ontologies that begin at the foundational level and then become more specific for a single or group of standards/technical working groups Authors: Brian Henderson-Sellers, Tom McBride - Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney Graham Low - School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales Cesar Gonzalez-Perez - Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

3. Core Structure • Create a foundational ontology sourced from ontology engineering field e.g. sortals • DEO – Definitional Element Ontology • Represents a taxonomy of rigorously defined terms and the relationships between them • CDO stands for Configured Domain Ontology • Effectively a customised “copy” of the DEO • SDO stands for Standard Domain Ontology • A metamodel that a standard or technical working groups can instantiate to build their own ontology Authors: Brian Henderson-Sellers, Tom McBride - Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney Graham Low - School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales Cesar Gonzalez-Perez - Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

4. Paper 2: Semantic-Based Mappings • Traditionally mappings are developed between source and target schema • Investigates how the mapping process changes when a conceptual schema for a target database is available • Contribution • Employs non-recursive Datalog with limited negation • Rewrite algorithm based on the idea of unfolding views in mapping conclusions • More complex when view definition language allows negation Authors: Giansalvatore Mecca - Universit`a della Basilicata – Potenza, Italy GuillemRull, Ernest Teniente - UniversitatPolit`ecnica de Catalunya – Barcelona, Spain Donatello Santoro - Universit`a Roma Tre – Roma, Italy

5. Mappings represented using tgds and egds • Evaluation based on following factors • Effectiveness • Compares size of the source-to-semantic mapping users need to specify vs auto-generated mappings • Auto-generated increases size of dependency graph by an average 70% • Scalability • Large Scenarios testing unfolding algorithm with increasing levels of negation • Source level relations ranged from 10k – 80k • View definitions ranged from 30k – 240k • Target level relations ranged from 60k – 480k • Results do not exceed 0.9 secs compared to standard algorithms which take hours for small scenarios • Large Datasets • Scales well (up to 1 million database tuples) Authors: Giansalvatore Mecca - Universit`a della Basilicata – Potenza, Italy GuillemRull, Ernest Teniente - UniversitatPolit`ecnica de Catalunya – Barcelona, Spain Donatello Santoro - Universit`a Roma Tre – Roma, Italy

6. Paper 3: Towards Ontological Foundations for the Conceptual Modeling of Events • Goal: To provide a more rigorous ontological account of events • Motivation • To provide a more complete ontological account of events • Extends Unified Foundational Ontology: UFO-B • Formalises • Notion of events as manifestations of object dispositions • parthood in events • Temporal relations • Situations (bound to specific time-points) Authors: Giancarlo Guizzardi, Ricardo de Almeida Falbo, Renata S.S. Guizzardi and Joao Paulo A. Almeida Ontology and Conceptual Modelling Research Group (NEMO), Fed. Uni. of Espírito Santo (UFES), Brazil GerdWagner - Institute of Informatics, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany

7. Contribution(s) • Extends previous ontological treatment of events from previous work • Provides a comprehensive axiomatisation • Relevance to my research • Potential for implementation in our ontology as events are covered in ISO 15926 • Would need to check compatibility to ‘Event’ in YAMATO and suitability to ISO 15926 Authors: Giancarlo Guizzardi, Ricardo de Almeida Falbo, Renata S.S. Guizzardi and Joao Paulo A. Almeida Ontology and Conceptual Modelling Research Group (NEMO), Fed. Uni. of Espírito Santo (UFES), Brazil GerdWagner - Institute of Informatics, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany

8. Paper 4: Is Traditional Conceptual Modelling Becoming Obsolete? • Authors claim that with heterogeneous distributed information systems, analysis of requirements is very difficult and is likely to guarantee certain users will not be represented in the formal model • Representation by abstraction pre-supposes consensus among stakeholders but is limited in the above case • Authors lists several approaches to resolve issue: • Reduce the extent and depth of specification (i.e. barely good enough models) • Domain ontologies – although authors write this off by stating they may neglect all valid views and thereby inhibit domain understanding (self-author citation) • Allow users to dynamically modify model but points out that issues arise concerning cooperative schema evolution, etc Authors: Roman Lukyanenkoand Jeffrey Parsons - Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland

9. Author proposes ‘instance-based’ data models • Users can provide information based on their own conceptualisation of reality • Evaluation • Authors state multiple statistical-based tests • Focus on ‘citizen-science’ • Users can simply add new attributes to instances • e.g. ‘Mallard Duck’ has-attribute ‘has webbed feet’ Authors: Roman Lukyanenkoand Jeffrey Parsons - Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland