REVERSE ENGINEERING A DOMAIN ONTOLOGY TO UNCOVER FUNDAMENTAL ONTOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS - An Industrial Case Study in the Domain of Oil and Gas Production and Exploration

Mauro Lopes, Giancarlo Guizzardi, Fernanda Araujo Baião, Ricardo Falbo

Abstract

Ontologies are commonly used in computer science either as a reference model to support semantic interoperability in several scenarios, or as a computer-tractable artifact that should be efficiently represented to be processed. This duality poses a tradeoff between expressivity and computational tractability that should be taken care of in different phases of an ontology engineering process. In this scenario, the choice of the ontology representation language is crucial, since different languages contain different expressivity and ontological commitments, reflecting on the specific set of available constructs. The inadequate use of a representation language, disregarding the goal of each ontology engineering phase, can lead to serious problems to database design and integration, to domain and systems requirements analysis within the software development processes, to knowledge representation and automated reasoning, and so on. This article presents an illustration of these issues by using a fragment of an industrial case study in the domain of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. We make explicit the differences between two different representations of this domain, and highlight a number of concepts and ideas (tacit domain knowledge) that were implicit in the original model represented using a lightweight ontology language and that became explicit by applying methodological directives underlying an ontologically well-founded modeling language.

References

  1. Artale, A., Keet, M., 2008. Essential and Mandatory PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Data Models, 21st Int Workshop Description Logics.
  2. Baião, F. et al., 2008. Towards a Data Integration Approach based on Business Process Models and Domain Ontologies. 10th Int Conf on Enterprise IS (ICEIS2008), Barcelona, 338-342.
  3. Burek, P. et al., 2006. A top-level ontology of functions and its application in the Open Biomedical Ontologies. Bioinformatics 22(14), pp. e66-e73.
  4. Cappelli, C. et al., 2007. An Approach for Constructing Domain Ontologies from Business Process Models (in Portuguese), II Workshop on Ontologies and Metamodeling in Software and Data Engineering (WOMSDE), João Pessoa.
  5. Chum, F., 2007. Use Case: Ontology-Driven Information Integration and Delivery - A Survey of Semantic Web Technology in the Oil and Gas Industry, W3C. Available in: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Ch evron/. Accessed in Dec 2007.
  6. Fielding, J. et al., 2004. Ontological Theory for Ontology Engineering. Int Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), Canada.
  7. Guarino, N., 1998, Formal Ontology and Information Systems. 1st Int Conf on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems, 3-15, Trento.
  8. Guizzardi, G., 2005. Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models, Telematica Instituut Fundamental Research Series 15, ISBN 90-75176-81- 3, Universal Press.
  9. Guizzardi, G.; Halpin, T., 2008. Ontological Foundations for Conceptual Modeling, Applied Ontology 2 (1-2), pp. 91-110, ISSN 1570-5838.
  10. Guizzardi, G.; Wagner, G., 2008. Whats in a Relationship: An Ontological Analysis, 27th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2008), Barcelona. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, v.5231, p.83 - 97, 2008.
  11. das Graças, A. 2008. Extending a Model-Based Tool for Ontologically Well-Founded Conceptual Modeling with Rule Visualization Support. Computer Engineering Monograph, NEMO Research Group, Federal University of Espirito Santo, Brazil.
  12. Keet, M.; Artale, A., “Representing and Reasoning over a Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations”, in Guizzardi, G. and Halpin, T. (Editors), Special Issue on Ontological Foundations for Conceptual Modeling, Applied Ontology, pp. 91-110, Volume 3, Number 1-2 / 2008, ISSN 1570-5838.
  13. Levesque, H.; Brachman, R. 1987., Expressiveness and Tractability in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Computational Intelligence 3 (1), pp.78- 93.
  14. Thomas, J. E., 2001, Fundamentals of Petroleum Engineering, Interciência (in Portuguese).
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Lopes M., Guizzardi G., Araujo Baião F. and Falbo R. (2009). REVERSE ENGINEERING A DOMAIN ONTOLOGY TO UNCOVER FUNDAMENTAL ONTOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS - An Industrial Case Study in the Domain of Oil and Gas Production and Exploration . In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8111-86-9, pages 262-267. DOI: 10.5220/0002014902620267


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis09,
author={Mauro Lopes and Giancarlo Guizzardi and Fernanda Araujo Baião and Ricardo Falbo},
title={REVERSE ENGINEERING A DOMAIN ONTOLOGY TO UNCOVER FUNDAMENTAL ONTOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS - An Industrial Case Study in the Domain of Oil and Gas Production and Exploration},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2009},
pages={262-267},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002014902620267},
isbn={978-989-8111-86-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - REVERSE ENGINEERING A DOMAIN ONTOLOGY TO UNCOVER FUNDAMENTAL ONTOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS - An Industrial Case Study in the Domain of Oil and Gas Production and Exploration
SN - 978-989-8111-86-9
AU - Lopes M.
AU - Guizzardi G.
AU - Araujo Baião F.
AU - Falbo R.
PY - 2009
SP - 262
EP - 267
DO - 10.5220/0002014902620267