A comparison of UML and OWL in the travel domain

Jennifer Sampson

2004

Abstract

Recent research has focused towards determining the efficacy of using UML as an ontology modelling language [6, 7, 8, 12]. In this paper we compare the use of UML with the Web Ontology Language – OWL for modelling the travel domain. One conclusion resulting from this study is that OWL and UML were devised with different motivations, and for supporting different types of application domains. Owl benefits from a solid theoretical basis in description logic, which means it has a well defined semantics, formal properties are well understood, and there are known reasoning algorithms and implementations of the language. In addition to the model comparison we propose an ontology quality framework. The quality framework is one step towards defining quality measures for ontology modelling.

References

  1. AIFB Case.: NL description of the traveling domain at URL: http://km.aifb.unikarlsruhe.de/eon2002 (2002)
  2. Atkins, C.: INTECoM: An integrated conceptual data modelling framework, Unpublished Thesis, Department of Information Systems, Massey University, New Zealand (2000)
  3. Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.K., Kogut, P.A., Hart, L., Smith, J., and Letkowski, J.: Extending the Unified Modelling Language for ontology development, Software Systems Model, Special Issue UML 2002, vol 1 (2002) 1-15
  4. Berners-Lee, T. Hendler. J, and Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web, Scientific American. (2001)
  5. Booch. G, Rumbaugh. G, and Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison Wesley (1999)
  6. Chang. W.W.: A Discussion of the Relationship Between RDF-Schema and UML. W3C Note, URL http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-rdf-uml/ Aug (1998)
  7. Cranefield, S. and Purvis, M.: UML as an ontology modelling language. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration, 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99). (1999)
  8. Cranefield, S.: UML and the Semantic Web, Feb. 2001. ISSN 1172-6024. Discussion paper. (2001)
  9. Gruber, T. R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications, Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), (1993) 199-220.
  10. Krogstie, J., Lindland O.I and Sindre, G.: Towards a deeper understanding of Quality in Requirements Engineering, Proceedings of 7th CAiSE, Jyvaskyla, Finland (1995)
  11. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G and Sølvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modelling, IEEE Software, March (1994) 42-49.
  12. Melnik, S.: Representing UML in RDF. URL http://www-db.stanford.edu/˜melnik/rdf/uml/ (2000)
  13. Moody, D. and Shanks, G.: What Makes a Good Data Model? A Framework for Evaluating and Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models, The Australian Computer Journal, 30(3) (1998) 97-110
  14. Noy, N. and McGuinness, D.L.: "Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology". Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, March (2001)
  15. OMG Inc.: OMG-Unified Modeling Language Specification, v1.5. An Adopted Formal Specification of the Object Management Group, (2003)
  16. Pan J. and Horrocks, I.: Metamodeling Architecture of Web Ontology Languages. In: Cruz I. F. et al. (Eds.). The Emerging Semantic Web. IOS Press. (2002)
  17. Pohl, K.: The three dimensions of requirements engineering: A Framework and its applications, Information Systems, 19(3) (1994) 243-258.
  18. Protégé.: The Protege Project.http://protege.stanford.edu (2000)
  19. Sølvberg, A.: Data and what they refer to. In: P.P.Chen et al.(eds.): Conceptual Modeling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, (1999) 211-226
  20. Web Ontology Working Group.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview W3C CandidateRecommendation 18 August 2003, http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-features20030818/ (2003a)
  21. Web Ontology Working Group.: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema (2003b)
  22. Web Ontology Working Group Working Draft, http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdfschema-20030123/ 23 January (2003)
  23. Web Ontology Working Group.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference W3C Candidate Recommendation 18 August 2003, http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-ref-20030818/ (2003c)
  24. Web Ontology Working Group.: OWL Web Ontology Semantics and Abstract Syntax. W3C Candidate Recommendation 18 August 2003, http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owlsemantics-20030818/ (2003d)
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Sampson J. (2004). A comparison of UML and OWL in the travel domain . In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Web Services: Modeling, Architecture and Infrastructure - Volume 1: WSMAI, (ICEIS 2004) ISBN 972-8865-09-0, pages 36-48. DOI: 10.5220/0002678300360048


in Bibtex Style

@conference{wsmai04,
author={Jennifer Sampson},
title={A comparison of UML and OWL in the travel domain},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Web Services: Modeling, Architecture and Infrastructure - Volume 1: WSMAI, (ICEIS 2004)},
year={2004},
pages={36-48},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002678300360048},
isbn={972-8865-09-0},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Web Services: Modeling, Architecture and Infrastructure - Volume 1: WSMAI, (ICEIS 2004)
TI - A comparison of UML and OWL in the travel domain
SN - 972-8865-09-0
AU - Sampson J.
PY - 2004
SP - 36
EP - 48
DO - 10.5220/0002678300360048