Title:
"Ontology Clinic-A: FIBO Ontology Evaluation with OOPS! and other
Tools"
Abstract
This ontology clinic aims to explore the application of ontology
quality measures to ontologies produced under the Financial Industry
Business Ontology (FIBO) umbrella.
In this clinic we will explore the application of the OOPS! and
OQuare methodologies and tools to two styles of ontology developed
under the FIBO umbrella: Business Conceptual Ontologies (BCOs) which
are the FIBO standards themselves; and example “Operational
Ontologies” derived from these for deployment in semantic technology
applications. We would look to establish which types of measure
should be applied to each type of ontology and apply the relevant
tools and techniques to these.
From this activity we hope to make the first steps towards defining
a formal quality process for the future development of formal
standards under the FIBO umbrella, a set of quality assurance
parameters for users who need to extend the FIBO BCO locally for
their own conceptual semantic modeling, and a set of guidance notes,
validation and verification techniques etc. for developers of
semantic technology applications based on the FIBO standards.
Collaborators
OOPS!
Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa, María Poveda-Villalón,
Ontology Engineering Group. Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial.
Facultad de Informática, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain.
OQuaRE
Jesualdo Tomás Fernández-Breis, Astrid Duque-Ramos
Departamento de Informática y Sistemas, Universidad de Murcia,
Spain.
Others
We are open to working with any and all others who may have tools,
techniques or methodological material which may be applied either to
business conceptual ontologies, to operational OWL ontologies or
both.
Ontologies Involved:
We anticipate bringing at least two kinds of FIBO ontology to the
table:
• FIBO Business Conceptual Ontologies (the proposed FIBO
standards)
• FIBO Operational Ontologies
For these, we expect to bring the following to this Clinic:
Conceptual
• FIBO Business Entities
• FIBO Foundations
Operational
We have a number of “Proof of Concept” ontologies under development
at present. These are highly modular, so any one proof of concept
application involves a number of ontologies working together within
a given application.
Subject to confirmation from the EDM Council “Proof of Concept”
team, we hope to be able to provide ontologies for:
• Interest rate swaps
• Business Entities
• Business entity ownership and control hierarchies
• Credit Default Swaps (CDS)
Note that these have been developed in parallel with the BCOs as
proofs of concepts, not as productized ontologies, so the
application of the quality measures explored in this Clinic will
help towards the development and derivation of similar ontologies
directly from the FIBO BCOs.
Objectives / goals:
Background
FIBO is being developed as a series of “Business Conceptual
Ontologies” (BCO) for concepts in the financial industry, that is
ontologies which represent industry terms, definitions and
relationships at the level of conceptual models. Conceptual models,
by definition, should not reflect application constraints. From
these, we anticipate that users would derive operational ontologies
for specific use cases, which would of course be subject to the
relevant application constraints.
An open question in the development of the FIBO BCOs is what
ontology quality measures should be applied to these ontologies, and
which of the established OWL modeling best practices are applicable
to such an ontology. That is, which of the things you would expect
to see in a semantic technology application, can or should be
applied to the conceptual ontologies without compromising their
requirements as conceptual models.
To complicate this question further, the BCOs are intended to be
presented to business domain subject matter experts for validation,
and local extensions of the BCO are intended to be understood and
maintained as a business domain asset not a technical deliverable.
To this end, some compromises have been made in the way that the OWL
language is used – and some of those compromises can be undone once
there are better ways of presenting these ontologies to a business
audience.
Meanwhile, we expect potential users of the standards to derive
“operational ontologies” from the conceptual ontologies, just as a
conventional application developer would develop logical designs
from conceptual models or requirements catalogs. These operational
ontologies must of course be subject to the quality requirements of
any application (validation and/or verification of the delivered
item against the stated business requirements), and since they are
OWL ontologies, must be subject to the quality constraints that are
applicable to operational OWL ontologies generally.
Objectives:
The objectives of this clinic are as follows:
A: Business Conceptual Ontology
• Identify the relevant quality measures for FIBO BCOs
• Apply these measures to FIBO-Business Entities and its imports
from FIBO-Foundations using the available tools
• Consider how this can inform the formal methodology for FIBO
development
B: Operational Ontologies
• Identify the relevant quality measures for a FIBO-derived
Operational Ontology
• Apply these to one or more candidate operational ontologies
• Identify how the application use case can be shown to be
satisfied by the operational ontology
• See whether this can be formalized in such a way that formal
“Conformance Points” can be defined which are of a suitable level of
clarity and repeatability to be included in the OMG specification as
formal Conformance criteria
• Even where these requirements and tests cannot be formalized,
consider what application guidelines can be created around these
tools and techniques, to guide users of FIBO in creating robust
ontology based applications which conform to their stated user
requirements
Deliverables
• Elements of a formal methodology for development of FIBO
Business Conceptual Ontologies
• Elements of a formal methodology for local extension of FIBO
BCOs by end users, to create their own ontologies at the same
conceptual level (for onward use either in conventional technology
model driven development, data integration or the development of
operational ontologies for semantic processing)
• Formal conformance points for operational ontologies (new
textual material for future versions of the FIBO OMG specifications)
• Notes and “how to” material for developers of semantic
technology applications that use FIBO
Remarks
We see this clinic as a vital first step in our development both of
the formal methodologies for FIBO standards development and of the
conformance points and developer guidance necessary for end users to
make practical use of FIBO in semantic technology-based
applications.
Resources / References:
OOPS!
Web based OOPS! Resource site:
http://oeg-lia3.dia.fi.upm.es/oops/index-content.jsp
Publications:
http://2012.eswc-conferences.org/sites/default/files/eswc2012_submission_322.pdf
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-01-31_OntologySummit2013_OntologyEvaluation-IntrinsicAspects/OntologySummit2013_Ontology-pitfalls-OOPS--PovedaVillalon-SuarezFigueroa-GomezPerez_20130131.pdf
OQuaRE
Publications:
http://ws.acs.org.au/jrpit/JRPITVolumes/JRPIT43/JRPIT43.2.159.pdf
Best regards,
Mike Bennett
|
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (01)
|