Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| arch:knowledge_description_methods [2021/10/17 16:37] – created aazubarev | arch:knowledge_description_methods [2026/08/29 07:59] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| Ontologies can be classified by the level of abstraction [5] (from highest to lowest): | Ontologies can be classified by the level of abstraction [5] (from highest to lowest): | ||
| + | |||
| * Upper/ | * Upper/ | ||
| + | |||
| Describe rather general concepts independent from a particular domain. Provide semantic interoperability between domain specific ontologies by using core glossary. | Describe rather general concepts independent from a particular domain. Provide semantic interoperability between domain specific ontologies by using core glossary. | ||
| + | |||
| * Domain and task ontologies. | * Domain and task ontologies. | ||
| + | |||
| Represent definitions of a specific domain (e.g., airplanes or software) or a task (e.g., controlling a vehicle, developing software). | Represent definitions of a specific domain (e.g., airplanes or software) or a task (e.g., controlling a vehicle, developing software). | ||
| + | |||
| * Application ontologies. | * Application ontologies. | ||
| + | |||
| Describe concepts used in a particular application within the domain/ | Describe concepts used in a particular application within the domain/ | ||
| Line 32: | Line 38: | ||
| Topic map consists of 3 main structural objects: | Topic map consists of 3 main structural objects: | ||
| + | |||
| - topics – describe any concept, | - topics – describe any concept, | ||
| - associations – hypergraph relationships between topics, | - associations – hypergraph relationships between topics, | ||
| Line 44: | Line 51: | ||
| Entity-relationship diagram can be also use to represent knowledge in a form of “entities” and relations between them. Entity-relationship modeling was developed by Peter Chen for database design in 1970s [16]. E-R model is usually drawn in a graphical form. ER diagrams are used when designing or debugging relational databases. | Entity-relationship diagram can be also use to represent knowledge in a form of “entities” and relations between them. Entity-relationship modeling was developed by Peter Chen for database design in 1970s [16]. E-R model is usually drawn in a graphical form. ER diagrams are used when designing or debugging relational databases. | ||
| - | ER models can be created in 3 different levels of abstraction: | + | ER models can be created in 3 different levels of abstraction: |
| - Conceptual data model. It is the most abstract level of the ER model and it includes some foundational concepts, which can be used as a basis for logical data model. | - Conceptual data model. It is the most abstract level of the ER model and it includes some foundational concepts, which can be used as a basis for logical data model. | ||
| - Logical data model. Logical ER model has more details in comparison with conceptual data model, but it is still not dependent on exact database management system, which may be used for the implementation. | - Logical data model. Logical ER model has more details in comparison with conceptual data model, but it is still not dependent on exact database management system, which may be used for the implementation. | ||
| Line 54: | Line 62: | ||
| Peter Chen formulated the rules to map natural language parts of speech to ER components [17], the rules in slightly simplified form are: | Peter Chen formulated the rules to map natural language parts of speech to ER components [17], the rules in slightly simplified form are: | ||
| - | * Common noun -> entity type (e.g., ‘tourist’) | ||
| - | * Proper noun -> entity (e.g., ‘River Hutton’) | ||
| - | * Verb -> relationship (e.g., ‘visits’) | ||
| - | * Adjective -> attribute for entity (e.g., ‘British’) | ||
| - | * Adverb -> attribute for relationship (e.g., ‘by car’) | ||
| - | While ER diagram is useful during the process of designing the database, it has some limitations, | + | * Common noun → entity type (e.g., ‘tourist’) |
| + | * Proper noun → entity (e.g., ‘River Hutton’) | ||
| + | * Verb → relationship (e.g., ‘visits’) | ||
| + | * Adjective → attribute for entity (e.g., ‘British’) | ||
| + | * Adverb → attribute for relationship (e.g., ‘by car’) | ||
| + | |||
| + | While ER diagram is useful during the process of designing the database, it has some limitations, | ||
| * Mostly suited for relational structures | * Mostly suited for relational structures | ||
| * Does not show entity’s history | * Does not show entity’s history | ||
| Line 68: | Line 78: | ||
| Other methods of knowledge description may include: | Other methods of knowledge description may include: | ||
| + | |||
| * Production rules. Mostly used in cognitive modeling and artificial intelligence to represent the set of rules within a domain. | * Production rules. Mostly used in cognitive modeling and artificial intelligence to represent the set of rules within a domain. | ||
| * Mind maps. Diagram used to visually organize information and is often created around a single concept and other connected concepts branching out. | * Mind maps. Diagram used to visually organize information and is often created around a single concept and other connected concepts branching out. | ||
| Line 80: | Line 91: | ||
| ===== References ===== | ===== References ===== | ||
| - | - Girard, John P.; Girard, JoAnn L. (2015). | + | - Girard, John P.; Girard, JoAnn L. (2015). |
| - S. Nerur, V. Balijepally, | - S. Nerur, V. Balijepally, | ||
| - Gruber, Thomas R.. “Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing?” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 43 (1995): 907-928. | - Gruber, Thomas R.. “Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing?” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 43 (1995): 907-928. | ||
| - | - Robert Stevens, What is an Ontology? URL: http:// | + | - Robert Stevens, What is an Ontology? URL: [[http:// |
| - Guarino, Nicola. (1998). Formal Ontologies and Information Systems. | - Guarino, Nicola. (1998). Formal Ontologies and Information Systems. | ||
| - | - Katifori, A.; Halatsis, C.; Lepouras, G.; Vassilakis, C.; Giannopoulou, | + | - Katifori, A.; Halatsis, C.; Lepouras, G.; Vassilakis, C.; Giannopoulou, |
| - Fu, Bo & Noy, Natalya & Storey, Margaret-Anne. (2013). Indented Tree or Graph? A Usability Study of Ontology Visualization Techniques in the Context of Class Mapping Evaluation. 8218. 117-134. | - Fu, Bo & Noy, Natalya & Storey, Margaret-Anne. (2013). Indented Tree or Graph? A Usability Study of Ontology Visualization Techniques in the Context of Class Mapping Evaluation. 8218. 117-134. | ||
| - | - Alatrish, Emhimed (2013). | + | - Alatrish, Emhimed (2013). |
| - Kalibatiene D., Vasilecas O. (2011) Survey on Ontology Languages. In: Grabis J., Kirikova M. (eds) Perspectives in Business Informatics Research. BIR 2011. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 90. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. | - Kalibatiene D., Vasilecas O. (2011) Survey on Ontology Languages. In: Grabis J., Kirikova M. (eds) Perspectives in Business Informatics Research. BIR 2011. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 90. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. | ||
| - Calero Coral, Ruiz Francisco, and Piattini Mario. Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. | - Calero Coral, Ruiz Francisco, and Piattini Mario. Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. | ||
| - Seok Won Lee and Robin A. Gandhi. Ontology-based Active Requirements Engineering Framework. In Proc. of the 12th Asia-Pacific Software Eng. Conf., pages 481–490, 2005. | - Seok Won Lee and Robin A. Gandhi. Ontology-based Active Requirements Engineering Framework. In Proc. of the 12th Asia-Pacific Software Eng. Conf., pages 481–490, 2005. | ||
| - Holger Knublauch. Ontology-Driven Software Development in the Context of the Semantic Web: An Example Scenario with Protege/ | - Holger Knublauch. Ontology-Driven Software Development in the Context of the Semantic Web: An Example Scenario with Protege/ | ||
| - | - Ontology Definition Metamodel. URL: https:// | + | - Ontology Definition Metamodel. URL: [[https:// |
| - | - Topic map – Wikipedia. URL: https:// | + | - Topic map – Wikipedia. URL: [[wp> |
| - | - Steve Pepper, The TAO of Topic Maps. URL: https:// | + | - Steve Pepper, The TAO of Topic Maps. URL: [[https:// |
| - Peter Pin-Shan Chen. 1976. The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1, 1 (March 1976), 9–36. | - Peter Pin-Shan Chen. 1976. The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1, 1 (March 1976), 9–36. | ||
| - Chen, P.P. (1997). English, Chinese and ER Diagrams. Data Knowl. Eng., 23, 5-16. | - Chen, P.P. (1997). English, Chinese and ER Diagrams. Data Knowl. Eng., 23, 5-16. | ||