The role of domain ontologies in database design: An ontology management and conceptual modeling environment

ACM Transactions on Database Systems

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 1064-1094

  Sugumaran, Vijayan ^a,c   Storey, Veda C ^b,d  

^a OAKLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c OAKLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conceptual modeling; Database design; Entity relationship modeling; Integrity constraints; Ontology; Ontology management and database design environment

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL MODELING; DATABASE DESIGN; ENTITY-RELATIONSHIP MODELING; INTEGRITY CONSTRAINTS; ONTOLOGY; ONTOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND DATABASE DESIGN ENVIRONMENT;

DATA STRUCTURES; KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PRODUCT DESIGN; RAPID PROTOTYPING; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

DATABASE SYSTEMS;

EID: 33750180632     PISSN: 03625915     EISSN: 03625915     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1166074.1166083     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (59)

1. ALLEN, A. F. 1983. Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commu. ACM 26, 11, 832-843.
2. ALLEN, G. AND MARCH, S. 2006. The effects of state-based and event-based data representations on user performance in query formulation tasks. MIS Quarterly 30, 2, 269-290.
3. AL-MUHAMMED, M., EMBLEY, D. W., AND LIDDLE, S. W. 2005. Conceptual model based semantic Web services. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER '05). Klagenfurt, Austria (Oct.), 288-303.
4. ALTER, S. 1999. Information Systems: A Management Perspective. Addison-Wesley.
5. BATRA, D., HOFFER, J. A., AND BOSTROM, R. P. 1990. Comparing representations developed using relational and EER models. Commu. ACM 33, 128-139.
6. BERGHOLTZ, M. AND JOHANNESSON, P. 2001. Classifying the semantics of relationships in conceptual modeling by categorization of roles. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems (NLDB '01). Madrid, Spain (June), 199-203.
7. BOCK, D. B. AND YAGER, S. E. 2002. Improving entity relationship modeling accuracy with novice data modelers. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 42, 2, 69-75.
8. BODART, F., PATE, A., SIM, M., AND WEBER, R. 2002. Should optional properties be used in conceptual modeling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inform. Syst. Resear. 12, 4, 384-405.
9. BREWSTER, C. AND O'HARA, K. 2004. Knowledge representation with ontologies: the present and future. IEEE Intelli. Syst. 19, 1, 72-81.
10. BUNGE, M. 1997. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Vol. 3: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY.
11. BURTON-JONES, A., STOREY, V. C., SUGUMARAN, V., AHLUWALIA, P. 2005. A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data Knowl. Engin. 55, 1, 84-102.
12. CORCHO, O., FERNANDEZ-LOPEZ, M., AND GOMEZ-PEREZ, A. 2003a. Methdologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point? Data Knowl. Engin. 46, 1, 41-64.
13. CORCHO, O., GOMEZ-PEREZ, A., GUERRERO-RODRIGUEZ, D. J., PEREZ-REY, D., RUIZ-CRISTINA, A., SASTRE-TORAL, T., AND SUAREZ-FIGUEROA, M. C. 2003b. Evaluation experiment of ontology tools' interoperability with the WebODE ontology engineering workbench. 2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-Based Tools. (Oct), Sanibel Island, FL.
14. DAHCHOUR. 2001. Integrating generic relationships into object models using metaclasses. PhD thesis (March). Department of Computing Science and Engineering, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.
15. DENNIS, A. AND WIXOM, B. H. 2000. Systems Analysis and Design. John Wiley.
16. DEY, D., STOREY, V. C., AND BARRON, T. M. 1999. Improving database design through the analysis of relationships. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 24, 4, 453-486.
17. DING, Y. AND FOO, S. 2002. Ontology research and development: Part 2-A review of ontology mapping and evolving. J. Inform. Science 28, 5, 375-388.
18. EMBLEY, D. W. 2004. Toward semantic understanding-An approach based on information extraction ontologies. In Proceedings of the of the 15th Australasian Database Conference (ADC '04). Dunedin, New Zealand, (Jan.). Klaus-Dieter Schewe, K.-D., and Williams, H., Eds. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, 27.
19. EMBLEY, D. W., TAO C., AND LIDDLE, S. W. 2005. Automating the extraction of data from HTML tables with unknown structure. Data Knowl. Engin. 54, 1 (July), 3-28.
20. FENSEL, D., HARMELEN, F. V., HORROCKS, I., MCGUINNESS, D. L., AND PATEL-SCHNEIDER, P. F. 2001. OIL: An ontology infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Syst. (Mar./Apr.), 38-45.
21. FRIEDMAN-HILL, E. 2006. JESS, the expert system shell, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA. URL: http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov/jess.
22. GOMEZ-PEREZ, A. 1999. Tutorial on ontological engineering. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99). Stockholm, Sweden (July/Aug.). 6.
23. GRUBER, T. R. 1993. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquisition 5, 199-220.
24. GUALTLERI, A. AND RUFFOLO, M. 2005. An ontology-based framework for representing organizational knowledge. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Knowledge Management (I-KNOW '05). Graz, Austria (June/July), 71-78.
25. GUARINO, N. 2005. Personal correspondence.
26. HEFLIN, J. AND HENDLER, J. 2000. Dynamic ontologies on the Web. In Proceedings of 17th AAAI-2000. AAAI/MIT Press, 443-449.
27. HENDLER, J. 2001. Agents and the semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems (March/April), 30-36.
28. KASSARJIAN, H. H. 1977. Content analysis in consumer research. J. Consumer Resear. 4, 1, 8-18.
29. KNIGHT, C., GAŠEViĆ, D., AND RICHARDS, G. 2006. An ontology-based framework for bridging learning design and learning content. Educat. Technol. Society 9, 1, 23-37.
30. LAMMARI, N. AND METAIS, E. 2004. Building and maintaining ontologies: A set of algorithms. Data Knowl. Engin. 48, 2, 155-176.
31. LENAT, D. B. 1995. CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Comm. ACM 38, 11, 33-38.
32. LINDLAND, O. I., SINDRE, G., AND SOLVBERG, A. 1994. Understanding qwuality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11, 2, 42-49.
33. LLOYD-WILLIAMS, M. 1997. Exploiting domain knowledge during the automated design of object oriented databases. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (E-R'97). Los Angeles, CA, (Nov).
34. MASON, O. AND GROVE-STEPHENSEN, I. 2002. Automated free text marking with paperless school. In Proceedings of 6th International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference. Loughborough, UK. (July). 213-219.
35. MCGUINNESS, D. L. 2002. Ontologies come of age. In D. Fensel, J. Hendler, H. Lieberman, and W. Wahlster, Eds. Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
36. MOODY, D. L. AND SHANKS, G. G. 1998. What makes a good data model? A framework for evaluating and improving the quality of entity relationship models. Australian Comput. J. 30, 3, 97-110.
37. NOAH, S. A. AND WILLIAMS, M. D. 2002. Knowledge-based approaches to database design diagnosis; improving performance with a domain specific thesaurus structure. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Artificial and Computational Intelligence, N. Ishii, Ed. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. ACTA Press, 366-371.
38. NOY, N. F., RUBIN, D. L., AND MUSEN, M. A. 2004. Making biomedical ontologies and ontology repositories work. IEEE Intelligent Syst. 19, 6, 78-81.
39. OBERLE, D., VOLZ, R., MOTIK, B., STAAB, S. 2004. An extensible ontology software environment. In Handbook on Ontologies, Staab, S., and Studer, R., Eds. Springer, Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 311-333.
40. PARSONS, J. AND WAND, Y. 2000. Emancipating instances from the tyranny of classes in information modeling. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 25, 2 (June), 228-268.
41. PEASE, A., NILES, I., AND Li, J. 2002. The suggested upper merged ontology: A large ontology for the semantic Web and its applications. In Working Notes of the AAAI-2002 Workshop on Ontologies and the Semantic Web, Edmonton, Canada (July/Aug.).
42. PINTO, H. S. AND MARTINS, P. J. 2004. Ontologies: How can they be built? Knowl. Inform. Syst. 6, 4, 441-464.
43. PURAO, S. AND STOREY, V. C. 2005. A multi-layered ontology for comparing relationship semantics in conceptual models of databases. J. Applied Ontology 1, 1, 117-139.
44. SHANKS, G., TANSLEY, E., NURELINI, J., TOBLIN, D., AND WEBER, R. 2002. Representing part-whole relationships in conceptual modeling: An empirical evaluation. International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain (Dec.).
45. SIAU, K. 2004. Relationship construct in modeling information systems. Editorial Preface-J. Datab. Manag. 15, 3 (July/Sept.), i-v.
46. SIAU, K., WAND, Y., AND BENBASAT, I. 1997. The Relative importance of structural constraints and surface semantics in information modeling. Inform. Syst. 22, 23, 155-170.
47. STEWART, D. B. AND ARORA, G. 2003. A tool for analyzing and fine tuning the real-time properties of an embedded system. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 29, 4, 311-326.
48. STOREY, V. C. 2005. Classifying and comparing relationships in conceptual modeling. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Engin. 17, 11, 1-13.
49. STOREY, V. C., CHIANG, R., AND CHEN, L. 2005. Ontology creation: Extraction of domain knowledge from Web documents. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER '05). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 24-28 (Oct.).
50. STOREY, V. C., DEY, D., ULLRICH, H., AND SUNDARESAN, S. 1998. An ontology-based expert system for database design. Data Knowl. Engin. 28, 1, 31-46.
51. SUGUMARAN, V., STOREY, V. C. 2002. Ontologies for conceptual modeling: Their creation, use, and management. Data Knowl. Engin. 42, 3, 251-271.
52. SWARTOUT, W. 1999. Ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Syst., (Jan./Feb.), 18-19.
53. TEOREY, T. J., YANG, D., AND PRY, J. P. 1986. A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model. ACM Comput. Surv. 18, 2, 197-222.
54. TURK, D. E., VIJAYASARATHY, L. R., AND CLARK, J. D. 2003. The value of conceptual modeling in database development: An experimental investigation. In Proceedings of the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design Conference, Velden, Austria.
55. WAND, Y., STOREY, V. C., AND WEBER, R. 1999. Analyzing the meaning of a relationship. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 24, 4 (Dec.), 494-528.
56. WEBER, R. 1996. Are attributes entities? A study of database designers' memory structures. Inform. Syst. Resear. 7, 2 (June), 137-162.
57. WEBER, R. 2002a. Conceptual modeling and ontology: Possibilities and pitfalls. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER '02), S. Spaccapietra, S. T. March, and Y. Kambayashi, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2503, 1-2, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Germany.
58. WEBER, R. 2002b. Ontological issues in accounting information systems. Sutton, S. and Arnold, V., Eds., Researching Accounting as an Information Systems Discipline. American Accounting Association, Sarosota, FL.
59. WELTY, C. AND GUARINO, N. 2001. Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. Data Knowl. Engin. (Special Issue on ER 2000) 39, 1, 51-74.