Efficient data integration in the railway domain through an ontology-based methodology

Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 617-643

  Verstichel, Stijn ^a   Ongenae, Femke ^a   Loeve, Leanneke ^b   Vermeulen, Frederik ^c   Dings, Pieter ^b   Dhoedt, Bart ^a   Dhaene, Tom ^a   Turck, Filip De ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b PB 8125   (Netherlands)

^c Televic Healthcare   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Information integration; InteGRail; Network Statement Checker; Ontology; Railway

Indexed keywords

COMPLEX NETWORKS; DATA INTEGRATION; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION USE; INTEROPERABILITY; MODELING LANGUAGES; ONTOLOGY; RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION; RAILROADS; REAL TIME SYSTEMS;

APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT; COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES; INFORMATION INTEGRATION; INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENTS; INTEGRAIL; INTEGRATED INFORMATION SYSTEM; INTELLIGENT INTEGRATION; RAILWAY;

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT;

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY; INFORMATION SYSTEM; MODELING; RAILWAY;

EID: 79952739117     PISSN: 0968090X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2010.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Baclawski K., et al. Extending UML to support ontology engineering for the Semantic Web. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2001, 2185.
2. Bechhofer, S., et al., 2004. Owl Web Ontology Language Reference, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/.
3. Beckett, D., Berners-Lee, T., 2008. Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language, W3C Team Submission. http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/.
4. Beckett, D., McBride, B., 2004. RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised), W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/.
5. Berners-Lee, T., 1998. Notation 3 (N3), A Readable Language for Data on the Web, N3 Specification. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html.
6. Bizer, C., Cyganiak, R., 2006. D2R-Server, publishing relational databases on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference. Athens, GA, USA, 5-9 November 2006.
7. Bray, T., et al., 2006. Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (fourth ed.), W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/.
8. Bray, T., et al., 2006. Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (second ed.), W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/.
9. Buccella A., Cechich A., Brisaboa N.R. An ontology approach to data integration. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 2003, 3(2):62-68.
10. Carroll J.J., et al. Jena: implementing the Semantic Web recommendations. Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web conference on Alternate Track Papers & Posters, New York, NY, USA, 17-20 May 2004 2004, 74-83. ACM Press.
11. Computer Human Interaction & Software Engineering Lab (CHISEL) and its members, 2008. Jambalaya. http://www.thechiselgroup.org/jambalaya.
12. Clark & Parsia, LLC. 2009. Pellet, the Open Source OWL-DL Reasoner in Java. http://www.pellet.owldl.com/.
13. Cui, Z., O'Brien, P., 2000. Domain ontology management environment. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Island of Maui, Hawaii, 4-7 January 2000.
14. Ellson J., et al. GraphViz: open source graph drawing tools. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2002, 2265:594-597.
15. EuRoMain Consortium, 2003. EuRoMain, European Railway Open Maintenance System. http://www.euromain.org/.
16. Falkovych K., Sabou M., Stuckenschmidt H. UML for the Semantic Web: Transformation-Based Approaches. Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web. 2003.
17. Fernandez, M., Gomez-Perez, A., Juristo, N., 1997. METHONTOLOGY: from ontological art towards ontological engineering. In: Proceedings of the AAAI97 Spring Symposium Series on Ontological Engineering, Providence, Rhode Island, 27-31 July 1997, pp. 33-40.
18. Fonseca F., Martin J. Learning the differences between ontologies and conceptual schemas through ontology-driven information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS) - Special Issue on Ontologies in the Context of IS 2007, 8(2):129-142.
19. Goh, C.H., 1997. Representing and Reasoning about Semantic Conflicts in Heterogeneous Information Sources, Ph.D., MIT, USA.
20. Gottschalk P. Knowledge Management Systems in Law Enforcement: Technologies and Techniques 2007, Idea Group Publication, Hershey, PA.
21. Gruber T.R. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 1993, 5(2):199-220.
22. Grüninger, M., Fox, M.S., 1995. Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, IJCAI-95, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 20-25 August 1995.
23. Guha, R.V., Brickley, D., McBride, B., 2004. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.
24. Haarslev, V., Möller, R., 2003. Racer: an OWL reasoning agent for the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Applications, Products and Services of Web-based Support Systems, in Conjunction with 2003 IEEE/WIC International Conference on Web Intelligence, Hallifax, Canada, 13 October 2003, pp. 91-95.
25. Han, L., Finin, T., Parr, C., Sachs, J., Joshi, A., 2008. RDF123: From Spreadsheets to RDF. International Semantic Web Conference, LNCS 5318, pp. 451-466.
26. Hart, L., et al., 2004. OWL-Full and UML 2.0 Compared. OMG TFC report.
27. Heflin, J., Hendler, J., Luke, S., 1999. SHOE: A Knowledge Representation Language for Internet Applications. Technical report CS-TR-4078 (UMIACS TR-99-71), Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland at College Park.
28. Horridge, M., 2005. OWLVIz: Graph View of the Ontology. http://www.co-ode.org/downloads/owlviz/.
29. Horrocks I., Patel-Schneider P.F., van Harmelen F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language, Web Semantics: science. Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 2003, 1(1):7-26.
30. InteGRail Consortium, 2008. The Network Statement Checker. http://www.integrail.eu/NetworkStatementWebApp.html.
31. InteGRail Consortium, 2009. InteGRail, Intelligent Integration of Railway Systems. http://www.integrail.info/.
32. Kalyanpur A., et al. Swoop: a web ontology editing browser. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 2006, 4(2):144-153.
33. Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Grau, C., Hendler, J., 2007. SWOOP: A Hypermedia-Based Featherweight OWL Ontology Editor. http://www.mindswap.org/2004/SWOOP/.
34. Karageorgos A., et al. Agent-based optimisation of logistics and production planning. Intelligent Manufacturing Systems 2003, 113-118.
35. Knublauch, H., Fergerson, R.W., Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A., 2004. The protégé OWL plugin: an open development environment for Semantic Web applications. In: Proceedings of the Third International Semantic Web Conference, Hiroshima, Japan 7-11 November 2004, pp. 229-243.
36. Kotis K., Vouros A. Human-centered ontology engineering: the HCOME methodology. Knowledge and Information Systems 2006, 10(1):109-131.
37. Logic, U., 2008. OWL Ontology Artifacts have Durable Value. http://www.logicu.com/175.html.
38. McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F., 2004. OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.
39. Metatomix Inc., 2009. The Final Mile Challenge, Making Semantics Work in the Enterprise, Metatomix Whitepaper. http://www.metatomix.com/.
40. Metatomix Inc., 2009. Semantic Web Solutions at Work in the Enterprise, TopQuadrant Whitepaper. http://www.metatomix.com/.
41. Nardi D., et al. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications 2003, The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
42. The Object Management Group (OMG), 2006. Object Constraint Language, OMG Available Specification, Version 2.0 [Online] (Published May 2006). http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/06-05-01.pdf.
43. The Object Management Group (OMG), 2007. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Infrastructure, Version 2.1.2, OMG Available Specification [Online] (Published November 2007). http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/07-11-04.pdf.
44. The Object Management Group (OMG). 2007. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, Version 2.1.2, OMG Available Specification [Online] (Published November 2007). http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/07-11-02.pdf.
45. The Object Management Group (OMG), 2009. UML Resource Page. http://www.uml.org/.
46. Ontology Systems, 2009a. OSS/CAD Case Study: South Africa's Leading Converged Service Provider Simplifies Management of Operational Systems. http://www.ontology.com.
47. Ontology Systems, 2009b. OSS/CAD Data Sheet: Ontology Systems OSS/CAD. http://www.ontology.com.
48. Pinto H.S., Martins J.P. Ontologies: how can they be built?. Journal of Knowledge and Information Systems 2004, 6(4):441-464.
49. Prud'hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A., 2008. SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/.
50. Quatrani T. Visual Modeling with Rational Rose 2000 and UML 2000, Addison-Wesley Professional publishing, Reading (Mass.).
51. Racer Systems GmbH & Co. KG, 2009. Racer Pro. http://www.racer-systems.com/.
52. Reilly, J.P., Wilmes, J., 2008. Application Integration using the SID. TM Forum.
53. Serafini, L., Tamilin, A., 2005. Drago: distributed reasoning architecture for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the Second European Semantic Web Conference (ESCW), Heraklion, Greece, 29 May-1 June 2005, pp. 361-376.
54. Sirin E., et al. Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoner. Journal of Web semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 2007, 5(2):51-53.
55. Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 2009. The Protégé Ontology Editor. http://www.protege.stanford.edu/.
56. Storey M.-A., Noy N.F., Musen M., Best C., Fergerson R., Ernst N. Jambalaya: an interactive environment for exploring ontologies. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Inteligent User Interfaces, New York, NY, USA, 12-15 January 2003 2002, 239. ACM Press.
57. Strategic European Deployment Plan for the European-wide implementation of the technical specification for interoperability telematic applications for freight (TAF-TSI) - Project No: 2005-EU-93008-S. 2006. Deliverable 2 - Definition of the Functional and Performance Requirements and of the Associated data Necessary to Deliver the TAF System, Version 1.0, 17/07/2006. https://www.eurnex.com/forms/spip.php?article482.
58. Tamilin, A., et al., 2006. DRAGO: Distributed Reasoning Architecture for Galaxy of Ontologies. http://www.sra.itc.it/projects/drago/system-description.html.
59. Uschold, M., King, M., 1995. Towards a methodology for building ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, IJCAI-95, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 20-25 August 1995.
60. Vrandevic D., et al. The DILIGENT knowledge processes. Journal of Knowledge Management 2005, 9(5):85-96.
61. Wache, H., et al., 2001. Ontology-based integration of information - a survey of existing approaches. In: Stuckenschmidt, H. (Ed.), IJCAI-01 Workshop: Ontologies and Information Sharing, Seattle, Washington, USA, 6 August 2001, pp. 108-117.