1. OntoKADS A core ontology to develop expertise models
of the CommonKADS methodology
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
LaRIA – University Jules Verne of Picardie - FRANCE
Workshop on Core Ontologies in Ontology Engineering
Held in conjunction with EKAW 2004
8th October 2004
Laboratory for Research in Computer Science – Amiens (FRANCE)

2. Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS
Broad outlines
1. Introduction
2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview
3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview
4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology
5. Conclusion and perspectives
1. Introduction
2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview
3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview
4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology
5. Conclusion and perspectives
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

3. Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS
Introduction (1/7)
Motivations
Previous works:
Previous works:
Modelling 3 tasks of simulation codes calibration
[Bruaux, 2002]
Previous works:
Modelling 3 tasks of simulation codes calibration
[Bruaux, 2002]
Modelling a “generic” task of calibration with the
CommonKADS methodology
A limitation of the method: the primitive of “knowledge role” [Bru.,Kas.& Mor., 2003]
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

4. The CommonKADS’ “knowledge role” primitive [Schreiber & al., 1999]
Introduction (2/7)
The CommonKADS’ “knowledge role” primitive [Schreiber & al., 1999]
roles are inputs/outputs of inferences
roles are expressed by means of abstract names 
roles are inputs/outputs of inferences
roles are expressed by means of abstract names 
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

5. Problem: the identification of roles (1/3)
Introduction (3/7)
Problem: the identification of roles (1/3)
Role ?
inference
role
“simulation parameter”
y = ax + b
Domain concept ?
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

6. Problem: the identification of roles (2/3)
Introduction (4/7)
Problem: the identification of roles (2/3)
 abstract names (Data, Result) + understandable inference structure
 easy distinction between “concrete roles” and domain concepts (SimulationCode, ModelParameter)
 abstract names (Data, Result) + understandable inference structure
 dedicated terms (CodeToCalibrate, SimulationParameter) = knowledge roles
 dedicated terms (CodeToCalibrate, SimulationParameter) = knowledge roles
 easy distinction between “concrete roles” and domain concepts (SimulationCode, ModelParameter)
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

7. Problem: the identification of roles (3/3)
Introduction (5/7)
Problem: the identification of roles (3/3)
In short:
Abstract roles
Concrete roles
Knowledge
role
domain concept
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

8. First attempts to clarify the meaning of the notion of role
Introduction (6/7)
First attempts to clarify the meaning of the notion of role
Reynaud C. and al. (1997). The Notion of Role in Conceptual Modeling. In Proceedings of the 10th European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop: EKAW’97, San Feliu de Guixolls, Bonn: Springer Verlag, p
Kassel G. (1999). PHYSICIAN is a role played by an object, whereas SIGN is a role played by a concept. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’99 Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods: Lessons Learned and Future Trends, Stockholm (Sweden), August 2, 1999, p
Conjecture [Kassel, 1999]:
“It is necessary to distinguish the roles played by objects from the roles played by concepts.”
The “abstract roles” or “knowledge roles” in the sense of CommonKADS are roles played by concepts.
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

9. Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS
Introduction (7/7)
Using a formal framework to precise the meaning of CommonKADS’ modelling primitives
The ontology of Particulars DOLCE [Masolo & al., 2003], which contains top-level concepts and relations
e.g.: PHYSICAL OBJECT, EVENT, ParticipatesIn,
IsAgentOf
The ontology of Particulars DOLCE [Masolo & al., 2003], which contains top-level concepts and relations
e.g.: PHYSICAL OBJECT, EVENT, ParticipatesIn,
IsAgentOf
The Formal Ontology of Properties [Guarino & Welty, 2000], which introduces meta-concepts
e.g.: SORTAL, FORMAL ROLE, TYPE, QUASI-TYPE
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

10. Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS
Broad outlines
1. Introduction
2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview
3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview
4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology
5. Conclusion and perspectives
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

11. OntoKADS The OntoKADS methodology Overview OntoKADS
First step: using OntoKADS to build an application ontology
OntoKADS
OntoKADS
Problem-solving-driven application ontology
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

12. The OntoKADS methodology Overview
Second step: translating the application ontology into a CommonKADS’ expertise model
Task
Task Method
Problem-solving-driven
application ontology
CommonKads’ expertise model
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

13. Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS
Broad outlines
1. Introduction
2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview
3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview
4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology
5. Conclusion and perspectives
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

14. The OntoKADS ontology Overview (1/7)
DOLCE in short (1/2)
participates
Particular
Endurant
Perdurant
 e.g., object, substance...
 e.g., event, process...
DOLCE
Particular
Endurant
Perdurant
 e.g., object, substance...
 e.g., event, process...
DOLCE
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

15. The OntoKADS ontology Overview (2/7)
DOLCE in short (2/2)
The relation of participation:
PC(x,y,t) def. “x (ED) participates in y (PD) during t”
 e.g.: the AUTHOR (APO) of an article PARTICIPATES in the WRITING (AC) of the article”
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

16. The OntoKADS ontology Overview (3/7)
Using the Formal Ontology of Properties in short (1/2)
Person
Author
Rigid
Anti-rigid
classifies
Person
Author
Rigid
Anti-rigid
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

17. e.g.: “SABINE (instance) is the AUTHOR (concept) of the article”
The OntoKADS ontology Overview (4/7)
Using the Formal Ontology of Properties in short (2/2)
The relation of classification:
Cf(x,y,t) def. “The type x classifies the instance y during t”
e.g.: “SABINE (instance) is the AUTHOR (concept) of the article”
“The AUTHOR (concept) is ANTI-RIGID (meta-concept)”
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

18. The OntoKADS ontology Overview (5/7)
The problem-solving sub-ontology: an extension of DOLCE
The problem-solving ontology implements two main categories of entities:
The problem-solving ontology implements two main categories of entities:
acts of Reasoning intervening in problem-solving situations
- e.g.: Diagnosing, Calibrating
The problem-solving ontology implements two main categories of entities:
acts of Reasoning intervening in problem-solving situations
- e.g.: Diagnosing, Calibrating
entities intervening in these Reasonings
- e.g.: Person, KnowledgeExpression, Agent, Data
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

19. The OntoKADS ontology Overview (6/7)
The sub-ontology of meta-concepts
The ontology of meta-concepts implements the CommonKADS’ modelling primitives to “classify” the OntoKADS’ concepts:
The ontology of meta-concepts implements the CommonKADS’ modelling primitives to “classify” the OntoKADS’ concepts:
cover
sign
hypothesis
output role
input role
inference
CF(Task, diagnosis, t), CF( Inference, cover, t),
CF(KnowledgeRole, sign, t), CF(DomainConcept, car, t)
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

20. The OntoKADS ontology Overview (7/7)
Structure of the OntoKADS’ ontology
DOLCE __
Particular
OntoKADS __
Endurant
Perdurant
Domain
Concepts
Domain
Concepts
Roles
Action
Reasoning
Communicating
Tasks, Inferences
Transfert
Functions
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

21. Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS
Broad outlines
1. Introduction
2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview
3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview
4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology
5. Conclusion and perspectives
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

22. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology
The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (1/5)
Conjecture [Bruaux & Kassel, 2004]:
“Entities bearing on Reasonings in terms of
data/results are expressions of knowledge.”
Conjecture [Bruaux & Kassel, 2004]:
“Entities bearing on Reasonings in terms of
data/results are expressions of knowledge.”
This knowledge is expressed by means of an expression code (a language) and inscribed on a support.
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

23. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology
The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (2/5)
LowBatteryLevel
car
EmptyFuelTank
LowBatteryLevel
Diagnosis Task
car
EmptyFuelTank
LowBatteryLevelComplaint
EmptyFuelTankHypothesis
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

24. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology
The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (3/5)
simulation code
Calibration Task
y = ax + b
equations of a numerical model
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

25. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology
The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (4/5)
The I&DA ontology introduces ContentBearingObjects which are expressions (signifiers) of a Content (signified).
The I&DA sub-ontology [Fortier & Kassel, 2004] to account for:
the different means of expression;
the expressed different knowledge/contents.
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

26. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology
The sub-ontology of expressions of knowledge (5/5)
DOLCE __ ED
I&DA __
POB
NPOB
Inscription
ContentBearingObject
Content
LinguisticObject
Discourse
Proposition
Concept
Term
IconicObject
Information
Assertion
Text
Hypothesis
Complaint
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

27. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The problem-solving ontology
The sub-ontology of “participative roles”
EndParticipant
BeginningParticipant ED
Determinant
Patient
Agent
Substrate
Data
Result
CalibratedCode
CodeToCalibrate
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

28. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The ontology of meta-concepts
Ontological definition of knowledge roles (1/4)
Three meta-concepts of the Formal Ontology of Properties [Guarino & Welty, 2000] are interesting for our study:
role: an anti-rigid concept dependent of an external entity
formal role: a role lacking an identity criterion
e.g.: PATIENT, INSTRUMENT
material role: a role carrying an identity criterion
e.g.: STUDENT
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

29. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The ontology of meta-concepts
Ontological definition of knowledge roles (2/4)
Definition of a MATERIAL ROLE: example of the EMPLOYEE concept
(TYPE) PERSON
(FORMAL ROLE) HUMAN RESOURCE
(MATERIAL ROLE) EMPLOYEE
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

30. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The ontology of meta-concepts
Ontological definition of knowledge roles (3/4)
By analogy with the previous definitions, we define three notions of "knowledge role":
KnowledgeRole: a role dependent on a Reasoning
FormalKnowledgeRole: a KnowledgeRole lacking an identity criterion (e.g.: CalibrationData, DiagnosisResult)
MaterialKnowledgeRole: a FormalKnowledgeRole carrying an identity criterion, which it inherits from a Type constrained to be a Proposition (e.g.: CodeToCalibrate)
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

31. The kernel of the OntoKADS ontology The ontology of meta-concepts
Ontological definition of knowledge roles (4/4) ED
OntoKADS __
(I&DA __)
(Content)
(Proposition)
Data
Result
Code
Hypothesis
CalibrationData
DiagnosisResult
CodeToCalibrate
DiagnosisHypothesis
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

32. Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS
Broad outlines
1. Introduction
2. The OntoKADS’ methodology: overview
3. The OntoKADS’ ontology: overview
4. The kernel of the OntoKADS’ ontology
5. Conclusion and perspectives
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

33. Conclusion and perspectives Synthesis of our main contributions (1/2)
The OntoKADS ontology has led us to revisit CommonKADS’ modelling primitives: in particular, the KnowledgeRole meta-concept differs from the meaning given to the “knowledge role” notion in CommonKADS.
The OntoKADS ontology has led us to revisit CommonKADS’ modelling primitives: in particular, the KnowledgeRole meta-concept differs from the meaning given to the “knowledge role” notion in CommonKADS.
The participants in Reasonings (Tasks) are not objects or state of objects (DomainConcepts) but Propositions (KnowledgeRole) having DomainConcepts as subjects.
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

34. Conclusion and perspectives Synthesis of our main contributions (2/2)
Two categories of KnowledgeRoles:
FormalKnowledgeRoles, referring to particular Reasonings
►e.g.: CalibrationData, DiagnosisResult
Two categories of KnowledgeRoles:
Two categories of KnowledgeRoles:
FormalKnowledgeRoles, referring to particular Reasonings
►e.g.: CalibrationData, DiagnosisResult
MaterialKnowledgeRoles, referring to particular Reasonings
and to particular Contents
►e.g.: CodeToCalibrate, CalibratedCode
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

35. Conclusion and perspectives
Future works
Works presented here are progressing in three main directions:
Works presented here are progressing in three main directions:
the evaluation of the CommonKADS’ primitives to specify problem-solving methods: in particular, force the methods’ Inputs/Outputs to be KnowledgeRoles would have some consequences on these methods
Works presented here are progressing in three main directions:
the evaluation of the CommonKADS’ primitives to specify problem-solving methods: in particular, force the methods’ Inputs/Outputs to be KnowledgeRoles would have some consequences on these methods
the integration in OntoKADS of all generic Reasonings identified in analytic and synthetic Reasonings
Works presented here are progressing in three main directions:
the evaluation of the CommonKADS’ primitives to specify problem-solving methods: in particular, force the methods’ Inputs/Outputs to be KnowledgeRoles would have some consequences on these methods
the integration in OntoKADS of all generic Reasonings identified in analytic and synthetic Reasonings
the devolopment of a software, at a conceptual level, based on the TERMINAE platform to support the OntoKADS methodology
Bruaux S. & Kassel G.
03/01/2019
Workshop on Core Ontologies - OntoKADS

36. Thank you for your attention
To contact the authors of this paper :
Sabine Bruaux, mailto:
Gilles Kassel, mailto:
For + infos about team works :
03/01/2019
Conférence IC' Etude Critique de CommonKADS