[go: up one dir, main page]
Document Open Access Logo

Logics for Conceptual Data Modelling: A Review

Authors Pablo R. Fillottrani , C. Maria Keet

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

TGDK.2.1.4.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.33 MB
  • 30 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Pablo R. Fillottrani
  • Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
  • Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
C. Maria Keet
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Cite AsGet BibTex

Pablo R. Fillottrani and C. Maria Keet. Logics for Conceptual Data Modelling: A Review. In Special Issue on Trends in Graph Data and Knowledge - Part 2. Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge (TGDK), Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 4:1-4:30, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/TGDK.2.1.4

Abstract

Information modelling for databases and object-oriented information systems avails of conceptual data modelling languages such as EER and UML Class Diagrams. Many attempts exist to add logical rigour to them, for various reasons and with disparate strengths. In this paper we aim to provide a structured overview of the many efforts. We focus on aims, approaches to the formalisation, including key dimensions of choice points, popular logics used, and the main relevant reasoning services. We close with current challenges and research directions.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Information systems → Database design and models
  • Computing methodologies → Description logics
  • Software and its engineering → Formal language definitions
  • Software and its engineering → Unified Modeling Language (UML)
  • Theory of computation → Data modeling
Keywords
  • Conceptual Data Modelling
  • EER
  • UML
  • Description Logics
  • OWL

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Sunitha Abburu. A survey on ontology reasoners and comparison. International Journal of Computer Applications, 57(17):33-39, 2012. Google Scholar
  2. Miguel I. Aguirre-Urreta and George M. Marakas. Comparing conceptual modeling techniques: a critical review of the eer vs. oo empirical literature. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 39(2):9-32, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1364636.1364640.
  3. Lina Al-Jadir, Christine Parent, and Stefano Spaccapietra. Reasoning with large ontologies stored in relational databases: The OntoMinD approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 69:1158-1180, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2010.07.006.
  4. Michele Angelaccio, Tiziana Catarci, and Giuseppe Santucci. QBD*: A graphical query language with recursion. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(10):1150-1163, 1990. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/32.60295.
  5. Kutz Arrieta, Pablo R. Fillottrani, and C. Maria Keet. Cosmo: A constructor specification language for abstract wikipedia’s content selection process. Technical report, aug 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.02539.
  6. Alessandro Artale. Reasoning on temporal conceptual schemas with dynamic constraints. In Proceedings. 11th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, 2004. TIME 2004., pages 79-86. IEEE, 2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/time.2004.1314423.
  7. Alessandro Artale, Diego Calvanese, Roman Kontchakov, Vladislav Ryzhikov, and Michael Zakharyaschev. Reasoning over extended ER models. In Christine Parent, Klaus-Dieter Schewe, Veda C. Storey, and Bernhard Thalheim, editors, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER'07), volume 4801 of LNCS, pages 277-292. Springer, 2007. Auckland, New Zealand, November 5-9, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75563-0_20.
  8. Alessandro Artale, Diego Calvanese, Roman Kontchakov, and Michael Zakharyaschev. DL-Lite without the unique name assumption. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Description Logic (DL'09), volume 477 of CEUR-WS, 2009. URL: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-477/paper_11.pdf.
  9. Alessandro Artale, Enrico Franconi, Frank Wolter, and Michael Zakharyaschev. A temporal description logic for reasoning about conceptual schemas and queries. In S. Flesca, S. Greco, N. Leone, and G. Ianni, editors, Proceedings of the 8th Joint European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA-02), volume 2424 of LNAI, pages 98-110. Springer Verlag, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45757-7_9.
  10. Alessandro Artale, Christine Parent, and Stefano Spaccapietra. Evolving objects in temporal information systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 50(1-2):5-38, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-007-9068-z.
  11. Franz Baader, Sebastian Brandt, and Carsten Lutz. Pushing the EL envelope. In Proceedings of the 19th Joint International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'05), volume 5, pages 364-369, 2005. URL: http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/05/Papers/0372.pdf.
  12. Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah L. McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logics Handbook - Theory and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition, 2008. Google Scholar
  13. Thomas Baker and Eric Prud'hommeaux. Shape expressions (shex) 2.1 primer - final community group report. W3C Recommendation, 2019. URL: http://shex.io/shex-primer/.
  14. Mira Balaban and Azzam Maraee. A UML-based method for deciding finite satisfiability in description logics. In Franz Baader, Carsten Lutz, and Boris Motik, editors, Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Description Logics (DL'08), volume 353 of CEUR-WS, 2008. Dresden, Germany, May 13-16, 2008. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-353/BalabanMaraee.pdf.
  15. Daniela Berardi, Diego Calvanese, and Giuseppe De Giacomo. Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence, 168(1-2):70-118, 2005. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2005.05.003.
  16. Anthony C. Bloesch and Terry A. Halpin. Conceptual Queries using ConQuer-II. In Proceedings of ER'97: 16th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, volume 1331 of LNCS, pages 113-126. Springer, 1997. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63699-4_10.
  17. Alexander Borgida, David Toman, and Grant Weddell. On referring expressions in information systems derived from conceptual modelling. In Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau, Katsumi Tanaka, Il-Yeol Song, Shuichiro Yamamoto, and Motoshi Saeki, editors, Conceptual Modeling (ER'16), volume 9974 of LNCS, pages 183-197. Springer, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46397-1_14.
  18. Dominik Bork. Conceptual modeling and artificial intelligence: Challenges and opportunities for enterprise engineering: Keynote presentation at the 11th enterprise engineering working conference (eewc 2021). In Enterprise Engineering Working Conference, pages 3-9. Springer, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11520-2_1.
  19. Dominik Bork, Syed Juned Ali, and Ben Roelens. Conceptual modeling and artificial intelligence: A systematic mapping study. Technical report, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06758.
  20. Michael Boyd and Peter McBrien. Comparing and transforming between data models via an intermediate hypergraph data model. Journal on Data Semantics, IV:69-109, 2005. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/11603412_3.
  21. Bernardo F. B. Braga, João P. A. Almeida, Giancarlo Guizzardi, and Alessander Botti Benevides. Transforming OntoUML into Alloy: towards conceptual model validation using a lightweight formal methods. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, 6(1-2):55-63, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-009-0120-5.
  22. Germán Braun, Pablo R. Fillottrani, and C. Maria Keet. A framework for interoperability between models with hybrid tools. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 60:437-462, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-022-00731-7.
  23. Germán Braun, Giuliano Marinelli, Emiliano Rios Gavagnin, Laura A. Cecchi, and Pablo R. Fillottrani. Web interoperability for ontology development and support with crowd 2.0. In 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'21, pages 4980-4983, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/707.
  24. Dan Brickley and R. V. Guha. Rdf schema 1.1. Standard, W3C, 2014. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/.
  25. Jordi Cabot, Robert Clarisó, and Daniel Riera. Verification of UML/OCL class diagrams using constraint programming. In Model Driven Engineering, Verification, and Validation: Integrating Verification and Validation in MDE (MoDeVVA 2008), 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW.2008.54.
  26. Marco Cadoli, Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Toni Mancini. Finite model reasoning on UML class diagrams via constraint programming. In Proc. of AI*IA 2007, volume 4733 of LNAI, pages 36-47. Springer, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74782-6_5.
  27. Diego Calvanese, Benjamin Cogrel, Sarah Komla-Ebri, Roman Kontchakov, Davide Lanti, Martin Rezk, Mariano Rodriguez-Muro, and Guohuia Xiao. Ontop: Answering SPARQL queries over relational databases. Semantic Web Journal, 8(3):471-487, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-160217.
  28. Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Domenico Lembo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Riccardo Rosati. Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 39(3):385-429, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-007-9078-x.
  29. Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'98), pages 149-158, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/275487.275504.
  30. Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. Reasoning in expressive description logics with fixpoints based on automata on infinite trees. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'99), pages 84-89, 1999. URL: https://doi.org/10.5555/1624218.1624231.
  31. Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. Identification constraints and functional dependencies in description logics. In Bernhard Nebel, editor, Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), pages 155-160. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001. Seattle, Washington, USA, August 4-10, 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.5555/1642090.1642111.
  32. Diego Calvanese, Tahir Emre Kalayci, Marco Montali, Ario Santoso, and Wil van der Aalst. Conceptual schema transformation in ontology-based data access. In Catherine Faron Zucker, Chiara Ghidini, Amedeo Napoli, and Yannick Toussaint, editors, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knolwedge Management, volume 11313 of LNAI. Springer, 2018. 12-16 Nov 2018, Nancy, France. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03667-6_4.
  33. Diego Calvanese, C. Maria Keet, Werner Nutt, Mariano Rodríguez-Muro, and Giorgio Stefanoni. Web-based graphical querying of databases through an ontology: the WONDER system. In Sung Y. Shin, Sascha Ossowski, Michael Schumacher, Mathew J. Palakal, and Chih-Cheng Hung, editors, Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (ACM SAC'10), pages 1389-1396. ACM, 2010. March 22-26 2010, Sierre, Switzerland. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1774088.1774384.
  34. Diego Calvanese, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Daniele Nardi. Unifying class-based representation formalisms. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11:199-240, 1999. URL: https://doi.org/10.5555/3013545.3013550.
  35. Diego Calvanese, Pietro Liuzzo, Alessandro Mosca, José Remesal, Martin Rezk, and Guillem Rull. Ontology-based data integration in epnet: Production and distribution of food during the roman empire. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 51:212-229, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2016.01.005.
  36. Peter P. Chen. The entity-relationship model - toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(1):9-36, 1976. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/320434.320440.
  37. HD Crockett, J Guynes, and CW Slinkman. Framework for development of conceptual data modelling techniques. Information and Software Technology, 33(2):134-142, 1991. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-5849(91)90058-J.
  38. Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Bijan Parsia, Peter Patel-Schneider, and Ulrike Sattler. OWL 2: The next step for OWL. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(4):309-322, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2008.05.001.
  39. Islay Davies, Peter Green, Michael Rosemann, Marta Indulska, and Stan Gallo. How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering, 58(3):358-380, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2005.07.007.
  40. Thomas Eiter, Josiane Xavier Parreira, and Patrik Schneider. Spatial ontology-mediated query answering over mobility streams. In E. Blomqvist et al., editors, Proceedings of the 13th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC'17), volume 10249 of LNCS, pages 219-237. Springer, 2017. 30 May - 1 June 2017, Portoroz, Slovenia. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58068-5_14.
  41. Carles Farré, Anna Queralt, Guillem Rull, Ernest Teniente, and Toni Urpí. Automated reasoning on UML conceptual schemas with derived information and queries. Information and Software Technology, 55(9):1529-1550, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.02.010.
  42. Pablo Fillotrani and C. Maria Keet. Evidence-based lean conceptual data modelling languages. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 21(2):e10, oct 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.24215/16666038.21.e10.
  43. Pablo R. Fillottrani, Enrico Franconi, and Sergio Tessaris. The ICOM 3.0 intelligent conceptual modelling tool and methodology. Semantic Web Journal, 3(3):293-306, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-2011-0038.
  44. Pablo R. Fillottrani and C. Maria Keet. Conceptual model interoperability: a metamodel-driven approach. In A. Bikakis et al., editors, Proceedings of the 8th International Web Rule Symposium (RuleML'14), volume 8620 of LNCS, pages 52-66. Springer, 2014. August 18-20, 2014, Prague, Czech Republic. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09870-8_4.
  45. Pablo R. Fillottrani and C. Maria Keet. Dimensions affecting representation styles in ontologies. In 1st Iberoamerican conference on Knowledge Graphs and Semantic Web (KGSWC'19), volume 1029 of CCIS, pages 186-200. Springer, 2019. 24-28 June 2019, Villa Clara, Cuba. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21395-4_14.
  46. Pablo R. Fillottrani and C. Maria Keet. An analysis of commitments in ontology language design. In B. Brodaric and F. Neuhaus, editors, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS'20), volume 330 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 46-60, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200659.
  47. Pablo R. Fillottrani and C. Maria Keet. KnowID: An architecture for efficient knowledge-driven information and data access. Data Intelligence, 2(4):487-512, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00060.
  48. Pablo R. Fillottrani, C. Maria Keet, and David Toman. Polynomial encoding of orm conceptual models in CFDI_nc^∀ -. In Diego Calvanese and B. Konev, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL'15), volume 1350 of CEUR-WS, pages 401-414, 2015. 7-10 June 2015, Athens, Greece. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1350/paper-50.pdf.
  49. E. Franconi and G. Ng. The ICOM tool for intelligent conceptual modelling. In 7th Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases (KRDB'00), 2000. Berlin, Germany, 2000. URL: https://doi.org/10.5555/2590200.2590206.
  50. Enrico Franconi, Alessandro Mosca, and Dmitry Solomakhin. The formalisation of ORM2 and its encoding in OWL2. KRDB Research Centre Technical Report KRDB12-2, Faculty of Computer Science, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, mar 2012. Google Scholar
  51. Birte Glimm, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, and Giorgos Stoilos. Optimising ontology classification. In The Semantic Web-ISWC 2010: 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I 9, pages 225-240. Springer, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17746-0_15.
  52. Carlos A. González and Jordi Cabot. Formal verification of static software models in mde: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 56(8):821-838, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.03.003.
  53. Benjamin N. Grosof, Ian Horrocks, Raphael Volz, and Stefan Decker. Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW'03), pages 48-57, 2003. Budapest, Hungary. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/775157.775160.
  54. Object Management Group. Distributed ontology, model, and specification language, feb 2018. URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/.
  55. Nicola Guarino. Formal ontology and information systems. In N. Guarino, editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS'98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1998. Google Scholar
  56. Giancarlo Guizzardi. Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. Phd thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands. Telematica Instituut Fundamental Research Series No. 15, 2005. Google Scholar
  57. Volker Haarslev, Kay Hidde, Ralf Möller, and Michael Wessel. The racerpro knowledge representation and reasoning system. Semantic Web Journal, 3(3):267-277, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-2011-0032.
  58. Christoph Haase and Carsten Lutz. Complexity of subsumption in the EL family of description logics: Acyclic and cyclic tboxes. In Malik Ghallab, Constantine D. Spyropoulos, Nikos Fakotakis, and Nikolaos M. Avouris, editors, ECAI 2008 - 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Patras, Greece, July 21-25, 2008, Proceedings, volume 178 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 25-29. IOS Press, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-891-5-25.
  59. Terry Halpin. A logical analysis of information systems: static aspects of the data-oriented perspective. PhD thesis, University of Queensland, Australia, 1989. URL: https://search.library.uq.edu.au/permalink/f/l3gdeh/61UQ_ALMA2179989800003131.
  60. Terry Halpin and Tony Morgan. Information modeling and relational databases. Morgan Kaufmann, 2nd edition, 2008. Google Scholar
  61. Patrick J. Hayes and Peter F. Patel-Schneider. RDF 1.1 Semantics. W3c recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, feb 2014. URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/.
  62. Daniel Hernández, Aidan Hogan, and Markus Krötzsch. Reifying RDF: what works well with wikidata? In Thorsten Liebig and Achille Fokoue, editors, Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems 2015), volume 1457 of CEUR-WS, pages 32-47. CEUR-WS.org, 2015. Bethlehem, PA, USA, October 11, 2015. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1457/SSWS2015_paper3.pdf.
  63. Aidan Hogan, Eva Blomqvist, Michael Cochez, Claudia d'Amato, Gerard de Melo, Claudio Gutiérrez, José Emilio Labra Gayo, Sabrina Kirrane, Sebastian Neumaier, Axel Polleres, Roberto Navigli, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, Sabbir M. Rashid, Anisa Rula, Lukas Schmelzeisen, Juan F. Sequeda, Steffen Staab, and Antoine Zimmermann. Knowledge graphs. Technical report, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.02320.
  64. Ian Horrocks, Oliver Kutz, and Ulrike Sattler. The even more irresistible SROIQ. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'06), KR'06, pages 57-67. AAAI Press, 2006. URL: http://www.aaai.org/Library/KR/2006/kr06-009.php.
  65. Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Frank van Harmelen. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 1(1):7, 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2003.07.001.
  66. Richard Hull and Roger King. Semantic database modeling: Survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 19(3):201-260, 1987. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/45072.45073.
  67. Amir Jahangard Rafsanjani and Seyed-Hassan Mirian-Hosseinabadi. A Z Approach to Formalization and Validation of ORM Models. In Ezendu Ariwa and Eyas El-Qawasmeh, editors, Digital Enterprise and Information Systems, volume 194 of CCIS, pages 513-526. Springer, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22603-8_45.
  68. Mustafa Jarrar, Jan Demey, and Robert Meersman. On using conceptual data modeling for ontology engineering. Journal on Data Semantics, 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39733-5_8.
  69. Elem Güzel Kalayci, Guohui Xiao, Vladislav Ryzhikov, Tahir Emre Kalayci, and Diego Calvanese. Ontop-temporal: A tool for ontology-based query answering over temporal data. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2018, Torino, Italy, October 22-26, 2018, pages 1927-1930, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3269206.3269230.
  70. Ken Kaneiwa and Ken Satoh. Consistency checking algorithms for restricted uml class diagrams. In Jürgen Dix and Stephen J. Hegner, editors, Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, pages 219-239, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. Springer. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/11663881_13.
  71. C. Maria Keet. Mapping the Object-Role Modeling language ORM2 into Description Logic language DLR_ifd. Technical Report 0702089v2, KRDB Research Centre, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, apr 2009. arXiv:cs.LO/0702089v2. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0702089.
  72. C. Maria Keet. Ontology-driven formal conceptual data modeling for biological data analysis. In Mourad Elloumi and Albert Y. Zomaya, editors, Biological Knowledge Discovery Handbook: Preprocessing, Mining and Postprocessing of Biological Data, chapter 6, pages 129-154. Wiley, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118617151.ch06.
  73. C. Maria Keet. An introduction to ontology engineering, volume 20 of Computing. College Publications, UK, 2018. 334p. Google Scholar
  74. C. Maria Keet and Sonia Berman. Determining the preferred representation of temporal constraints in conceptual models. In H.C. Mayr et al., editors, 36th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER'17), volume 10650 of LNCS, pages 437-450. Springer, 2017. 6-9 Nov 2017, Valencia, Spain. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-2_33.
  75. C. Maria Keet and Pablo R. Fillottrani. An analysis and characterisation of publicly available conceptual models. In P. Johannesson, M. L. Lee, S.W. Liddle, A. L. Opdahl, and O. Pastor López, editors, Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER'15), volume 9381 of LNCS, pages 585-593. Springer, 2015. 19-22 Oct, Stockholm, Sweden. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25264-3_45.
  76. C. Maria Keet and Pablo R. Fillottrani. An ontology-driven unifying metamodel of UML Class Diagrams, EER, and ORM2. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 98:30-53, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2015.07.004.
  77. Holger Knublauch and Dimitris Kontokostas. Shapes constraint language (shacl). W3C Recommendation, 2017. https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/. Google Scholar
  78. Markus Krötzsch, Maximilian Marx, Ana Ozaki, and Veronika Thost. Attributed description logics: Reasoning on knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'18), pages 5309-5313. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, jul 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/743.
  79. Domenico Lembo, Valerio Santarelli, Domenico Fabio Savo, and Giuseppe De Giacomo. Graphol: A graphical language for ontology modeling equivalent to owl 2. Future Internet, 14(3), 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/fi14030078.
  80. Lina Lubyte and Sergio Tessaris. Automated extraction of ontologies wrapping relational data sources. In Proceedings of International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'09), pages 128-142. Springer, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03573-9_10.
  81. Carsten Lutz, David Toman, and Frank Wolter. Conjunctive query answering in the description logic el using a relational database system. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'09), pages 2070-2075. ACM, 2009. URL: http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/09/Papers/341.pdf.
  82. Weicong Ma, C. Maria Keet, Wayne Oldford, David Toman, and Grant Weddell. The utility of the abstract relational model and attribute paths in sql. In Catherine Faron Zucker, Chiara Ghidini, Amedeo Napoli, and Yannick Toussaint, editors, Proceedings of the 21st International COnference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW'18)), volume 11313 of LNAI, pages 195-211. Springer, 2018. 12-16 Nov. 2018, Nancy, France. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03667-6_13.
  83. Wolfgang Maass, Arturo Castellanos, Monica C. Tremblay, Roman Lukyanenko, and Veda C. Storey. AI explainability: Embedding conceptual models. In Niels Bjørn-Andersen, Roman Beck, Stacie Petter, Tina Blegind Jensen, Tilo Böhmann, Kai-Lung Hui, and Viswanath Venkatesh, editors, Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2022, Digitization for the Next Generation, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 9-14, 2022. Association for Information Systems, 2022. URL: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2022/data_analytics/data_analytics/12.
  84. Wolfgang Maass and Veda C Storey. Pairing conceptual modeling with machine learning. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 134:101909, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2021.101909.
  85. Fabio Massacci. Decision procedures for expressive description logics with intersection, composition, converse of roles and role identity. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'2001), pages 193-198, 2001. Google Scholar
  86. Melinda McDaniel and Veda C Storey. Evaluating domain ontologies: clarification, classification, and challenges. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 52(4):1-44, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3329124.
  87. Deborah L. McGuinness and Frank van Harmelen. OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation., 2004. URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.
  88. Jack Minker. Foundations of deductive databases and logic programming. Morgan Kaufmann, 2014. Google Scholar
  89. Till Mossakowski, Christoph Lange, and Oliver Kutz. Three semantics for the core of the Distributed Ontology Language. In Michael Grüninger, editor, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS'12). IOS Press, 2012. 24-27 July, Graz, Austria. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-084-0-337.
  90. Boris Motik, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Zhe Wu, Achille Fokoue, and Carsten Lutz. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles. W3C recommendation, W3C, 27 October 2009. URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/.
  91. Boris Motik, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Bijan Parsia. OWL 2 web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax. W3c recommendation, W3C, 27 October 2009. URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/.
  92. Matthew Nizol, Laura K. Dillon, and R. E. K. Stirewalt. Toward tractable instantiation of conceptual data models using non-semantics-preserving model transformations. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MiSE'14), pages 13-18. ACM Conference Proceedings, 2014. Hyderabad, India, June 02-03, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2593770.2593771.
  93. Object Management Group. Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR) - OMG released versions of SBVR, formal/2008-01-02, jan 2008. URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0.
  94. Object Management Group. Superstructure specification. Standard 2.4.1, Object Management Group, 2012. URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/.
  95. E. A. N. Ongoma. Formalising temporal attributes in temporal conceptual data models. Msc thesis, Department of Computer Science, 2015. Google Scholar
  96. Magdalena Ortiz. A short introduction to SHACL for logicians. In Helle Hvid Hansen, Andre Scedrov, and Ruy J. G. B. de Queiroz, editors, Proceedings of the 29th International Workshop on Logic, Language, Information, and Computation (WoLLIC'23), volume 13923 of LNCS, pages 19-32. Springer, 2023. Halifax, NS, Canada, July 11-14, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39784-4_2.
  97. Özgür Lütfü Özçep, Ralf Möller, and Christian Neuenstadt. Stream-query compilation with ontologies. In Bernhard Pfahringer and Jochen Renz, editors, Proceedings of the 28th Australasian Joint Conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI'15), volume 9457 of LNCS, pages 457-463. Springer, 2015. Canberra, ACT, Australia, November 30 - December 4, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26350-2_40.
  98. Wen-Lin Pan and Da-xin Liu. Mapping object role modeling into common logic interchange format. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE'10), volume 2, pages 104-109. IEEE Computer Society, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACTE.2010.5579141.
  99. Christine Parent, Stefano Spaccapietra, and Esteban Zimányi. Conceptual modeling for traditional and spatio-temporal applications - the MADS approach. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-30326-X.
  100. Antonella Poggi, Domenico Lembo, Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Riccardo Rosati. Linking data to ontologies. Journal on Data Semantics, X:133-173, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77688-8_5.
  101. Alexandra Poulovassilis and Peter McBrien. A general formal framework for schema transformation. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 28(1):47-71, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-023x(98)00013-5.
  102. Sandeep Purao and Veda C. Storey. A multi-layered ontology for comparing relationship semantics in conceptual models of databases. Applied Ontology, 1(1):117-139, 2005. URL: http://content.iospress.com/articles/applied-ontology/ao000011.
  103. Anna Queralt, Alessandro Artale, Diego Calvanese, and Ernest Teniente. OCL-Lite: Finite reasoning on UML/OCL conceptual schemas. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 73:1-22, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2011.09.004.
  104. Anna Queralt and Ernest Teniente. Decidable reasoning in UML schemas with constraints. In Zohra Bellahsene and Michel Léonard, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'08), volume 5074 of LNCS, pages 281-295. Springer, 2008. Montpellier, France, June 16-20, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_23.
  105. Jason Saint Jacques, David Toman, and Grant E. Weddell. Object-relational queries over cfdi_nc knowledge bases: OBDA for the sql-literate. In Subbarao Kambhampati, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9-15 July 2016, pages 1258-1264. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 2016. URL: http://www.ijcai.org/Abstract/16/182.
  106. Manfred Schmidt-Schauß. Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 421-431, 1989. Google Scholar
  107. Thomas Schneider and Mantas Šimkus. Ontologies and data management: A brief survey. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 34(3):329-353, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-020-00686-3.
  108. Matthias Sedlmeier and Martin Gogolla. Design and prototypical implementation of an integrated graph-based conceptual data model. In Bernhard Thalheim, Hannu Jaakkola, Yasushi Kiyoki, and Naofumi Yoshida, editors, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases (EJC'14), volume 272 of FAIA, pages 376-395. IOS Press, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-472-5-376.
  109. Asadullah Shaikh, Abdul Hafeez, Asif Ali Wagan, Mesfer Alrizq, Abdullah Alghamdi, and Mana Saleh Al Reshan. More than two decades of research on verification of UML class models: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 9:142461-142474, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3121222.
  110. Yannis Smaragdakis, Christoph Csallner, and Ranjith Subramanian. Scalable satisfiability checking and test data generation from modeling diagrams. Automated Software Engineering, 16:73-99, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-008-0044-6.
  111. Il-Yeol Song and Peter P. Chen. Entity relationship model. In Ling Liu and M. Tamer Özsu, editors, Encyclopedia of Database Systems, volume 1, pages 1003-1009. Springer, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_148.
  112. Ahmet Soylu, Martin Giese, Ernesto Jimenez-Ruiz, Evgeny Kharlamov, Dmitriy Zheleznyakov, and Ian Horrocks. Ontology-based end-user visual query formulation: Why, what, who, how, and which? Universal Access in the Information Society, 16(2):435-467, jun 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-016-0465-0.
  113. Ahmet Soylu, Evgeny Kharlamov, Dimitry Zheleznyakov, Ernesto Jimenez Ruiz, Martin Giese, Martin G. Skjaeveland, Dag Hovland, Rudolf Schlatte, Sebastian Brandt, Hallstein Lie, and Ian Horrocks. OptiqueVQS: a visual query system over ontologies for industry. Semantic Web Journal, 9(5):627-660, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/sw-180293.
  114. Francesco Sportelli and Enrico Franconi. Formalisation of orm derivation rules and their mapping into owl. In OTM Conferences in Computer Science, volume 10033, pages 827-843, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_52.
  115. Veda C. Storey. Relational database design based on the entity-relationship model. Data & knowledge engineering, 7(1):47-83, 1991. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-023X(91)90033-T.
  116. Veda C. Storey, Roman Lukyanenko, and Arturo Castellanos. Conceptual modeling: Topics, themes, and technology trends. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(14s), jul 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3589338.
  117. Veda C. Storey, Roman Lukyanenko, Wolfgang Maass, and Jeffrey Parsons. Explainable AI. Commun. ACM, 65(4):27-29, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3490699.
  118. Vijayan Sugumaran and Veda C Storey. Ontologies for conceptual modeling: their creation, use, and management. Data & knowledge engineering, 42(3):251-271, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-023X(02)00048-4.
  119. Vijayan Sugumaran and Veda C Storey. The role of domain ontologies in database design: An ontology management and conceptual modeling environment. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 31(3):1064-1094, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1166074.1166083.
  120. Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede and Henderik A. Proper. How to formalize it? formalization principles for information systems development methods. Information and Software Technology, 40(10):519-540, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(98)00078-0.
  121. Herman J. ter Horst. Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for rdf schema and a semantic extension involving the owl vocabulary. Journal of Web Semantics, 3(2):79-115, 2005. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2005.06.001.
  122. Bernhard Thalheim. Extended entity relationship model. In Ling Liu and M. Tamer Özsu, editors, Encyclopedia of Database Systems, volume 1, pages 1083-1091. Springer, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_157.
  123. Stephan Tobies. Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen, 2001. URL: http://sylvester.bth.rwth-aachen.de/dissertationen/2001/082/01_082.pdf.
  124. David Toman and Grant E. Weddell. Fundamentals of Physical Design and Query Compilation. Synthesis Lectures on Data Management. Morgan & Claypool, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01881-7.
  125. David Toman and Grant E. Weddell. On adding inverse features to the description logic CFD^(∀)_nc. In PRICAI 2014: Trends in Artificial Intelligence - 13th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, December 1-5, 2014., pages 587-599, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13560-1_47.
  126. Albert Tort, Antoni Olivé, and Maria-Ribera Sancho. An approach to test-driven development of conceptual schemas. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 70:1088-1111, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2011.07.006.
  127. Juan Trujillo, Karen C Davis, Xiaoyong Du, Ernesto Damiani, and Veda C. Storey. Conceptual modeling in the era of big data and artificial intelligence: Research topics and introduction to the special issue, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2021.101911.
  128. Isadora Valle Sousa, Tiago Prince Sales, Eduardo Guerra, Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos, and Giancarlo Guizzardi. What do I get from modeling? an empirical study on using structural conceptual models. In International Conference on Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing, pages 21-38. Springer, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46587-1_2.
  129. John R. Venable and John C. Grundy. Integrating and supporting entity relationship and object role models. In Mike P. Papazoglou, editor, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Object-Oriented and Entity-Relationship Modelling (ER'95), volume 1021 of LNCS, pages 318-328. Springer, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0020543.
  130. Michaël Verdonck, Frederik Gailly, and Sergio de Cesare. Comprehending 3d and 4d ontology-driven conceptual models: an empirical study. Information Systems, 93:101568, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2020.101568.
  131. Michaël Verdonck, Frederik Gailly, Sergio De Cesare, and Geert Poels. Ontology-driven conceptual modeling: A systematic literature mapping and review. Applied Ontology, 10(3-4):197-227, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-150154.
  132. Denny Vrandecic. Building a multilingual Wikipedia. Communications of the ACM, 64(4):38-41, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3425778.
  133. Heba M. Wagih, Doaa S. El Zanfaly, and Mohamed M. Kouta. Mapping Object Role Modeling 2 schemes into SROIQ(d) description logic. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 5(2):232-237, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.7763/ijcte.2013.v5.684.
  134. Kunmei Wen, Yong Zeng, Ruixuan Li, and Jianqiang Lin. Modeling semantic information in engineering applications: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 37:97-117, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-011-9221-2.
  135. Michael Wessel. Obstacles on the way to qualitative spatial reasoning with description logics: some undecidability results. In Carole A. Goble, Deborah L. McGuinness, Ralf Möller, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop in Description Logics (DL'01), volume 49 of CEUR WS, 2001. Stanford, CA, USA, August 1-3, 2001. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-49/Wessel-122start.ps.
  136. Guohui Xiao, Linfang Ding, Benjamin Cogrel, and Diego Calvanese. Virtual knowledge graphs: An overview of systems and use cases. Data Intelligence, 1:201-223, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00011.
  137. Tilmann Zäschke, Stefania Leone, Tobias Gmünder, and Moira C. Norrie. Optimising conceptual data models through profiling in object databases. In Wilfred Ng, Veda C. Storey, and Juan Trujillo, editors, Proceedings of the 32th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER'13), volume 8217 of LNCS, pages 284-297. Springer, 2013. Hong-Kong, November 11-13, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_24.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact