Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A core ontology on events for representing occurrences in the real world

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Events are central aspect of many semantic ambient media applications such as surveillance, smart homes, automobiles, and others. Existing models for events typically do not follow a systematic development approach, are conceptually narrow with respect to event features, and their semantics is often ambiguous. This makes the communication between and integration of different event-based components and event-based semantic ambient media applications a challenging task. In this paper, we present the Event-Model-F, a formal model of events based on the foundational ontology DOLCE+DnS Ultralite (DUL). The Event-Model-F provides comprehensive support to represent time and space, objects and persons, mereological, causal, and correlative relationships between events, and different interpretations of the same event. It is developed following a pattern-oriented ontology design approach and can be easily extended by domain specific ontologies. We introduce the design and implementation of an application programming interface that allows for easy integration of the Event-Model-F in arbitrary applications. The use of the Event-Model-F is demonstrated at the example of a socio-technical system of emergency response and implemented in the SemaPlorer+ + application for creating and sharing event descriptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Ontology:DOLCE+DnS_Ultralite, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  2. http://www.weknowit.eu/, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  3. http://www.flickr.com/, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  4. http://www.geonames.org/, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  5. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  6. http://www.foaf-project.org/, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  7. DOLCE provides a similar property between endurants and perdurants (objects and events) called participant-in.

  8. http://wiki.loa-cnr.it/index.php/LoaWiki:Ontologies, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  9. In the case of sociology, causes and effects are states [23].

  10. A good overview provides the following website: http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Tripresso, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  11. http://www.openrdf.org/doc/elmo/1.3/, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  12. http://www.incunabulum.de/projects/it/owl2java, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  13. http://www.openrdf.org/, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  14. http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/, last retrieved: 4 August 2010.

  15. Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, http://www.oasis-open.org/, last retrieved: 6 August 2010.

References

  1. Anicic D, Brelage C, Etzion O, Stojanovic N (2008) Complex event processing for the future internet. http://icep-fis08.fzi.de/

  2. Arndt R, Troncy R, Staab S, Hardman L, Vacura M (2007) COMM: designing a well-founded multimedia ontology for the web. In: International semantic web conference. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Auer S, Lehmann J, Hellmann S (2009) LinkedGeoData: adding a spatial dimension to the web of data. In: International semantic web conference. Springer, Berlin, pp 731–746. ISBN 978-3-642-04929-3. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04930-9_46

  4. Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) (2003) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-78176-0

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Baumgartner N, Retschitzegger W (2006) A survey of upper ontologies for situation awareness. In: Knowledge sharing and collaborative engineering. St. Thomas, VI, USA. ACTA Press, Calgary, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumgartner N, Retschitzegger W, Schwinger W (2008) A software architecture for ontology-driven situation awareness. In: Applied computing. ACM, New York, pp 2326–2330. ISBN 978-1-59593-753-7. doi:10.1145/1363686.1364237

  7. Bizer C, Lehmann J, Kobilarov G, Auer S, Becker C, Cyganiak R, Hellmann S (2009) DBpedia: a crystallization point for the web of data. Web Semantics 7(3):154–165. ISSN 1570-8268. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2009.07.002

    Google Scholar 

  8. Borgo S, Masolo C (2009) Foundational choices in DOLCE. In: Handbook on ontologies, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Broda K, Clark K, Miller R, Russo A (2009) Sage: a logical agent-based environment monitoring and control system. In: Tscheligi M, de Ruyter B, Markopoulos P, Wichert R, Mirlacher T, Meschtscherjakov A, Reitberger W (eds) Ambient intelligence, Salzburg, Austria. LNCS, vol 5859. Springer, New York, pp 112–117. ISBN 978-3-642-05407-5

    Google Scholar 

  10. Casati R, Varzi A (2006) Events. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/events

  11. Cervesato I, Franceschet M, Montanari A (1999) A guided tour through some extensions of the event calculus. Comput Intell 16:200

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen H, Finin TW, Joshi A (2003) Using OWL in a pervasive computing broker. In: Ontologies in agent systems; Melbourne, Australia. CEUR workshop proceedings, vol 73, pp 9–16. CEUR-WS.org

  13. Chen H, Joshi A (2004) The SOUPA ontology for pervasive computing. Birkhauser, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  14. Doerr M, Ore C-E, Stead S (2007) The CIDOC conceptual reference model: a new standard for knowledge sharing. In: Conceptual modeling. Australian Computer Society, Canberra, pp 51–56. ISBN 978-1-920682-64-4

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ekin A, Tekalp AM, Mehrotra R (2004) Integrated semantic-syntactic video modeling for search and browsing. IEEE Trans Multimedia 6(6):839–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fellbaum C (ed) (1998) WordNet: an electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Francois ARJ, Nevatia R, Hobbs J, Bolles RC (2005) VERL: an ontology framework for representing and annotating video events. IEEE MultiMedia 12(4):76–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Franz T, Staab S, Arndt R (2007) The X-COSIM integration framework for a seamless semantic desktop. In: Knowledge capture. ACM, New York, pp 143–150. ISBN 978-1-59593-643-1. doi:10.1145/1298406.1298433

  19. Gangemi A (2008) Norms and plans as unification criteria for social collectives. AAMAS 17(1):70–112. ISSN 1387-2532. doi:10.1007/s10458-008-9038-9

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gangemi A, Guarino N, Masolo C, Oltramari A, Schneider L (2002) Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In: International conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management. London, UK. Springer, Berlin, pp 166–181. ISBN 3-540-44268-5

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gangemi A, Mika P (2003) Understanding the semantic web through descriptions and situations. In: CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE, pp 689–706

  22. IPTC International Press Telecommunications Council, London, UK (2008) EventML. http://iptc.org/

  23. Itkonen E. Causality in linguistic theory. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

  24. Kokar MM, Matheus CJ, Baclawski K (2009) Ontology-based situation awareness. Information Fusion 10(1):83–98. ISSN 1566-2535. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2007.01.004

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lin F (1996) Embracing causality in specifying the indeterminate effects of actions. In: AAAI/IAAI, vol 1, pp 670–676

  26. Lin F (2008) Situtation calculus. In: Handbook of knowledge representation. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lombard L (1986) Events: a metaphysical study. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. Masolo C, Borgo S, Gangemi A, Guarino N, Oltramari A (2003) WonderWeb deliverable D18 ontology library; IST WonderWeb project. http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf

  29. Matheus C, Kokar M, Baclawski K, Letkowski J, Call C, Hinman M, Salerno J, Boulware D (2005) Sawa: an assistant for higher-level fusion and situation awareness. In: Multisensor, multisource information fusion: architectures, algorithms, and applications. Orlando, USA. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 75–85

    Google Scholar 

  30. Matheus CJ, Baclawski K, Kokar MM, Letkowski J (2005) Using SWRL and OWL to capture domain knowledge for a situation awareness application applied to a supply logistics scenario. In: Rules and rule markup languages for the semantic web. LNCS, vol 3791. Springer, New York, pp 130–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Matheus CJ, Kokar MM, Baclawski K (2003) A core ontology for situation awareness; Cairns, Australia. In: Information fusion, pp 545–552

  32. Matheus CJ, Kokar MM, Baclawski K, Letkowski J (2005) An application of semantic web technologies to situation awareness. In: International semantic web conference. LNCS, vol 3729. Springer, New York, pp 944–958

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mueller ET (2008) Event calculus. In: Handbook of knowledge representation. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mühl G, Fiege L, Pietzuch P (2006) Distributed event-based systems. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Mylonas P, Avrithis Y, Kalantidis Y, Spyrou E, Tolias G, Giannakidou E, Ireson N, Smrz P (2009) D2.1.2 intelligent media analysis tools. Technical report. http://www.weknowit.eu/sites/default/files/D2.1.2.pdf

  36. Nevatia R, Hobbs J, Bolles B (2004) An ontology for video event representation. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition. Washington, DC, USA. IEEE, New York, p 119. ISBN 0-7695-2158-4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Oberle D (2006) Semantic management of middleware. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Oberle D, Ankolekar A, Hitzler P, Cimiano P, Sintek M, Kiesel M, Mougouie B, Baumann S, Vembu S, Romanelli M, Buitelaar P, Engel R, Sonntag D, Reithinger N, Loos B, Zorn H-P, Micelli V, Porzel R, Schmidt C, Weiten M, Burkhardt F, Zhou J (2007) DOLCE ergo SUMO: on foundational & domain models in the SmartWeb integrated ontology. Web Semantics 5(3):156–174. ISSN 1570-8268. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2007.06.002

  39. Oberle D, Lamparter S, Grimm S, Vrandečić D, Staab S, Gangemi A (2006) Towards ontologies for formalizing modularization and communication in large software systems. Applied Ontologies 1(2):163–202. ISSN 1570-5838

    Google Scholar 

  40. Patel-Schneider PF, Hayes P, Horrocks I (2004) OWL web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax. Technical report, W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/

  41. Pease A, Niles I, Li J (2002) The suggested upper merged ontology: a large ontology for the semantic web and its applications. In: Ontologies and the semantic web. AAAI, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  42. Quinton A (1979) Objects and events. Mind 88(350):197–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Raimond Y, Abdallah S (2007) The event ontology. http://motools.sf.net/event

  44. Rozsnyai S, Schiefer J, Schatten A (2007) Concepts and models for typing events for event-based systems. In: Distributed event-based systems. ACM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Saathoff C, Schenk S, Scherp A (2008) KAT: the K-Space annotation tool. In: SAMT demo and poster session. Koblenz, Germany

  46. Saathoff C, Scherp A (2010) Unlocking the semantics of multimedia presentations in the web with the multimedia metadata ontology. In: World Wide Web conference, Raleigh, NC, USA. ACM, New York, pp 831–840

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sahana Software Foundation (2010) Sahana: home of the free and open source disaster management system. http://sahanafoundation.org/

  48. Schenk S, Saathoff C, Staab S, Scherp A (2009) Semaplorer: interactive semantic exploration of data and media based on a federated cloud infrastructure. Web Semantics 7(4):298–304. ISSN 1570-8268. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2009.09.006

  49. Schenk S, Staab S (2008) Networked graphs: a declarative mechanism for SPARQL rules, SPARQL views and RDF data integration on the Web. In: World Wide Web conference. Beijing, China

  50. Scherp A (2009) Research on events in computer science. In: Semantic ambient media intelligence. Salzburg, Austria

  51. Scherp A, Agaram S, Jain R (2008) Event-centric media management. In: SPIE, vol 6820

  52. Scherp A, Franz T, Saathoff C, Staab S (2009) F–a model of events based on the foundational ontology DOLCE+DnS ultralight. In: Conference on knowledge capture. ACM, New York, pp 137–144. ISBN 978-1-60558-658-8. doi:10.1145/1597735.1597760

  53. Scherp A, Papadopoulos S, Kritikos A, Schwagereit F, Saathoff C, Franz T, Schmeiss D, Staab S, Schenk S, Bonifacio M (2009) D5.2.1 prototypical knowledge management methodology. Technical report. http://www.weknowit.eu/sites/default/files/D5.2.1.pdf

  54. Shafer G (1998) Causal logic. In: European conference on artificial intelligence. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. Shipley B (2002) Cause and correlation in biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sinclair P, Addis M, Choi F, Doerr M, Lewis P, Martinez K (2006) The use of CRM core in multimedia annotation. In: Semantic web annotations for multimedia

  57. Smart PR (2005) Knowledge-intensive fusion for situational awareness: band sultan dam failure scenario. Technical report, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton. URL http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11609/

  58. Storf H, Kleinberger T, Becker M, Schmitt M, Bomarius F, Prueckner S (2009) An event-driven approach to activity recognition in ambient assisted living. In: Tscheligi M, de Ruyter B, Markopoulos P, Wichert R, Mirlacher T, Meschtscherjakov A, Reitberger W (eds) Ambient intelligence, Salzburg, Austria. LNCS, vol 5859. Springer, New York, pp 123–132. ISBN 978-3-642-05407-5

    Google Scholar 

  59. Strang T, Linnhoff-Popien C (2004) A context modeling survey. In: Advanced context modelling, reasoning and management. Nottingham, England

  60. The National E9-1-1 Implementation Coordination Office, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, USA (2009) A national plan for migrating to ip-enabled 9-1-1 systems. http://911.gov/pdf/National_NG911_Migration_Plan_FINAL.pdf

  61. Ultra Electronics Ltd., UK (2010) Aims: atlas incident management system. http://www.atlasops.com/products/aims.php

  62. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA (2009) 911.gov: community response grids, e-government, and emergencies. http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/911gov/

  63. Ushahidi.com (2010) Ushahidi: crowdsorcing crisis information. http://www.ushahidi.com/

  64. U.S. Department of Transportation (2010) 911.gov—the national 911 office. http://911.gov/

  65. VectorCommand Ltd., UK (2010) Emergency command system. http://www.emergencycommandsystem.com/products/command-support-system/

  66. Wang X, Mamadgi S, Thekdi A, Kelliher A, Sundaram H (2007) Eventory—an event based media repository. In: Semantic computing. Washington, DC, USA. IEEE, New York, pp 95–104. ISBN 0-7695-2997-6

    Google Scholar 

  67. Wang XH, Zhang DQ, Gu T, Pung HK (2004) Ontology based context modeling and reasoning using OWL. In: Pervasive computing and communications workshops. Washington, DC, USA. IEEE, New York, p 18. ISBN 0-7695-2106-1

    Google Scholar 

  68. Waters J, Brooks R (2009) The distribution element: the basic steps to package and address your emergency informations (an oasis emergency management technical committee white paper). OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34264/EDXL-DE-Basics-White

  69. Westermann U, Jain R (2007) Toward a common event model for multimedia applications. IEEE MultiMedia 14(1):19–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wu PF, Preece J, Shneiderman B, Jaeger PT, Qu Y (2007) Community response grids for older adults: motivations, usability, and sociability

  71. Yau SS, Liu J (2006) Hierarchical situation modeling and reasoning for pervasive computing. In: Software technologies for future embedded and ubiquitous systems. Washington, DC, USA. IEEE, New York, pp 5–10. ISBN 0-7695-2560-1

    Google Scholar 

  72. Yoshioka S, Hirano Y, Kajita S, Mase K, Maekawa T (2009) Semi-automatic story creation system in ubiquitous sensor environment. In: Tscheligi M, de Ruyter B, Markopoulos P, Wichert R, Mirlacher T, Meschtscherjakov A, Reitberger W (eds) Ambient intelligence, Salzburg, Austria. LNCS, vol 5859. Springer, New York, pp 106–111. ISBN 978-3-642-05407-5

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been co-funded by the EU in FP6 in the X-Media project (026978) and FP7 in the WeKnowIt project (215453). We kindly thank Peter Whitwam and Keith Bradley from the Emergency Planning Team of the City Council of Sheffield, UK for the discussions on emergency planning and emergency response and the requirements and feedback on the SemaPlorer+ + application. We thank our student Daniel Schmeiß for his support in implementing the Event-Model-F API and SemaPlorer+ + application.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Koblenz-Landau, Universitätsstr. 1, 56070, Koblenz, Germany

    Ansgar Scherp, Thomas Franz, Carsten Saathoff & Steffen Staab

Authors
  1. Ansgar Scherp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Franz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carsten Saathoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steffen Staab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ansgar Scherp.

Appendix A: Axiomatization of the Event-Model-F in description logic

Appendix A: Axiomatization of the Event-Model-F in description logic

In the following, we describe the axiomatization of our Event-Model-F in Description Logics [4] along the different patterns for participation, composition, causality, correlation, and interpretation. A discussion on the axiomatization of ontology design patterns in general is conducted at the example of the causality pattern in Section 6.

1.1 A.1 Participation pattern

The participation pattern is discussed in Section 5.1. It describes the set of objects that participate in an event and are relevant in a given context. The participation pattern defines that for one event there has to be at least one participant. This means that there are no events without a participating object. We formalize this with the following set of axioms:

$$ \begin{array}{rl} EventParticipationDescription& \sqsubseteq Description \\ EventParticipationDescription& \sqsubseteq \forall defines.(Participant \sqcup DescribedEvent) \\ EventParticipationDescription& \sqsubseteq \geq 1 (defines.Participant) \\ EventParticipationDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (defines.DescribedEvent) \\ EventParticipationDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (satisfiedBy.EventParticipationSituation) \\ EventParticipationSituation& \sqsubseteq Situation \\ EventParticipationSituation& \sqsubseteq \forall includesEvent.(\\ & \qquad \exists isClassifiedBy.DescribedEvent) \\ EventParticipationSituation& \sqsubseteq \forall includesObject.(\\ & \qquad \exists isClassifiedBy.Participant) \\ EventParticipationSituation& \sqsubseteq =1(satisfies.EventParticipationDescription) \\ DescribedEvent& \sqsubseteq EventType \\ DescribedEvent& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.(\exists isEventIncludedIn.\\ & \qquad EventParticipationSituation) \\ DescribedEvent& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn.EventParticipationDescription) \\ Participant& \sqsubseteq Role \\ Participant& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.(\exists isObjectIncludedIn.\\ & \qquad EventParticipationSituation) \\ Participant& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn.EventParticipationDescription) \end{array} $$

1.2 A.2 Mereology pattern

The composition pattern defines how events are composed, i.e., it basically describes a part-whole relationship between events that is valid in a certain context and is possibly subject to a set of constraints (cf. Section 5.2). We require exactly one composite event, i.e., the whole, and at least one component, i.e., the part. The specification of constraints is optional.

$$\begin{array}{rl}EventCompositionDescription & \sqsubseteq Description \\ EventCompositionDescription & \sqsubseteq \forall defines.(Composite \sqcup Component \\ & \qquad \sqcup EventCompositionConstraint)\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{rl}EventCompositionDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (defines.Composite) \\ EventCompositionDescription& \sqsubseteq \geq 1 (defines.Component) \\ EventCompositionDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (satisfiedBy.EventCompositionSituation) \\ EventCompositionSituation & \sqsubseteq Situation \\ EventCompositionSituation & \sqsubseteq \forall includesEvent.\left(\exists isClassifiedBy.\right.\\ & \qquad \left. (Composite \sqcup Component)\right)\\ EventCompositionSituation & \sqsubseteq \forall includesSpace.\left(\exists isParametrizedBy.\right.\\ &\qquad \left. SpatialConstraint\right) \\ EventCompositionSituation& \sqsubseteq \forall includesTime.\left(\exists isParametrizedBy.\right.\\ &\qquad \left. TemporalConstraint\right) \\ EventCompositionSituation& \sqsubseteq \forall includesSpaceTime. \\ & \qquad (\exists isParametrizedBy.SpatioTemporalConstraint) \\ EventCompositionSituation& \sqsubseteq =1(satisfies.EventCompositionDescription) \\ Composite& \sqsubseteq EventType \\ Composite& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.\left(\exists isEventIncludedIn.\right.\\ & \qquad \left. EventCompositionSituation\right) \\ Composite& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn.EventCompositionDescription) \\ Component& \sqsubseteq EventType \\ Component& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.\left(\exists isEventIncludedIn.\right.\\ & \qquad \left.EventCompositionSituation\right) \\ Component& \sqsubseteq 1(isDefinedIn.EventCompositionDescription) \\ EventCompositionConstraint& \sqsubseteq Parameter \\ EventCompositionConstraint& \sqsubseteq =1 (isDefinedIn.EventComposition) \\ EventCompositionConstraint& \sqsubseteq \forall parametrizes.\left(\exists hasSetting.\right.\\ & \qquad \left.EventCompositionSituation\right) \\ SpatialConstraint& \sqsubseteq EventCompositionConstraint \\ SpatialConstraint& \sqsubseteq \forall parametrizes.SpaceRegion \\ TemporalConstraint& \sqsubseteq EventCompositionConstraint \\ TemporalConstraint& \sqsubseteq \forall parametrizes.TimeRegion \\ SpatioTemporalConstraint& \sqsubseteq EventCompositionConstraint \\ SpatioTemporalConstraint& \sqsubseteq \forall parametrizes.SpatioTemporalRegion \end{array}$$

1.3 A.3 Causality pattern

The causality pattern defines a causal relationship by exactly one cause, exactly one effect, and exactly one justification. The pattern is described in Section 5.3. A formal axiomatization is provided below.

$$ \begin{array}{rl} EventCausalityDescription& \sqsubseteq Description \\ EventCausalityDescription& \sqsubseteq \forall defines.(Cause \sqcup Effect \sqcup Justification) \\ EventCausalityDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (defines.Cause) \\ EventCausalityDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (defines.Effect) \\ EventCausalityDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (defines.Justification) \\ EventCausalityDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (satisfiedBy.EventCausalitySituation) \\ EventCausalitySituation& \sqsubseteq Situation \\ EventCausalitySituation& \sqsubseteq =1(includesEvent.(\exists isClassifiedBy.Cause)) \\ EventCausalitySituation& \sqsubseteq =1(includesEvent.(\exists isClassifiedBy.Effect)) \\ EventCausalitySituation& \sqsubseteq =1(includesObject.(\exists isClassifiedBy.Justification)) \\ EventCausalitySituation& \sqsubseteq =1(satisfies.EventCausalityDescription) \\ Cause& \sqsubseteq EventType \\ Cause& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.(\exists isEventIncludedIn.\\ & \qquad EventCausalitySituation) \\ Cause& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn.EventCausalityDescription) \\ Effect& \sqsubseteq EventType \\ Effect& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.(\exists isEventIncludedIn.\\ & \qquad EventCausalitySituation) \\ Effect& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn.EventCausalityDescription) \\ Justification& \sqsubseteq Role \\ Justification& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.\left(Description \sqcap \exists isObjectIncludedIn.\right.\\ & \qquad (EventCausalitySituation \sqcup \\ & \qquad EventCorrelationSituation) \\ Justification& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn.(EventCausalityDescription \sqcup \\ & EventCorrelationDescription)) \end{array} $$

1.4 A.4 Correlation pattern

The correlation pattern describes the correlation of a set of events, as discussed in Section 5.4. It only makes sense to specify a correlation between two or more events. Further, the correlation description also refers to the justification defined for the causality pattern.

$$ \begin{array}{rl} EventCorrelationDescription& \sqsubseteq Description \\ EventCorrelationDescription& \sqsubseteq \forall defines.(Correlate \sqcup Justification) \\ EventCorrelationDescription& \sqsubseteq \geq 2 (defines.Correlate) \\ EventCorrelationDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (defines.Justification) \\ EventCorrelationDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (satisfiedBy.EventCorrelationSituation) \\ EventCorrelationSituation& \sqsubseteq Situation \\ EventCorrelationSituation& \sqsubseteq \geq 2(includesEvent.(\exists isClassifiedBy.Correlate)) \\ EventCorrelationSituation& \sqsubseteq =1(includesObject.(\exists isClassifiedBy.Justification)) \\ EventCorrelationSituation& \sqsubseteq =1(satisfies.EventCausalityDescription) \\ Correlate& \sqsubseteq EventType \\ Correlate& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.(\exists isEventIncludedIn.\\ & \qquad EventCorrelationSituation) \\ Correlate& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn.EventCorrelationDescription) \\ \end{array} $$

1.5 A.5 Documentation pattern

The documentation pattern provides the documentation of an event by arbitrary sensory data such as images, video, and audio as well as other events. Thus, it allows to specify for an event by which objects and events it is documented. The pattern has been discussed in Section 5.5. A formal axiomatization is provided below.

$$ \begin{array}{rl} EventDocumentationDescription& \sqsubseteq Description \\ EventDocumentationDescription& \sqsubseteq \forall defines.(DocumentedEvent \sqcup Documenter) \\ EventDocumentationDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (defines.DocumentedEvent) \\ EventDocumentationDescription& \sqsubseteq \geq 1 (defines.Documenter)\\ EventDocumentationDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (satisfiedBy.EventDocumentationSituation) \\ EventDocumentationSituation& \sqsubseteq Situation \\ EventDocumentationSituation& \sqsubseteq =1 (includesEvent.(\exists isClassifiedBy. \\ & \qquad DocumentedEvent))\\ EventDocumentationSituation& \sqsubseteq \geq 1 (hasSetting.(\exists isClassifiedBy.Documenter)) \\ EventDocumentationSituation& \sqsubseteq =1 (satisfies.EventDocumentationDescription)\\ DocumentedEvent& \sqsubseteq EventType \\ DocumentedEvent& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.(\exists isEventIncludedIn.\\ & \qquad EventDocumentationSituation)\\ DocumentedEvent& \sqsubseteq =1 (isDefinedIn. \\ & \qquad EventDocumentationDescription) \\ Documenter& \sqsubseteq Concept \\ Documenter& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.(\exists hasSetting. \\ & \qquad EventDocumentationSituation) \\ Documenter& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn. \\ & \qquad EventDocumentationDescription) \end{array} $$

1.6 A.6 Interpretation pattern

The interpretation pattern defines an interpretation of exactly one event. Therefore, it provides the means to specify all those patterns for an event that are relevant for the interpretation. We have discussed the pattern in Section 5.6 and provide the formal axiomatization below.

$$ \begin{array}{rl} EventInterpretationDescription& \sqsubseteq Description \\ EventInterpretationDescription& \sqsubseteq \forall defines.(Interpretant \sqcup RelevantSituation) \\ EventInterpretationDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (defines.Interpretant) \\ EventInterpretationDescription& \sqsubseteq \geq 1 (defines.RelevantSituation) \\ EventInterpretationDescription& \sqsubseteq =1 (satisfiedBy.EventInterpretationSituation) \\ EventInterpretationSituation& \sqsubseteq Situation \\ EventInterpretationSituation& \sqsubseteq =1(includesEvent.(\exists isClassifiedBy. \\ & \qquad Interpretant)) \\ EventInterpretationSituation& \sqsubseteq \geq 1(includesObject.(Situation \sqcap \exists \\ & \qquad isClassifiedBy.RelevantSituation)) \\ EventInterpretationSituation& \sqsubseteq =1(satisfies.EventInterpretationDescription) \\ Interpretant& \sqsubseteq EventType \\ Interpretant& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.(\exists isEventIncludedIn.\\ & \qquad EventInterpretationSituation)\\ Interpretant& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn.EventInterpretationDescription) \\ RelevantSituation& \sqsubseteq Role \\ RelevantSituation& \sqsubseteq \forall classifies.(Situation \sqcap \\ & \exists isObjectIncludedIn.EventInterpretationSituation) \\ RelevantSituation& \sqsubseteq =1(isDefinedIn.EventInterpretationDescription) \end{array} $$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scherp, A., Franz, T., Saathoff, C. et al. A core ontology on events for representing occurrences in the real world. Multimed Tools Appl 58, 293–331 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-010-0667-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-010-0667-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation