The Use of UML as a Tool for the Formalisation of Standards and the Design of Ontologies in Agriculture

  • François Pinet
  • Catherine Roussey
  • Thomas Brun
  • Frédéric Vigier
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 25)


For the past 20 years, ontologies have become more and more popular in various research fields such as Web technologies, databases, information retrieval methods, and so forth. The first goal of this chapter is to answer general questions about ontologies, such as: What exactly is an ontology? What is the purpose of ontology? Which types of systems use an ontology? The second goal of the chapter is to help readers understand how UML can be used to model ontologies in agricultural systems. UML and the Web Ontology Language (OWL) are compared, and an example inspired by the French project named Farm Information Management is presented.


Unify Modelling Language Description Logic Object Constraint Language Ontology Language Unify Modelling Language Class Diagram 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    FAO: AGROVOC – A Multilingual Agricultural Thesaurus.
  2. 2.
    Agro-EDI Europe: Agro-EDI Assocation Web Site.
  3. 3.
    Atkinson C.: Models versus Ontologies – What's the difference and where does it matter? VORTE2006, Regal Kowloon Hotel, Hong Kong, October 16th 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bekett, D.: RDF/XML Syntax Specification 2004.
  5. 5.
    Breu, R., Grosu, R., Huber, F., Rumpe, B., Schwerin, W.: Towards a precise semantics for object-oriented modeling techniques. In Object-Oriented Technology, ECOOP'97 Workshop Reader, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark T., Evans A., Kent S., Brodsky S., Cook S.: A feasibility study in rearchitecting UML as a family of languages using a precise OO meta-modeling approach., 2000.
  7. 7.
    Cranefield, S.: UML and the Semantic Web. In: the International Semantic Web Working Symposium, Palo Alto, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cranefield S., Purvis., M.: UML as an ontology modelling language. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration, 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99), 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donini, F., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: Reasoning in description logics. In Gerhard Brewka, ed., Principles of Knowledge Representation, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, pages 193–238. CSLI Publications, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drummond N., Shearer R.: The Open World Assumption or sometimes its nice to know what we don’t Know. University of Manchester.˜drummond/presentations/OWA.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Gasevic D., Djuric D., Devedzic V.: Model Driven Architecture and Ontology Development. Springer, 328p, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    GIEA: GIEA (FIM) Web site.
  13. 13.
    Gruber, R.: Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In International Workshop on Formal Ontology, Padova, Italy, 1993. Available as technical report KSL-93-04.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gruber, R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition vol. 5(2), pp. 199–220, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Vetere, G.: OntoSeek: content-based access to the Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems vol. 14(3), 70–80, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R.A., Pereira Filho, J.G.: Using objects and patterns to implement domain ontologies. Journal of Brazilian Computer Society (JBCS), Special Issue on Software Engineering vol. 8(1), 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., Guarino, N., van Sinderen, M. An Ontologically Well-Founded Profile for UML Conceptual Models. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3084. Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    IBM: Ontology Definition Metamodel, June 2006.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Philippe, M.: Translations between UML, OWL, KIF and the WebKB-2 Languages (For-Taxonomy, Frame-CG, Formalized English). Technical Report, May/June 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller, G., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross D., Miller, K.: Introduction to WordNet: an on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography vol. 3 (4), 1990, Revised August 1993.
  21. 21.
    Nardi, D., Brachman, R.J.: An Introduction to Description Logics. In F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D.L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, P.F. Patel-Schneider, eds. Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    National Committee for Information Technology Standards, Technical Committee T2 (Information Interchange and Interpretation): Knowledge Interchange Format, draft proposed American National Standard (dpANS). NCITS.T2/98-004.
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language, version 1.5, March 2003.
  24. 24.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0, OCL specification, May 2006.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pinet, F., Ventadour, P., Brun, T., Papajorgji, P., Roussey, C., Vigier, F.: Using UML for ontology construction: a case study in agriculture. In: the 7th AOS Workshop on Ontology-Based Knowledge Discovery: Using Metadata & Ontologies for Improving Access to Agricultural Information, Bangalore, India, November 2006.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Schreiber, G.: A UML Presentation Syntax for OWL Lite. Technical Report, 2005.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Standford University: Protégé, 2005.
  29. 29.
    Studer, R., Benjamins, V., Fensel, D.: Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering vol. 25, 161–197, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    W3C: Semantic Web, 2001.
  31. 31.
    W3C: OWL Web Ontology Language:Overview. W3C Recommendation 2004-2-10.
  32. 32.
    W3C: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax W3C. W3C Recommendation February 2004.
  33. 33.
    XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition. W3C Recommendation, October 2004.
  34. 34.
    Wiederhold G: Mediators in the architecture of future information systems. IEEE Computer vol. 25(3), 38–49, 1992.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wikipedia: AGROVOC - Web Site.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Pinet
    • 1
  • Catherine Roussey
  • Thomas Brun
  • Frédéric Vigier
  1. 1.CemagrefClermont FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations