Advertisement

Abstract

Ontology is the fundamental part of Semantic Web. The goal of W3C is to bring the web into (its full potential) a semantic web with reusing previous systems and artifacts. Most legacy systems have been documented in structural analysis and structured design (SASD), especially in simple or Extended ER Diagram (ERD). Such systems need up-gradation to become the part of semantic web. In this paper, we present ERD to OWL-DL ontology transformation rules at concrete level. These rules facilitate an easy and understandable transformation from ERD to OWL. The set of rules for transformation is tested on a structured analysis and design example. The framework provides OWL ontology for semantic web fundamental. This framework helps software engineers in upgrading the structured analysis and design artifact ERD, to components of semantic web. Moreover our transformation tool, ER2OWL, reduces the cost and time for building OWL ontologies with the reuse of existing entity relationship models.

Keywords

Object Property Mapping Rule Composite Attribute Granular Computing Subtype Relation 
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.

References

  1. [1]
    T. P. Fries. A Framework for Transforming Structured Analysis and Design Artifacts to UML. SIGDOC’06, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA, October 18–20, 2006,Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. M. Colomb, A. Gerber, M. Lawley. Issues in Mapping Metamodels in the Ontology Development Metamodel Using QVT.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Z. Xu, S. Zhang, Y. Dong. Mapping between Relational Database Schema and OWL ontology for Deep Annotation. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI’06), 2006 IEEEGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Kupfer, S. Eckstein, K. Neumann and B. Mathiak. A Coevolution Approach for Database Schemas and related Ontologies. Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS’06), 2006 IEEEGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Ontology Definition Metamodel, second Revised Submission to OMG/RDF ad/2006-04-13Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    O. Vasilecas, D. Bugaite, J. Trinkunas. On Approach for Enterprise Ontology Transformation into Conceptual Model. International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, CompSysTech’06Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Dou, P. LePendu. Ontology based Integration for Relational Databases. SAC’06, April 2327, 2006, Dijon, France.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. R. Upadhyaya and P. S. Kumar. ERONTO: A Tool for Extracting Ontologies from Extended E/R Diagrams, ACM Symposium on Applied Computing 2005.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    OWL Web Ontology Language Guide, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/
  10. [10]
    P. Chen. The Entity Relationship model towards a unified view of data, ACM Transactions Database Systems., I,1( March 1976),9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    M.A. Qadir, M. Fahad, S.A. Hussain-Shah, Incompleteness Errors in Ontologies. InProc. of International Conference on Granular Computing, Silicon Valley, USA, IEEE Computer Society. pp 279–282Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    W. Noshairwan, M.A. Qadir, M. Fahad. Sufficient Knowledge Omission error and Redundant Disjoint Relation in Ontology. InProc. 5th Atlantic Web Intelligence Conference, Fontainebleau, France (June 25–27, 2007)Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Fahad, M.A. Qadir, W. Noshairwan. Semantic Inconsistency Errors in Ontologies. In Proc. of InternaQtional Conference on Granular Computing, Silicon Valley, USA, IEEE Computer Society. pp 283–286Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    G. Antoniou, and F.V. Harmelen, A Semantic Web Primer. MIT Press Cambridge, ISBN 0-262-01210-3, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammad Fahad
    • 1
  1. 1.Mohammad Ali Jinnah UniversityIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations