Advertisement

Toward a Formal Common Information Model Ontology

  • Stephen Quirolgico
  • Pedro Assis
  • Andrea Westerinen
  • Michael Baskey
  • Ellen Stokes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3307)

Abstract

Self-managing systems will be highly dependent upon information acquired from disparate applications, devices, components and subsystems. To be effectively managed, such information will need to conform to a common model. One standard that provides a common model for describing disparate computer and network information is the Common Information Model (CIM). Although CIM defines the models necessary for inferring properties about distributed systems, its specification as a semi-formal ontology limits its ability to support important requirements of a self-managing distributed system including knowledge interoperability and aggregation, as well as reasoning. To support these requirements, there is a need to model, represent and share CIM as a formal ontology. In this paper, we propose a framework for constructing a CIM ontology based upon previous research that identified mappings from Unified Modeling Language (UML) constructs to ontology language constructs. We extend and apply these mappings to a UML representation of the CIM Schema in order to derive a semantically valid and consistent formal CIM ontology.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kephart, J., Chess, D.: The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Computer 36 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ganek, A., Corbi, T.: The dawning of the autonomic computing era. IBM Systems Journal 42 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Distributed Management Task Force: Common information model (CIM) specification version 2.2 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Distributed Management Task Force: CIM schema: Version 2.7 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fox, M.S., Gruninger, M.: Enterprise modeling. AI Magazine 19 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gruber, T.: It is what it does: The pragmatics of ontology for knowledge sharing. In: Proceedings of the International CIDOC CRM Symposium, Washington DC (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    López de Vergara, J., Villagrá, V., Asensio, J., Berrocal, J.: Ontologies: Giving semantics to network management models. IEEE Network 17 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spyns, P., Meersman, R., Jarrar, M.: Data modelling and ontology engineering. ACM SIGMOD Record 31 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decker, S., Melnik, S., Van Harmelen, F., Fensel, D., Klein, M., Broekstra, J., Erdman, M., Horrocks, I.: The semantic web: The roles of XML and RDF. IEEE Internet Computing (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Wide Web Consortium: Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax specification (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Wide Web Consortium: RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema (2003) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nilsson, M., Palmer, M., Naeve, A.: Semantic web meta-data for e-learning – some architectural guidelines. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group: Unified modeling language (UML) version 1.5 (2003) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.K., Kogut, P.A., Hart, L., Smith, J., Holmes III, W.S., Letkowski, J., Aronson, M.L.: Extending UML to support ontology engineering for the semantic web. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, p. 342. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang, W.W.: A discussion of the relationship between RDF-schema and UML, W3C Note (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF. Journal of Digital Information 1 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Wide Web Consortium: XML schema part 2: Datatypes (2001) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antoniou, G., van Harmelen, F.: Web ontology language: OWL. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies in Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Harmelen, F., Petel-Schneider, P.F., Horrocks, I.: Reference description of the DAML+OIL ontology markup language (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    World Wide Web Consortium: OWL web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax (2003) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Falkovych, K., Sabou, M., Stuckenschmidt, H.: UML for the semantic web: Transformationbased approaches. In: Omelayenko, B., Klein, M. (eds.) Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    AT&T: OWL Full and UML 2.0 compared. Whitepaper (2004) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Ogunquit, Maine (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bantz, D.F., Bisdikian, C., Challener, D., Karidis, J.P., Mastrianni, S., Mohindra, A., Shea, D.G., Vanover, M.: Autonomic personal computing. IBM Systems Journal 42 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    López deVergara, J., Villagrá, V., Berrocal, J.: An ontology-based method to merge and map management information models. In: Proceedings of the HP Openview University Association Tenth Plenary Workshop, Geneva, Switzerland (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lavinal, E., Desprats, T., Raynaud, Y.: A conceptual framework for building CIM-based ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Eighth IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2003), Colorado Springs, Colorado (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tangmunarunkit, H., Decker, S., Kesselman, C.: Ontology-based resource matching in the grid – the grid meets the semantic web. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 706–721. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lanfranchi, G., Della Peruta, P., Perrone, A., Calvanese, D.: Toward a new landscape of systems management in an autonomic computing environment. IBM Systems Journal 41 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kogut, P., Cranefield, S., Hart, L., Dutra, M., Baclawski, K., Kokar, M., Smith, J.: UML for ontology development. Knowledge Engineering Review Journal Special Issue on Ontologies in Agent Systems 17 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Quirolgico
    • 1
  • Pedro Assis
    • 2
  • Andrea Westerinen
    • 3
  • Michael Baskey
    • 4
  • Ellen Stokes
    • 5
  1. 1.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of Electrical EngineeringInstituto Politécnico do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Cisco SystemsSan JoseUSA
  4. 4.IBMPoughkeepsieUSA
  5. 5.IBMAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations