Authors: Francois Pinet, Pierre Ventadour1, Thomas Brun, Petraq Papajorgji, Catherine Roussey, Frederic Vigier Organization: Cemagref, IFAS-UF, CNRS LIRIS

1. Using UML for Ontology construction: a case study in Agriculture Francois Pinet 1 , Pierre Ventadour 1 , Thomas Brun 1 , Petraq Papajorgji 2 , Catherine Roussey 3 , Frederic Vigier 1 1 - Cemagref, France 2 - IFAS-UF, USA 3 - CNRS LIRIS, France

3. UML for ontology construction? - Several studies have acknowledged the benefits of using a standard modelling tool such as UML in ontology construction: Cranefield Stephen, Purvis Martin, 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. Martin Philippe, Translations between UML, OWL, KIF and the WebKB-2 languages (For-Taxonomy, Frame-CG, Formalized English), Technical Report, May/June 2003. IBM, Ontology Definition Metamodel, Submitted by IBM. Schreiber Guus, A UML Presentation Syntax for OWL Lite, Technical Report, 2005. Ect.

6. Example of UML diagram

7. Example of UML diagram class Generalization / Specialization association attribute mutliplicity

8. UML OWL Commun part UML for ontology construction? Example of comparison between OWL and UML UML/OWL Comparison can be found in: IBM, Ontology Definition Metamodel, Fourth Revised Submission to OMG/ RFP ad/2003-03-40 Submitted by IBM, 286p. The expressivity of the two languages are not similar.

9. Similar concepts

10. UML OWL Animal class, Disease class, Identification property, Remark property … + hasDisease property having Disease as values range ( hasDisease is used to replaced the UML association)

11. Approach experimented in the paper: UML class diagram Protegé ( Standford University, Protégé, http://protege.stanford.edu , 2005 ) Import with UML Storage Backend Plug-In (semi-manual process – for instance, the binary associations are not translated into properties) OWL « reasoning » (e.g. deducing new individuals) Thanks to a DIG reasoner e.g. a reasoner supporting the interface defined by the DL Implementation Group (DIG - http://dl.kr.org/dig/ ) ArgoUML

12. Ontology with Protégé

13. “ Reasoning” with Protégé: we can model an individual of Diseased_Animal as an individual belonging to Animal and having a Disease

14. “ Reasoning” with Protégé: we can model an individual of Diseased_Animal as an individual belonging to Animal and having a Disease In Description Logic Diseased_Animal: Property of Animal - it corresponds to the assocation between Disease and Animal in the UML class diagram

15. “ Reasoning” with Protégé: we can model an individual of Diseased_Animal as an individual belonging to Animal and having a Disease Animal It possible to classify the animals with a DIG Reasoner Diseased_Animal Not(Diseased_Animal) Diseased_Animal: In Description Logic

18. Description Logic Examples of DL syntax: C1  …  C n Animal  Male “ the male animals” C1  …  C n Insect  Animal “ the insects and the animals”  C  Mammal “ all expect the mammals”  P.C (universal quantifier)  hasEmployee . Farmer “ individuals only employing farmers”  P.C (existential quantifier)  hasEmployee . Farmer “ individuals employing one farmer or more”

19. Recursive definitions are possible: The class D of all the descendants of animals having a disease: D = Animal   parent.(Diseased_Animal  D ) “ An individual in D is an animal which has a parent having a disease or which is a descendant of an individual of D ”. Starting from a set of diseased animals, it is possible with Protégé and a DIG reasoner to deduce all the descants of animals having a disease.

20. Link between individuals deduced during the reasoning process can be viewed with Jambalaya (Protégé Plug-In) Animal 1 Animal 2 Animal 3 DISEASED ANIMAL class ANIMAL class