Ansgar Scherp
Steffen Staab
ABSTRACT
The lack of a formal model of events hinders interoperability in distributed event-based systems. In this paper, we present a formal model of events, called Event-Model-F. The model is based on the foundational ontology DOLCE+DnS Ultralight (DUL) and provides comprehensive support to represent time and space, objects and persons, as well as mereological, causal, and correlative relationships between events. In addition, the Event-Model-F provides a flexible means for event composition, modeling event causality and event correlation, and representing different interpretations of the same event. The Event-Model-F is developed following the pattern-oriented approach of DUL, is modularized in different ontologies, and can be easily extended by domain specific ontologies.
- R. Arndt, R. Troncy, S. Staab, L. Hardman, and M. Vacura. COMM: Designing a well-founded multimedia ontology for the web. In ISWC. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- R. Casati and A. Varzi. Events. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/events.Google Scholar
- I. Cervesato, M. Franceschet, and A. Montanari. A guided tour through some extensions of the event calculus. Computational Intelligence, 16:200--0, 1999.Google Scholar
- M. Doerr, C.-E. Ore, and S. Stead. The CIDOC conceptual reference model: a new standard for knowledge sharing. In Conceptual modeling. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Ekin, A. M. Tekalp, and R. Mehrotra. Integrated semantic-syntactic video modeling for search and browsing. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 6(6), 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Ericsson and M. Berndtsson. Rex, the rule and event explorer. In H.-A. Jacobsen, G. Mühl, and M. A. Jaeger, editors, DEBS. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. R. J. Francois, R. Nevatia, J. Hobbs, and R. C. Bolles. VERL: An ontology framework for representing and annotating video events. IEEE MultiMedia, 12(4), 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Franz, S. Staab, and R. Arndt. The X-COSIM integration framework for a seamless semantic desktop. In Knowledge capture. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Gangemi. Norms and plans as unification criteria for social collectives. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 17(1), 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Gangemi, N. Guarino, C. Masolo, A. Oltramari, and L. Schneider. Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE. In EKAW. Springer, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- IPTC. EventML, 2008. http://iptc.org/.Google Scholar
- E. Itkonen. Causality in Linguistic Theory. Indiana Univ. Press, 1983.Google Scholar
- L. Lombard. Events: A metaphysical study. Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1986.Google Scholar
- C. Masolo, S. Borgo, A. Gangemi, N. Guarino, and A. Oltramari. WonderWeb deliverable D18 ontology library; IST WonderWeb project, 2003.Google Scholar
- W. May, J. J. Alferes, and R. Amador. An ontology- and resources-based approach to evolution and reactivity in the semantic web. In OTM. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. T. Mueller. Handbook of Knowledge Representation, chapter Event Calculus. Elsevier, 2008.Google Scholar
- G. Mühl, L. Fiege, and P. Pietzuch. Distributed Event-Based Systems. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Nevatia, J. Hobbs, and B. Bolles. An ontology for video event representation. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Oberle. Semantic Management of Middleware. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Oberle and et al. Towards ontologies for formalizing modularization and communication in large software systems. Appl. Ontol., 1(2):163--202, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Oberle and et al. DOLCE ergo SUMO: On foundational&domain models in the SmartWeb Integrated Ontology. Web Semant., 5(3), 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Quinton. Objects and events. Mind, 88(350), 1979.Google Scholar
- Y. Raimond and S. Abdallah. The event ontology, 2007. http://motools.sf.net/event.Google Scholar
- A. Scherp, S. Agaram, and R. Jain. Event-centric media management. In SPIE, 2008.Google Scholar
- B. Shipley. Cause and Correlation in Biology. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002.Google Scholar
- P. Sinclair, M. Addis, F. Choi, and et al. The use of CRM core in multimedia annotation. In Semantic Web Annotations for Multimedia, 2006.Google Scholar
- R. Vaculín and K. Sycara. Specifying and monitoring composite events for semantic web services. In ECOWS. IEEE, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- X. Wang, S. Mamadgi, A. Thekdi, A. Kelliher, and H. Sundaram. Eventory--an event based media repository. In Semantic Computing. IEEE, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- U. Westermann and R. Jain. Toward a common event model for multimedia applications. IEEE MultiMedia, 14(1), 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. B. Zdonik, M. Stonebraker, M. Cherniack, and et al. The Aurora and Medusa projects. IEEE Data Eng., 26(1), 2003.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- F--a model of events based on the foundational ontology dolce+DnS ultralight
Recommendations
A core ontology on events for representing occurrences in the real world
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 ...
DOLCE ergo SUMO: On foundational and domain models in the SmartWeb Integrated Ontology (SWIntO)
Increased availability of mobile computing, such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), creates the potential for constant and intelligent access to up-to-date, integrated and detailed information from the Web, regardless of one's actual geographical ...
Discussing the applicability of a process core ontology and aspects of its internal quality
AbstractA well-engineered strategy should specify and integrate three capabilities: process, method, and domain terminology specifications. The domain terminology of different strategies should be based on reference vocabularies. Thus, a process ontology ...
Reviews
Haim I. Kilov
This well-written paper proposes a model of a system of events, as opposed to the existing models of (more or less) isolated events. Scherp et al.'s model supports structural aspects-that is, relationships-and separates the generic structural knowledge about events and objects from the knowledge of a specific application domain. The authors apply events "to capture and represent human experience," as opposed to low-level signals and actions, and observe that the existing models "are conceptually narrow and their semantics is typically ambiguous." Thus, the most interesting characteristics of this event model are in the definitions of the relationships between events. Indeed, the authors introduce and describe "mereological, causal, and correlation relationships," and substantially use a subtyping relationship. They also introduce viewpoints, or interpretation patterns, which are based on "the context and point of view of the observer." Unfortunately, the authors neither use nor reference the standard definitions [1]. The authors' descriptions of generic relationships are arguably less clear and less explicit than the definitions of subtyping, composition, and reference relationships in the standards [1]. In fact, Scherp et al. fail to explicitly describe or define subtyping, and the causal and correlation relationships may be defined using the composition and reference relationships. Their descriptions of generic relationships are obviously event-specific, without referring to the actual concepts. If the authors' semantics definitions were clear and explicit, it would have been impossible for the authors to state, for example, in Section 4.1 that "correlation refers to two events that have a common cause," and then in Section 5.4 state that a "set of events is called correlated if they have a common cause." Furthermore, Scherp et al. do not explicitly refer to property determination as the most important characteristic of generic relationships (such as composition), although they tacitly acknowledge the existence and importance of this characteristic. From the authors' descriptions and Figure 2, it is apparent that their patterns-participation, mereology, causality, correlation, documentation, and interpretation-have important similarities, including similar generic and pattern-specific relationships among the components. It would certainly be worthwhile to discover a common pattern or patterns that generalize these, especially since the authors include modularity and reusability among nonfunctional requirements for their model. In Section 5, Scherp et al. refer in passing to "the n-ary relation that exists between multiple individuals of events and objects." Various generic relationships may be considered as different types of this relation; it is quite possible, for example, to generalize the authors' composition of events only, and consider-in their participation and mereology patterns-an event composed of other events and of objects participating in that event. In accordance with the standard definition of composition [1], the properties of the composite are defined by those components and by the way they are combined. Although various situations and descriptions may also be decomposed in this manner, the paper does not describe this. Finally, it is difficult to agree with the authors' statement that "event-based systems need to be able to automatically check the validity of the exchanged knowledge ... with respect to the semantics," for two reasons: validation is and can only be done by humans, and we are still too far from "formal precision" in the definition of semantics. In summary, while this appears to be a nice and interesting model, it needs further development, preferably with existing standards. Online Computing Reviews Service
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments