Report on Smart-SCCS Ontology Modelling

A key artefact of this research is the systematic development of the Smart-SCCS framework. After having introduced the proposed holistic six-layered Smart-SCCS model in Chapter 4 and collected all the relevant data.  This chapter provides a detailed insight into the design and development process of the framework meta-models, the tools that were selected for the development process and the design specification. Ontology is utilised to capture the systematic framework of the Smart-SCCS territory, its perceptions, relationships, rules, and contexts of use. Also discusses the various semantic modelling development environment and how they have been applied to develop the ontology and knowledge representation.  The development process followed in the study of “ Advancement of Ontology  101” introduced by Noy and McGuinness.   Finally, section xx concludes the chapter and paves the ground for the implementation of Smart-SCCS framework infrastructure to enable the querying and applying SWRL for the reasoning of the developed OWL knowledge base. It is described in more details in Chapter 6.  

5.1 Ontology Building Methodology of Smart-SCCS Ontology Modelling

The ontology building methodology adopted in this thesis is  “the progress in the field of Ontology 101” (Noy and McGuinness, 2001). It is a simple knowledge engineering methodology to develop ontologies and is based on a declarative knowledge representation system (Noy & Deborah, 2001). The authors developed this as an iterative approach and centred on their involvement of ontology and their usage in the environment such as Protégé. It is one of the most cited methodologies for ontology development using Protégé. The methodology consists of eight general steps for designing and developing the proposes Smart-SCCS ontology, as it will be shiwn in the figure 5.1. the procedure can be give below:

1.    The first step of developing an ontology begins with identifying the domain. Then extending the domain to identify its scope and purpose. The purpose of the ontology is to guide the design process by acting as a domain conceptualisation (Noy and McGuinness, 2001). This is achieved by answering the following questions (S. Bechhofer, C. Goble, 2003):

·         Which domainthat can be covered by Ontology?

·         What is the initial goal of the ontology?

·         What are the interrogations that can be replied via the evidence provided in the ontology?

2.    The second step ontologies can already be developed by the entail checking in the specific region. It would be simple to influence an surviving ontology that can be uniform one’s needs and desires than to produce a new rduct from the existed scratch.

One of the advantages of using ontology is the ability to reuse already existing ontologies. To segment a collective empathetic of the informational frame work between indivuas as well as software negotiators

• To make the knowledge to use it again

• To develop the area the assumptions can be categorical.

• To dispersed the domain awareness from the operating awareness.

• To analyse sphere information

3.    The third step is brainstorming, identifying and compute the most significant ontological conceptions and slogans in the given domain. Creating a taxonomy of SCCS components is a approach of organized a cluster of concepts, utilising a categorised frsmework.

4.    The fourth step includes the classifying as well as appropriate approach for the  modelling of ontology:upward, centred ordownward mainly. The top-down method starts by identifying the domain’s most general concepts, then more specialised ones, whereas the downward perspective can be instigates by describing the most detailed lessons, then groups them into more in overall models. The centered  method begins  by defining the essential positions in each expanse while deaing with the most significant intangible of an indiviual. The assortment of a specific model should be take into deliberation with the following factors:

·         The bottom-up approach; needs to work with more power, it is not easy to find out the similarity between  the connection of concepts because such as the outcomes of Ontology are very high level as well as they contains the description of the perspectives, and these approaches lso need to pay  more struggle.it can also be attain with the increased risks of inequalitywhich can be the reasonand can be raised as the increase to out the sfforts more.

·         The top-down approach can be obtain as the more effective command on the level of details as well as it would also be move toward the slassification of arbitarary level of categorization would be applied, although it can also move toward the indiscriminate high-level arrangements being enforced. These amendemnts canmake the approach with an imbalance that can be needed for more effort and rework. It also be very coomon among the interconnected  thoughts may be neglected, for the reason that it can be pay emphasis on the on an on dividing impressions despite from putting them together.

·         The middle-out approach is the preferred method adopted in this research because it strikes a balance in the level of detail. This means that detail arises when needed by identifying the fundamental concepts. This implies that some unnecessary effort is avoided.

5.    The fifth and sixth step were strongly connected. The arrow between them were unidirectionaldue due to the classification of grading has been completed; we find the way to investigate the abilities of the perspective.The modules (concepts) and their chain of command would be investigated at the fifth stage, while their belongings has been recognized at the sixth step. The class hierarchy can again be determined by using the upward, centred or downward approaches. All terms listed at stage three, which had an autonomous reality that can be extracted into the different categories (concepts) of the ontology. Determining its classified organisation involves asking if each of the instances in a class could also be an instance of a more general class. If so, then the former class becomes a subclass of the latter and drifts further away from the ontology’s root concept. After defining all the classes, the internal structures (properties) of the concepts need to be described. Yet again, these properties should be easily available from the list generated at the third step.