<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Sustainable Development Goals Interface Ontology</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Mark Jensen</string-name>
          <email>mpjensen@buffalo.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University at Buffalo Buffalo</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>NY</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2015</year>
      </pub-date>
      <abstract>
        <p>Note: This abstract is for a 15-minute talk during the plenary session on Semantics for Sustainability. Ontologies are built in a variety of circumstances, for different applications. Some are quite small and built with minimal consideration (or need) for extensibility. Others, such as many of the large-scale efforts in the OBO Foundry, have a team of developers, domain specialists and collaborators actively engaged in interactive development [1-2]. The size of the ontology, or the complexity of the domain, aren't necessarily indicators of the development methodology and to what extent efforts are made to integrate the ontology with existing ontologies or other semantic resources. The use of ontologies by large organizations and government agencies is growing. For example, the Common Core ontologies by the US Army, the Joint Doctrine ontology, Untied States Geological Survey [3-4]. Within the context of integrating ontologies with sizable agencies, problems arise over harmonizing current vocabularies, agency doctrine and standards, while still attempting to build a useful tool that still adheres to best practice in developing modular and extensible realism-based ontologies.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Ontology</kwd>
        <kwd>Integration</kwd>
        <kwd>Doctrine</kwd>
        <kwd>UN Sustainable Development Goals</kwd>
        <kwd>SDGIO</kwd>
        <kwd>Monitoring</kwd>
        <kwd>OBO Foundry</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>II. SEMANTICS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT</title>
      <p>The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)
has commissioned the development of the Sustainable
Development Goals Interface Ontology (SDGIO) for use in
their knowledge discovery platform UNEPLive [5]. The UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) initiative prescribes 17
broadly thematic goals for transformative global change [6].
Each goal prescribes a set of target endpoints for development
processes within individual nation member states. See Table 1
for an example of one Goal and its Targets. In addition, a set of
indicators have been adopted to facilitate the monitoring of
progress towards reaching these targets. The data needed to
compute the indicators cuts across the three pillars of
sustainability: Social, Economic and Environment [7].
Integration of data and enhancing access to knowledge from
these three domains is a key goal of the SDG process [8].
Doing so requires addressing several key problems: ambiguity
of definitions for terms appearing across multiple sources from
diverse agencies within such a large heterogeneous agency as
the UN, integration of existing semantic resources,
coordination the insolvent of domain specialists, and fostering
the development of new ontologies in under-represented
domains.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>III. ONTOLOGY</title>
      <p>In my talk I will describe the development cycle and build
process of SDGIO, how we are addressing these problems of
integration, as well as the ontology’s high level structure and
its implementation in UNEPs knowledge repository. I will
include examples of how were are modeling key social
phenomena, such as access to basic services, or safely treated
water. For example, see Figure 1 for an illustration of how we
model the Goals, Targets and Indicators in SDGIO.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>I will also discuss our technique for addressing the</title>
      <p>sometimes vague and ambiguous definitions found in existing
UN vocabularies when incorporating these in SDGIO classes.
In doing so we have encountered a need to maintain connection
to established resources allowing for reuse of existing
metadata, thus building on established sets of semantic
resources, while still adhering to best practices in ontology
development. In this sense, while the content of the ontology
should derive from a strong need to represent current scientific
understanding of the domains invloved, the dissemination and
implementation of the ontology itself as a tool (a
representational artifact) has to respect user needs.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>REFERENCES</title>
      <p>[2] http://obofoundry.org/
[4] JM Powers, KD Shapiro, and DS Monk (2014) “Information Exchange
and Fusion in a Collaborative Environment using Semantic Information
Requirements”, International Conference on Collaboration Technologies
and Systems (CTS 2014), 597-601.
[5] “The Sustainable Development Goals Interface Ontology (SDGIO)”,
https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio
[6] United Nations (2015) “Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for
sustainable development.” p. A/RES/70/1.
[7] United Nations Environmental Programme (2015) “UNEP Post 2015
Note #1: Integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development”,
http://www.unep.org/unea1/docs/UNEP%20Post%202015%20Note%20
1%20final.pdf</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list />
  </back>
</article>