=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2050/preface
|storemode=property
|title=None
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2050/preface.pdf
|volume=Vol-2050
}}
==None==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2050/preface.pdf
JOWO 2017
The Joint Ontology Workshops
Episode 3: The Tyrolean Autumn of Ontology
CREOL | DAO | DEW | EPINON | FOMI
FOUST II | ISD3 | ODLS | SHAPES 4.0 | WINKS
held at the
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
September 21 | 22 | 23, 2017
Bozen-Bolzano, South Tyrol, Italy
http://iaoa.org/jowo/2017
Editors
Stefano Borgo | Oliver Kutz | Frank Loebe | Fabian Neuhaus
And for the JOWO Workshops
Valerio Basile, Tommaso Caselli, Daniele P. Radicioni (CREOL)
Roberto Confalonieri, Andrea Janes, Diego Calvanese (DAO)
Rafael Peñaloza, Amanda Vizedom (DEW)
Daniele Porello, Antonio Lieto, Claudio Masolo (EPINON)
Emilio M. Sanfilippo, Laura Daniele, Giorgio Colombo (FOMI)
Antony Galton, Fabian Neuhaus (FOUST II)
Maria M. Hedblom, Mihailo Antović, Oliver Kutz (ISD3)
Martin Boeker, Heinrich Herre, Ludger Jansen, Frank Loebe, Daniel Schober (ODLS)
Rossella Stufano, Inge Hinterwaldner, Stefano Borgo,
Kris Krois, Oliver Kutz (SHAPES 4.0)
Kemo Adrian, Jérôme Euzenat, Dagmar Gromann (WINKS)
PREFACE
JOWO – The Joint Ontology Workshops
JOWO 2017—Episode III: The Tyrolean Autumn, was the third edition of the
‘Joint Ontology Workshops’, which comprised a confederation of ten ontology
workshops. It was hosted by the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano and held be-
tween September 21–23, 2017 in Bolzano, Italy.1 JOWO’s mission is to provide a
platform for the diverse communities interested in building, reasoning with, and
applying formalised ontologies in the wide spectrum of Information Systems, Ar-
tificial Intelligence, Philosophy, Linguistics and Cognitive Science, both in theory
and applications.
The 2017 edition of JOWO collocated workshops that cover a broad spectrum of
contemporary applied ontology research, including its philosophical and method-
ological foundations (FOUST II, DEW), the application of ontologies in par-
ticular domains (ODLS, FOMI), the role of ontology in related research areas
like cognition (ISD3, EPINON), context (CREOL), data and knowledge (DAO,
WINKS), shape and patterns (SHAPES 4.0).
JOWO 2017 included the following ten workshops:2
CREOL International Workshop on Contextual Representation of Objects and
Events in Language3
DAO International Workshop on Data meets Applied Ontologies4
DEW International Workshop on Ontology Debugging & Evaluation5
EPINON International Workshop on Epistemology in Ontologies6
FOMI 8th International Workshop on Formal Ontologies meet Industry7
FOUST II 2nd Workshop on Foundational Ontology8
ISD3 3rd Image Schema Day9
1 The first JOWO edition was ‘Episode 1: The Argentine Winter of Ontology’, held in Buenos
Aires, Argentina, in co-location with the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence—IJCAI 2015. The proceedings of JOWO 2015 appeared as volume 1517 of CEUR,
see http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1517/.
The second JOWO edition was ‘Episode 2: The French Summer of Ontology’, held in Annecy,
France, in co-location with the 9th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information
Systems—FOIS 2016. The proceedings of JOWO 2016 appeared as volume 1660 of CEUR, see
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1660/.
2 A more detailed description of these workshops can be found below.
3 See http://creol2017.di.unito.it/
4 See https://smart.inf.unibz.it/index.php/2017/05/15/dao2017/
5 See http://iaoa.org/jowo/dew2017/
6 See http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/workshops/epinon2017/home.html
7 See http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/workshops/FOMI2017/home.html
8 See http://foust.inf.unibz.it/foust2/
9 See http://isd.inf.unibz.it
1
ODLS 8th International Workshop on Ontologies and Data in Life Sciences10
SHAPES 4.0 - THE SHAPE OF THINGS 4th International Workshop on SHAPES11
WINKS International Workshop on Interaction-Based Knowledge Sharing12
JOWO 2017 was a great success. There were about 100 submissions, 69 accepted
papers, and the conference had more than 100 participants. Particularly memo-
rable were the four keynotes by Antonio Chella, Giancarlo Guizzardi, Alessandro
Mosca, and Todd Oakley, and the concert by the “Hyperinstruments Ensemble”
lead by Nicola Baroni.
10 See https://wiki.imise.uni-leipzig.de/Gruppen/OBML/Workshops/2017-ODLS
11 See http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/workshops/SHAPES4/
12 See http://www.iiia.csic.es/winks/
2
JOWO 2017 Workshops
Contextual Representation of Objects and Events in Language (CREOL)
Dealing with context is a key factor in the conceptualisation of human experience,
and thus a major issue for understanding natural language, and a challenging
issue for AI. It is well known that some properties of objects and events may
be activated according to the context of occurrence, thus determining access to
partial salient information rather than to all information. One typical case in-
volving objects is that of an orange being passed between two children, or the
same orange peeled on a table: in the former case the roundness prevails over
other traits, and the orange is likely being used to play; in the latter one, the
edible features are those principally conveyed by the scene. Similar and higher
plasticity associated to contextual features also characterises events. Events are
complex entities by nature, and representing and extracting them from textual
documents is not a trivial task. Existing lexical resources encode very basic in-
formation on events: their linguistic realisation, roles of participants, and types.
Additional properties of events are currently missing: duration of events, event
internal substructure, event pre- and post- situations, relations to other events in
terms of explanatory/causal and temporal relations. These properties are essen-
tial to promote reasoning on events and their participants, and they may vary
according to the specific context of occurrence in a text/document.
Contextual access to objects and events needs to be investigated at its interface
with language. The design of ontological and linguistic resources that account
for the mentioned semantic phenomena involves collecting contextual information
and devising context-aware procedures. For its first edition, CREOL has been or-
ganised as one of the Joint Ontology Workshops (JOWO). The Proceedings of the
first edition collect three original papers: Natural Language Template Selection
for Temporal Constraints by C. Maria Keet; PRiSMHA (Providing Rich Seman-
tic Metadata for Historical Archives) by Anna Goy and colleagues; and Collect-
ing Information for Action Understanding: The Enrichment of the IMAGACT
Ontology of Action by Andrea Amelio Ravelli and colleagues.
The contributed works touch different aspects of the relationship between the
representation of (abstract) concepts in ontologies and in language. Each paper
focuses on different issues and all are centred around the main topics of the
CREOL workshop: events and roles (the PRiSMHA project), actions and objects
(the IMAGACT project), and the verbalisation of events and their time-related
properties (the paper Natural Language Template Selection for Temporal Con-
straints).
Data meets Applied Ontologies (DAO)
The goal of the DAO workshop was to provide an opportunity for participants
from academia and industry to present their latest developments in ontology-
mediated data integration and analysis techniques, and data-driven industrial ap-
plications. The accepted contributions, five in total, presented applications of on-
3
tologies and related tools in fields like robotic journalism, civil engineering, pol-
icy monitoring, and 3D factory design. All submissions consisted of a demo de-
scription that was presented at the workshop. In the first paper, Hermann Bense
describes the textOmatic*Composer, a semantic technology that automatically
generates personalised multi-language news streams from very large scale ontolo-
gies. As application examples, he demoed the Focus Online and Handelsblatt por-
tals. In another paper, Valerio Santarelli, Giacomo Ronconi, Marco Ruzzi and
Domenico Fabio Savo present OntoGUI, a Protégé plugin that allows one to access
heterogeneous data sources according to the ontology-based data access (OBDA)
paradigm. Also related to OBDA, Alessandro Mosca presents an observatory por-
tal of research and innovation of the Tuscany Region developed using ODBA
technologies. Finally, Walter Terkaj demoed a GUI tool for the instantiation of
OWL ontologies, and he showed, together with Giovanni Paolo Vigan, how the
GUI can be used together with GIOVE-VF, an ontology-based virtual factory
tool that supports the 3D design of factories.
Ontology Debugging & Evaluation (DEW)
Ontology engineering is a complex and error-prone task, which is, nonetheless,
fundamental for many knowledge-intensive applications. To a large degree, suc-
cessful ontology applications depend on an ability to detect, understand, and cor-
rect errors in ontologies and ontology-based knowledge bases. Success also depends
on an ability to assess how well ontologies meet the requirements of a particular
use. The main goal of the DEW workshop was to recall and advance the state of
the art in ontology evaluation and debugging. Additionally, the workshop aimed
to foster exchange on these topics between research-oriented and application-
oriented communities. The workshop welcomed submissions describing methods,
tools, and challenges in ontology debugging and evaluation, as well as quality
criteria, metrics, experimental results, and lessons learned. Submissions ranged
in emphasis, focusing to varying degrees on experience, pragmatics, and theory.
Perspectives included those of ontology (re)users, ontology developers, and those
responsible for quality assurance of ontologies incorporated into larger systems.
The workshop accepted a total of four submissions, covering different perspectives
on ontology evaluation and debugging. Ricardo Guimarães and Renata Wasser-
mann present preliminary work on the combination of atomic decompositions—a
technique developed in the area of ontology modularisation—and the theory of
local change, through the definition of a new relevance metric. Jean-Rémi Bour-
guet, Giancarlo Guizzardi, Alessander Botti Benevides, and Veruska Zambor-
lini describe three different approaches for representing changes in the standard
web ontology language OWL 2, and compare them through an empirical analysis
based on synthetic, but principled, random instances. In their submission, Claudia
Schon and Steffen Staab studied the problem of instance-level updates of dynamic
knowledge bases, taking into account the terminological knowledge, through a
new notion of query-driven semantics. Finally, He Tan, Anders Adlemo, Vladimir
Tarasov, and Mats Johansson present an evaluation for a real-life ontology from
the avionics domain.
4
The event was successful, promoting deep and interesting discussions that per-
meated beyond the workshop sessions.
Epistemology in Ontologies (EPINON)
Formal ontologies and knowledge representation mainly focus on characterising
how a given domain is structured, i.e., they identify a set of concepts, entities, and
relations together with the constraints that hold for this domain. The structure of
the characterisation is usually intended to reflect the point of view of significant
experts or a realist view of how things about a particular domain are in reality.
The aim of this workshop is to explore an epistemological stance in formal ontol-
ogy and knowledge representation and focus on the assessment of the modelling
provided by the ontology designer. In particular, we are interested in fostering two
intertwined research directions. Firstly, we are interested in promoting discussions
about the epistemological foundations of formal ontologies and of knowledge rep-
resentation. A number of timely important problems are related to this point, for
instance: the investigations of cognitively adequate ontological representations,
the investigations on the provenance of data, the problem of the reliability of the
source of information (both human and artificial, e.g. sensors), the problem of the
epistemic reliability of the classification provided by ontology users, the problem
of finding epistemically and cognitively well-founded rationales for the integra-
tion of ontological representations with other representational formats (e.g. deep
neural networks, vector space models etc.).
Secondly, we are interested in formal and ontological approaches to the definitions
of the concepts that are relevant to the assessment of the perspective of the
ontology designer. Problems related to this direction include: ontology of general
epistemological concepts (e.g. proof, argument, explanation, epistemic reliability,
trust), ontology of cognitive concepts (perception, reasoning, sensations), ontology
of data and measurements.
We aim to address to an interdisciplinary audience, by inviting scholars in phi-
losophy, computer science, logic, conceptual modelling, knowledge representation,
and cognitive science to contribute to the discussion.
The workshop proposed four contributions that approach the relationship between
ontology and epistemology from heterogeneous interesting perspectives. Stanis-
law Ambroszkiewicz discussed an intuitionistic foundation of the real numbers.
Erden Miray Yazgan Yalkin presented a discussion of the concept of truth in the
Buddhist tradition. Roberta Ferrario articulated a socio-material stance in devel-
oping formal ontologies. Giovanni Buonocore discussed the ontological status of
relations in connection to philosophy of physics.
Formal Ontologies meet Industry (FOMI)
FOMI is an international forum where academic researchers and industrial prac-
titioners meet to analyse and discuss application issues related to methods, theo-
ries, tools and applications based on formal ontologies. There is today wide agree-
ment that knowledge modelling and the semantic dimension of information play
5
an increasingly central role in networked economy: semantic-based applications
aim to provide a framework for information and knowledge sharing, reliable infor-
mation exchange, meaning negotiation and coordination between distinct organi-
sations or among members of the same organisation. Theoretical ideas seem often
very promising, but their actual implementation brings up unexpected problems
and issues. The FOMI 2017 Workshop aimed at collecting useful experiences and
lessons learned covering the following areas:
1. Problems encountered in ontology-based applications;
2. New insights on known problematic issues;
3. Success stories of ontology implementations in industry;
4. Best practices on the application of ontological methodologies to real-world
situations.
The accepted contributions at FOMI 2017, eight in total, address practical mod-
elling concerns arising out of the application of computational ontologies in fields
like civil engineering, finance, business process modelling and manufacturing. The
two papers presented by Adamo et al. address the current limits of languages
for process knowledge representation like BPMN and UML-AD and propose how
to overcome these limits from an ontology-based perspective. Aameri and Gru-
eninger introduce an initial set of modular ontologies for manufacturing applica-
tions and sketch an axiomatised ontology to represent geometric and topological
constraints. Terkaj and Pauwels present an algorithm to automate the modular-
isation of ifcOWL, that is, the OWL version of the Industry Foundation Classes
(IFC), a well-established standardised data model in the Building Information
Modeling (BIM) area. The purpose is to facilitate the exploitation of Semantic
Web technologies for the Architecture Engineering Construction (AEC) and Fa-
cility Management (FM) industries. Together with Schneider, Terkaj and Pauwels
also present the Building Automation and Control Systems (BACS) ontology
for the integrated representation of cyber-physical systems embedding building
elements, sensors, actuators and devices. In the financial industry, Blums and
Weigand present the Core Ontology of Financial Reporting Information Systems
for a Shared Ledger Environment (COFRIS) for facilitating the reuse, trans-
parency and sharing of financial reporting. In the same direction, the short pa-
per of Browne et al. presents the implementation of an extended version of the
Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO), which is called Global Fund Re-
porting Ontology (GFRO), to build semantic-based financial reporting compli-
ant with current standards. Finally, the work presented by Detoni et al. provides
a methodology to support ontology development by eliciting experts knowledge
and know-how in conceptual models that are codified in the ARIS language. The
approach is validated by a case study in the public security of Brazil.
2nd Workshop on Foundational Ontology (FOUST II)
Foundational ontology is about categories of reality or thought which are common
to all or almost all subject-matters. Commonly considered examples of such cat-
egories include ‘object’, ‘quality’, ‘function’, ‘role’, ‘process’, ‘event’, ‘time’, and
‘place’. There are several foundational ontologies that provide a systematic for-
6
mal representation of these categories, their relationships, and interdependencies.
Amongst existing foundational ontologies, there is both a substantial measure of
agreement and some dramatic disagreements. There is currently no uniform con-
sensus concerning how a foundational ontology should be organised, how far its
‘reach’ should be (e.g., is the distinction between physical and non-physical enti-
ties sufficiently fundamental to be included here?), and even what role it should
play in relation to more specialised domain ontologies.
The main use of foundational ontologies is as a starting point for the develop-
ment of domain ontologies and application ontologies. The foundational ontology
provides an ontology engineer with a conceptual framework that enables her to
analyse a given domain, identify the entities in the domain as specialisations of
the generic categories in the foundational ontology, and often reuse relationships
(e.g., parthood) from the foundational ontology. The utilisation of foundational
ontologies for the development of domain and application ontologies has two main
benefits. Firstly, the ontology engineer can reuse an existing set of well-studied on-
tological distinctions and design principles instead of having to develop an ad-hoc
solution. Secondly, if two domain ontologies are based on the same foundational
ontology, it is easier to integrate them.
FOUST is an ontology workshop series that offers researchers in foundational on-
tology an opportunity to present their results. This includes work on specific areas
of foundational ontology as well as work on particular foundational ontologies.
Amongst specific areas, one which continues to excite a good deal of discussion
on account of its fundamental nature is mereology, which is concerned with the
analysis and formalisation of the part-whole relation. Several of the papers in
this workshop address various different aspects of this topic. Keet, for example,
draws attention to the plethora of different forms of part-whole relations that
have been enumerated in the literature (including, for example, spatial parthood,
membership of a collection, material constitution, and participation in a process),
and explores how the properties of these relations are reflected in the specific
formalisations adopted by different foundational ontologies. Ru and Grüninger are
similarly concerned with handling multiple part-whole relations, but here in the
context of solid physical objects, for which they distinguish components, pieces,
portions, and contained entities, each of which they propose should be handled
by a separate module within a collection of ontologies of solid physical objects.
Barton, Jansen and Ethier discuss a completely different aspect of mereology,
focussing on classifying the parthood relations that exist amongst dispositions —
for example ‘a disposition to break is part of fragility’ vs ‘the solubility of part of
a tablet is part of the solubility of the whole tablet’. Finally Mizoguchi and Borgo
study the notion of functional parthood, for which they propose an analysis in
terms of another fundamental ontological category, roles.
Several papers in the workshop presented some current developments in existing
foundational ontologies. Porello and Guizzardi propose a first-order modal ax-
iomatisation of the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO). Benevides, Bourguet,
Guizzardi and Peñaloza also work with UFO, specifically the part (UFO-B) deal-
ing with the ontology of events, which they show can be formalised within the De-
scription Logic SROIQ, thus enabling practical application of the theory using
OWL 2 DL. Mizoguchi and Toyoshima present YAMATO, Yet Another More Ad-
7
vanced Top-level Ontology, with special attention to how it can handle examples
involving change over time. Chui and Grüninger turn their attention to DOLCE,
and in particular the problem of verifying it in the sense of ensuring that the
models of the formal theory conform to the intended models of the ontology. The
method they propose is modular, involving separate verification of an exhaustive
set of subtheories of DOLCE.
The remaining papers cover a diverse set of concerns relating to foundational
ontologies. Grüninger, Chui and Katsumi propose a view of upper ontologies as
composed of a set of generic ontologies each concerned with the axiomatisation
of a particular well-defined set of generic concepts. As in the paper of Chui and
Grüninger, this leads to the possibility of a modular approach to ontology verifi-
cation, using in this case the principles enshrined in the Common Logic Ontology
Repository (COLORE). Bennett, Hasse and Gilmore discuss a way of handling
contextually-defined concepts such as ‘customer’ (defined in the context of some
commercial business), using a partition of the upper ontology to clarify the re-
lations between the three broad top-level categories of ‘independent’, ‘relative’,
and ‘mediating’ things. Garbacz discusses a different set of issues, relating to the
classification of objects on the basis of their ‘qualitative stability’, that is, the
extent to which they are liable to undergo change with respect to their qualities.
Schulz, Boeker, Vera Ramos and Jansen address the matter of ontological edu-
cation, taking a close look at two long-established and widely used pedagogical
ontologies, the PIZZA and WINE ontologies, to determine to what extent they
remain fit for purpose in the light of more recent developments, proposing suitable
modifications where they are found to be deficient. Finally Neuhaus presents a
critique of a widely cited definition of ‘ontology’.
3rd Image Schema Day (ISD3)
Inspired by the concept of an embodied mind, in which all cognition is thought
to manifest as direct consequences to the body’s sensorimotor experiences, is the
theory of image schemas. Image schemas are thought to be mental generalisations
from repeated exposure to particular spatiotemporal relationships and capture
concepts such as Containment, Support, Source-Path-Goal and Attraction. The
theory was introduced in cognitive linguistics as a means to explain the large
degree of spatial language found in language concerning abstract concepts as well
as metaphors. In developmental psychology, image schemas are investigated as
part of conceptual learning processes where they are thought to function as in-
formation skeletons for analogical reasoning and concept learning. In design and
in more artistic domains, image schemas are used to describe the experience by
which humans perceive information, for instance, how musical scales often are
visualised as movement along a vertical axis. As of late, research in computer
science has taken a liking to image schemas as they provide a straightforward
way to approach the symbol grounding problem. Therefore, methods in both ma-
chine learning and traditional knowledge representation have been employed to
simulate image schemas. Here, their integration into formal frameworks for con-
cept invention and analogy engines, as well as how they can aid natural language
8
processing and understanding are some of the areas that could benefit from the
integration of the information-rich image schemas.
As image schemas are studied from a wide range of scientific disciplines, one of
the major issues for the research field is the prevalence of inconsistent views, def-
initions and research terminology. Therefore, one of the main purposes of ISD3
is to provide a meeting point for researchers on image schemas, regardless of sci-
entific background, where ideas, methods and results can be discussed, in order
to build bridges and to provide support from different directions. In this light,
the workshop has three accepted papers from different fields of research. Shingo
Imai approaches image schemas from a multi-linguistic perspective in his paper
“Schema Conflict: Functional Schema and Configurational Schema”. Jamie Mac-
Beth, Dagmar Gromann and Maria M. Hedblom look at the relationship between
the theory of image schemas and Conceptual Dependency Primitives, a classic
theory in natural language processing in “Image Schemas and Conceptual De-
pendency Primitives: A Comparison”. Finally, Cliff O’Reilly and Randy Harris
take a more mathematical approach by demonstrating how some of the image
schemas can be approached as vector space models in “Antimetabole and Image
Schemata – Ontological and Vector Space Models”.
Ontologies and Data in Life Sciences (ODLS)
Medicine, biology and life sciences produce hardly manageable and often incom-
prehensible amounts of data, information, and knowledge. Their computer-based
retrieval, processing, integration, as well as their conceptual foundation, appli-
cation, and reuse present ever new challenges to existing methods of knowledge
representation, data bases, and data analysis and retrieval. The workshops on On-
tologies and Data in Life Sciences (ODLS) cover the overall spectrum of biomed-
ical information management, ranging from experimental data acquisition and
preprocessing across analysis, structuring and interpretation of data, up to devel-
oping structured representations of knowledge, in particular in the form of ontolo-
gies, with their various applications. The primary aim of ODLS is an interdisci-
plinary exchange of ideas, fostering collaboration between ontologists, computer
scientists, bio-informaticians, medical information scientists, physicians, biome-
tricians, bio-chemists and philosophers, in academia and industry.
Works accepted for ODLS 2017 are distinguished into papers (of 6-12 pages) and
extended abstracts (of 2-5 pages). The proceedings comprise five papers and seven
extended abstracts. Topicwise, the majority of the submissions present a domain
ontology embedded in its specific application context. Six such works cover a
broad spectrum of domains. (1) The Spinal Cord Injury Ontology (SCIO) by
Brazda et al. aims at supporting the representation of pre-clinical studies regard-
ing spinal cord injury therapies. It is utilised in an information extraction lifecycle
to populate a database with information from such studies. (2) OCL-SOP, the
Ontology for Clinical Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures described by
Maikore et al., defines laboratory experimental actions and related key entities,
e.g. biochemical entities, equipment and data processing actions. A mobile appli-
cation for semantic search in semantically annotated laboratory SOPs serves as
9
a use case. (3) Siemoleit et al. start from the BIOPASS project, which is con-
cerned with a novel approach for navigation systems for surgical interventions.
In its context the BIOPASS Situation Ontology (BISON) is designed to support
situational awareness, by capturing endoscope locations and work steps of sur-
gical interventions on the basis of anatomical landmarks and procedural data.
(4) The TNM Ontology (TNM-O) in the work by Zabka et al. is a modular on-
tology developed for the management of versions of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis
(TNM) classification system. The submission focuses on the use of rules expressed
in the Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) to represent mapping criteria be-
tween TNM versions. (5) Dooley et al. introduce the Genetic Epidemiology On-
tology (GenEpiO) as a central component of the Genomic Epidemiology Entity
Mart (GEEM), an ontology-driven web platform for examining data standards
related to genomic sequence repository metadata requirements. Finally for ap-
plied ontologies, (6) Tarini and Lange outline early versions of two ontologies, the
Organoleptic Ontology and the Sensory Ontology, which are proposed to cover
sensory aspects of food phenotypes and of the sensory perception of food. Both
are seen to be complementary to existing food ontologies.
A second cluster, one with four submissions, focuses even more on ontology-based
applications and less on specific ontologies. (7) Enea et al. are concerned with
ontology matching and alignments, in particular with a visualization interface
for ontology alignments. (8) SONG, the Search Ontology Generator presented by
Uciteli et al., is based on a revised version of the Search Ontology (SO2). SONG
is a tool for generating complex search queries from Excel templates, currently
applied in post-market surveillance of medical devices. (9) Barton et al. discuss
the utilisation of temporalised medical databases, in particular, their structuring,
in the light of an analysis on the basis of referent tracking. (10) The integration of
two major Argentinian databases, namely the National System of Biological Data
(SNDB) and the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS), is targeted
by Zarate et al. in an ontology-based manner.
The remaining two works relate to natural language processing, where (11) Schulz
et al. report on experimental findings regarding the ambiguity of terms in
SNOMED-CT, while (12) Kasáč et al. sketch the ontological foundations of their
development of an annotation schema for mentions of drugs in clinical narratives,
currently focusing on discharge letters.
This overall set of contributions in combination with the Joint Ontology Work-
shops (JOWO) keynotes and supporting program has led to a prosperous and
inspiring workshop event in 2017, which was the eighth in a series of workshops
that started in 2009 under the title Ontologies in Biomedicine and Life Sciences
(OBML)13 . Since then a work group named OBML14 has been established in the
context of the Special Interest Group Informatics and Life Sciences 15 , which is
itself a shared, interdisciplinary group associated with the German Informatics
Society (GI)16 and the German Association for Medical Informatics, Biometry
13 See https://wiki.imise.uni-leipzig.de/Gruppen/OBML/Workshops/
14 See https://wiki.imise.uni-leipzig.de/Gruppen/OBML/
15 See http://fb-ilw.gi.de/
16 See https://gi.de/
10
and Epidemiology (GMDS)17 . Moreover, since the third edition OBML/ODLS
workshops have been acknowledged as Supported Events by the International
Association for Ontology and its Applications (IAOA)18 .
The OBML group runs ODLS workshops annually in Central Europe, striving for
international participation also beyond that region. Becoming a part of IAOA’s
Joint Ontology Workshops in 2017 has yielded a distinguished ODLS edition and
fruitful interactions with other communities, very well in line with the interdisci-
plinary spirit of ODLS.
SHAPES 4.0 – THE SHAPE OF THINGS
Shape, Form, and Structure are some of the most elusive notions and are perva-
sive in diverse disciplines from humanities (like literature studies, art history) to
sciences (chemistry, biology, physics) and within these from the formal (mathe-
matics, logic) to the empirical disciplines (engineering, cognitive science, architec-
ture, environmental planning, design). Within domains such as computer science
and artificial intelligence research, these notions are understood by mixing their
common-sense meanings (e.g. to make sense of everyday perception and commu-
nication) and ad hoc technical specifications. Even in the different declinations of
design the conception and sense of these notions change considerably. Several ap-
proaches have been proposed within the aforementioned disciplines to study the
very notions of shape, form and structure from different viewpoints, yet a compre-
hensive treatment of these notions is lacking and no interdisciplinary perspective
has emerged.
In these years, due to the popularity of the multi-agent approaches, the explosion
of research and application in robotics, the cyber-physical and Internet of Things
views, as well as social turns in geography and cultural heritage, there is a ris-
ing interest in interaction and its forms. The understanding of the term interac-
tion is challenging due to the different types of entities it might involve and to
the many contexts where it may occur. Conceived quantitatively or qualitatively,
interaction can be located among agents and systems, among societies and cul-
tures, among languages and stimuli, among views and interpretations. It puts an
emphasis on such diverse aspects like emergence on the one hand and repetition
on the other. Furthermore, it suggests a conception of form which is intrinsically
dynamic, linked with temporality and, of course, action. This time-based notion
of shape/form/structure demands not only an analysis of spatial configurations,
but of spatio-temporal occurrences. As interactions of colours make clear (e.g.
see the studies of Josef Albers), these occurrences may not always be literal se-
quences, they can happen simultaneously, but there must be time and space for
something to take place. From here, we can start asking: Which shapes do pat-
terns of interaction have? Are patterns themselves static or dynamic? What does
that mean? Are these meta-level shapes easier to formulate or formalise? Which
patterns of (social) interaction are desirable? How to use them for play, planning,
storytelling, collaboration and other creative purposes?
17 See https://gmds.de/index.php?id=228
18 See http://iaoa.org/
11
This edition of Shapes 4.0 covers several topics. The paper “The Interplay be-
tween Shape and Feature Representation” by Sanfilippo et al. discusses modelling
constructs for shape representation, from low-level geometric elements to gen-
eral entities like protrusions and holes. The paper considers different modelling
options from both the ontological and practical perspectives and provides some
representation patterns. The paper by Cantale et al. “The Shape of a Benedictine
Monastery: The SaintGall Ontology” presents an OWL 2 theory that formalises
the layout of the Saint Gall monastery plan. With this work, the authors give the
possibility to compare this ideal Benedictine monastery with its different realisa-
tion and reinterpretations around Europe across the centuries. The paper “Show,
Don’t Tell: Retrieving Cultural Assets Via Gestures” by Helmer et al. faces the
limitations of textual representation in the case of intangible assets. They focus
on the domain of (hand-held) tools aiming to record the gestures and a richer
context than what is available in today’s standard approaches. Maria M. Hed-
blom with the paper “Beneath the Paint: A Visual Journey through Conceptual
Metaphor Violation” introduces us to the use of metaphors in artworks and on
how these drive the interaction between an art piece and the observer. The dis-
cussion moves around a concrete painting from the author that is conceptualised
via two metaphoric structures: ‘UP is GOOD’ and ‘DARK is BAD’. The paper
“Towards an Understanding of Place Forms through the Lens of Social Practice
Theories” by A. Calafiore and G. Boella focuses on the meaning and role of pat-
terns in the urban environment discussing the identification of place forms as
the result of an interaction between the spatial and the social systems. S. Fiorini
and M. Abel, with their contribution “Quality Patterns and Conceptual Spaces”,
discuss the understanding of qualities in ontological terms by linking Guarino’s
notion of quality fields/patterns and a special approach, called Holistic-Structure
Spaces, within the Conceptual Spaces general framework. “The Shape of the
Other”, by Rafael Peñaloza, is a poem on shapes, people and their being ‘others’.
Klaus Gasteier, with his paper “Shaping a Structural and Visual Representation
of Strategic Interaction”, takes us into the notion of strategic interaction as the
relation between concealed and exposed actions. This work sheds some light on
the understanding and representation of conflict situations, including risks and
potentials, via a new logographic sign language.
Workshop on Interaction-Based Knowledge Sharing (WINKS)
Sharing knowledge becomes increasingly important in the age of information and
a growing number of gradually expanding, distributed systems heighten the need
for a dynamic interactive sharing process. Interaction is understood here as any
kind of communication between human and/or artificial agents. Knowledge can
be learned, extracted, produced or elicited by a wide range of automated systems.
These systems span across various disciplines and application scenarios ranging
from Big Data to the Internet of Things. The increasing number and hetero-
geneity of knowledge sources has rendered knowledge sharing proportionally more
complex. With new technologies, new knowledge sources keep on appearing and
a centralised sharing process becomes more and more unrealistic.
12
Interaction-based knowledge sharing requires particular attention, both for its
ambitious scope and for the fundamental issues that it raises. Indeed, the interac-
tive property grants this type of knowledge sharing the same advantages as other
dynamic systems. First, distributed sources can bring together their knowledge
without giving precedence to one source. Second, it allows for integration from
which new knowledge can emerge. Finally, interaction permits feedback during
the sharing process, helping systems to control both the process and the success
of the integration. However, the approach also shares the challenges of other dy-
namic systems: heterogeneity in vocabularies and methodologies between sources
requires adaptability. Furthermore, new emergent knowledge necessitates the han-
dling of novelty and unpredictable results. Finally, humans are a source of knowl-
edge that artificial agents still have difficulties to decipher, especially when they
are using natural language.
In this first edition the topics covered in the workshop addressed several of the
above challenges. The paper “Vocabulary Alignment for Agents with Flexible
Protocols” by Paula Chocrón and Marco Schorlemmer proposes a task-based ap-
proach to overcoming vocabulary heterogeneity by enabling agents to learn align-
ments based on shared procedural knowledge. The used protocols are flexible in
the sense that they allow to consider differences in the specifications of agents
by assigning weights and penalties. The work of Kemo Adrian and Enric Plaza
offers “An Approach to Interaction-Based Concept Convergence in Multi-Agent
Systems” which addresses vocabulary heterogeneity from an argumentation-based
perspective. The paper proposes a new formalism to allow agents to argue the
meaning of their concepts with the objective to reach an agreement by means of
concept convergence. Lucı́a Gómez Álvarez, Brandon Bennett and Adam Richard-
Bollans address the issue of ambiguity from the perspective of conceptual vague-
ness in their work entitled “Talking about Forests: An Example of Sharing Infor-
mation Expressed with Vague Terms”. The paper presents a framework for the
representation of semantic variability as all admissible precise interpretations of a
vague concept, which is illustrated with the example of ‘forest’. Finally, Jamie C.
Macbeth presented “Conceptual Primitive Decomposition for Knowledge Sharing
via Natural Language”, an approach that focuses on the grounding of linguis-
tic expressions in primitive decomposition methods building on embodied human
cognition. This representation system allows for an effective knowledge-sharing
between ambiguous natural language expressions and more rigorous knowledge
structures.
13
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the program committee members and the additional reviewers for
their timely reviewing. We thank our invited keynote speakers—Todd Oakley, Antonio Chella,
Alessandro Mosca, and Giancarlo Guizzardi—for their support and contributions.
We would moreover like to thank the International Association for Ontology and its Applica-
tions, see http://iaoa.org, for providing funding for student grants and the Free University of
Bozen-Bolzano and its event management team for providing generous financial support and
facilities.
JOWO 2017 was a supported event of the International Association for Ontology and its Appli-
cations (IAOA) and was jointly organised by the IAOA and the Research Centre on Knowledge
and Data (KRDB) at unibz.
.
KRDB
3
14
JOWO 2017 – Organisation
General Chairs
Stefano Borgo Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Oliver Kutz Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Frank Loebe University of Leipzig, Germany
Fabian Neuhaus Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany
15
CREOL 2017
Programme Chairs
Valerio Basile Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Italy
Tommaso Caselli University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Daniele P. Radicioni University of Turin, Italy
Programme Committee
Erman Acar University of Mannheim, Germany
John Bateman University of Bremen, Germany
Marianna Bolognesi VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Elena Cabrio Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Maral Dadvar Hochschule der Medien, Stuttgart, Germany
Aldo Gangemi STLab, ISTC-CNR, Rome, Italy
Anna Goy University of Turin, Italy
Diego Magro University of Turin, Italy
Marjorie McShane Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), USA
Roser Morante VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Federico Nanni University of Mannheim, Germany
Alessandro Oltramari Bosch Research and Technology Center, Pittsburgh, USA
Alessandro Panunzi University of Florence, Italy
Marco Rospocher Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy
Marco Rovera University of Turin, Italy
Lauro Snidaro Università degli Studi di Udine, Italy
Noortje Venhuizen Saarland University, Germany
Ivan Vulić University of Cambridge, UK
16
DAO 2017
Programme Chairs
Roberto Confalonieri Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Andrea Janes Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Diego Calvanese Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Programme Committee
Tarek Richard Besold City, University of London, UK
Paula Chocron Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
Pietro Galliani Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Oliver Kutz Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Alessandro Mosca SIRIS Academic, Barcelona, Spain
Juan Antonio Rodriguez Alguilar Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
Marco Schorlemmer Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
Nicolas Troquard Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Matthew Yee-King Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK
17
DEW 2017
Programme Chairs
Rafael Peñaloza Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Amanda Vizedom Criticollab, LLC, USA
Programme Committee
Alan Belasco Securboration, USA
Francesco C Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy
Michael Grüninger University of Toronto, Canada
Yevgeny Kazakov Ulm University, Germany
Carlos Mencı́a University of Oviedo, Spain
Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications, USA
Lydia Pintscher Wikimedia Germany, Germany
Marı́a Poveda Villalón Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Uli Sattler University of Manchester, UK
Jodi Schneider University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA
Renata Wassermann University of São Paulo, Brazil
18
EPINON 2017
Programme Chairs
Daniele Porello Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Claudio Masolo Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Antonio Lieto University of Turin, Italy
Programme Committee
John Bateman University of Bremen, Germany
Francesco Berto University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tarek Richard Besold City, University of London, UK
Massimiliano Carrara University of Padua, Italy
Fabrice Correia University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Roberta Ferrario Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Marcello Frixione University of Genoa, Italy
Alessandro Giordani Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy
Davide Grossi University of Liverpool, UK
Giancarlo Guizzardi Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Maria M. Hedblom Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany
Heinrich Herre University of Leipzig, Germany
Gilles Kassel Université de Picardie - Jules Vernes, France
Adila Alfa Krisnadhi University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Emiliano Lorini Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT-CNRS),
France
Kevin Mulligan University of Geneva, Switzerland
Alessandro Oltramari Bosch Research and Technology Center, Pittsburgh, USA
Rafael Peñaloza Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Simon Scheider Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Nicolas Troquard Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Tuomas Tahko University of Helsinki, Finland
Laure Vieu Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT-CNRS),
France
19
FOMI 2017
Programme Chairs
Emilio M. Sanfilippo Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Laura Daniele Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO),
The Netherlands
Giorgio Colombo Polytechnic University of Milan, Italy
Programme Committee
Bob Young Loughborough University, UK
Aleksandra Sojic Institute of Biomedical Technologies (ITB-CNR), Milan, Italy
Zahid Usman Coventry University, UK
Walter Terkaj Institute of Industrial Technologies and Automation (ITIA-CNR),
Bari, Italy
Stefano Borgo Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Nicola Guarino Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Michael Grueninger University of Toronto, Canada
Riichiro Mizoguchi Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan
Lorenzo Solano Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain
Pedro Rosado University Jaume I, Spain
Tiago Sales University of Trento, Italy
Joao Paulo Almeida Federal University of Espirito Santo, Brazil
Maria Poveda Villalon Technical University of Madrid (UPM), Spain
Luiz Olavo Bonino Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences (DTL), The Netherlands
20
FOUST II 2017
Programme Chairs
Antony Galton University of Exeter, UK
Fabian Neuhaus Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany
Programme Committee
Stefano Borgo Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Maureen Donnelly SUNY Buffalo, USA
Roberta Ferrario Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Pierre Grenon University College London, UK
Michael Gruninger University of Toronto, Canada
Nicola Guarino Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Oliver Kutz Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Frank Loebe University of Leipzig, Germany
Riichiro Mizoguchi Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan
Barry Smith SUNY Buffalo, USA
Laure Vieu Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT-CNRS),
France
21
ISD3 2017
Programme Chairs
Maria M. Hedblom Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany
Mihailo Antović University of Nis̆, Serbia
Oliver Kutz Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Programme Committee
John Bateman University of Bremen, Germany
Brandon Bennett University of Leeds, UK
Roberta Ferrario Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Hans U. Fuchs Zurich University of Applied Sciences at Winterthur, Switzerland
Antony Galton University of Exeter, UK
Beate Hampe University of Erfurt, Germany
Fabian Neuhaus Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany
Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas University of Navarra, Spain
Marco Schorlemmer Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Bellaterra, Spain
Mark Turner Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA
Tony Veale University College Dublin, Ireland
Larry Zbikowski University of Chicago, USA
22
ODLS 2017
Programme Chairs
Martin Boeker University of Freiburg, Germany
Heinrich Herre University of Leipzig, Germany
Ludger Jansen University of Rostock and Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
Frank Loebe University of Leipzig, Germany
Daniel Schober Leibniz Institute of Plant Biochemistry (IPB), Halle (Saale), Germany
Programme Committee
Adrien Barton Sherbrooke University, Canada
Martin Boeker University of Freiburg, Germany
Stefano Borgo Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Jesualdo Tomás Fernández-Breis University of Murcia, Spain
Fred Freitas Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), Brazil
George Gkoutos University of Birmingham, UK
Anika Groß University of Leipzig, Germany
Heinrich Herre University of Leipzig, Germany
Amanda Hicks University of Florida, USA
Robert Hoehndorf King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia
Ludger Jansen University of Rostock and Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
Maria Keet University of Cape Town, South Africa
Toralf Kirsten University of Leipzig, Germany
Frank Loebe University of Leipzig, Germany
Phillipp Lord Newcastle University, UK
Wolfgang Müller HITS gGmbH, Heidelberg, Germany
Fabian Neuhaus Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany
Mariana Neves Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany
Axel Ngonga-Ngomo University of Paderborn, Germany
Dietrich Rebholz-Schuhmann Insight Centre for Data Analytics, Galway, Ireland
Daniel Schober Leibniz Institute of Plant Biochemistry (IPB), Halle (Saale), Germany
Falk Schreiber Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Stefan Schulz Medical University Graz, Austria
Aleksandra Sojic Institute of Biomedical Technologies (ITB-CNR), Milan, Italy
Holger Stenzhorn Saarland University Medical Center, Germany
George Tsatsaronis Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Dagmar Waltemath University of Rostock, Germany
23
SHAPES 4.0 2017
Programme Chairs
Rossella Stufano Politecnico di Bari, Italy
Inge Hinterwaldner Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
Stefano Borgo Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy
Kris Krois Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Oliver Kutz Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Programme Committee
Mara Abel Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Mihailo Antovic University of Nis, Serbia
Tarek Besold University of Bremen, Germany
Dino Borri Politecnico di Bari, Italy
Domenico Camarda Politecnico di Bari, Italy
Emilios Cambouropoulos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Klaus Gasteier Universität der Künste Berlin, Germany
Chiara Ghidini Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK), Trento, Italy
Franca Giannini Institute for Applied Mathematics and Information Technologies
(IMATI-CNR), Rome, Italy
Giancarlo Guizzardi Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Inge Hinterwaldner Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
Kris Krois Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Oliver Kutz Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Frieder Nake University of Bremen, Germany
Omar Nasim University of Regensburg, Germany
Paulo E. Santos Centro Universitário FEI, Brazil
Angelika Seppi Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
Rossella Stufano Politecnico di Bari, Italy
24
WINKS 2017
Programme Chairs
Kemo Adrian Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
Jérôme Euzenat INRIA & University Grenoble Alpes, France
Dagmar Gromann Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
Programme Committee
Brandon Bennett University of Leeds, UK
Paula Chocron Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
Thierry Declerck DFKI, Saarbrücken, Germany
Karl Hammar Jönköping University, Sweden
Jamie Macbeth Fairfield University, USA
Fiona McNeill Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh, UK
Axel-C. Ngonga Ngomo University of Leipzig and University of Paderborn, Germany
Enric Plaza Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
Michael Rovatsos University of Edinburgh, UK
Matthias Scheutz Tufts University, Medford, USA
Marco Schorlemmer Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
Pavel Shvaiko Informatica Trentina, Trento, Italy
Michael Spranger Sony Computer Science Laboratories Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Robert van Rooij ILLC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
25