This article outlines future research that is required for the advancement associated with representation, search, and visualization of information, and at recent and future developments inside use and representation involving taxonomies and ontologies, and visualization tools that can aid in their use. Berners-Lee et al (2006) explain the benefit of visualization for selection of information “Despite excitement about the Semantic Web, most with the world’s data are locked in large data stores and are not published as an open Web of inter-referring resources. As a result, the reuse of information may be limited. Substantial research challenges arise in changing this example: how to effectively query an unbounded Web involving linked information repositories, ways to align and map between different data models, and ways to visualize and navigate the huge connected graph associated with information that results. “
A new approach must software creation. This approach should involve developers creating software systems that enable users to perform high level programming, and model the challenge for which they are definitely the experts. This is an alternative to the provision by builders of modelling solutions that try to provide an straight from the box solution that simply needs ‘tweaking’. Such an straight from the box system is improper considering both increases within complexity of manufactured products, and of software solutions themselves. Cheung (2005) writes “there is not a single management tool or even data exchange format that can satisfy all requirements and overcome the many obstacles involved within a collaborative product development environment”. People like to work independently solutions providing they are computer literate and confident they also have domain knowledge that the developers don’t possess. Research cited here from others linked to end-user programming seems to verify this.
Research in the use and visualization of Semantic Web information affords the tools that end-user programmers are generally lacking until recently. Cheung (2005) teaches that “With the progress of user-friendly ontology editing software and automatic data exchange functions, the application of ontological approaches to exchange information across the WWW is usually to be an important aspect of the next age group of global knowledge management tools.
Horrocks (2002) explains the advantages of moving towards a even more formal ontology. This can provide for a new manner of enabling end-user programming – with the user editing interactive diagrams. With regard to automated model generation, labelling relationships between toys allows the depiction of a number of aspects of a domain within a model, and with a regular syntax. Ciocoiu et al (2000) explain how an engineering ontology can be made more rigorous so as to facilitate interoperability. This enables representation of, say, a product structure and its output processes together. A single node then is the only representation of that node inside model, with all its relationships depicted as arcs emanating/terminating in the node. More expressive semantic descriptions are possible by using one of the usual OWL dialects. Proté gé has OWL plug-ins available that provide this functionality, together with links to reasoning tools for maintaining and analysing the logical constructs (Storey et ing, 2004) and (Elenius, 2005). The University of Victoria Computer-Human Interaction and Software Engineering lab (CHISEL) (2006) has developed Jambalaya (Ernst et ing, 2003) for visual images of knowledge and relationships. Ernst et al explain that “larger ontologies that are now being developed quickly exhaust human convenience of conceptualizing them in their own entirety”, so the visualization tools must assist an individual to view the information they need. Researchers at the University or college of Queensland Australia are suffering from a hyperbolic browser to come up with RDF files, this is actually explained in Eklund et al (2002). Cheung et al (2005) provide an ontology editor for know-how sharing in manufacturing.
It is additionally important not to stay limited on one ontology development environment but rather explore how ontologies may be developed using a range of development tools and converted between each where needed (Garcia-Castro and Gomez-Perez, 2006) are generally testing this. An important new advancement is SWRL a Semantic World-wide-web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML and it is use in modelling. This could be of use for formally specifying the construction with equations and rules in a model and the relationships and constraints between items represented in an equation. Miller and Baramidze (2005), Horrocks et ing (2003), together with Zhang (2005) demonstrate the SWRL language. Horrocks et ing talk of defining properties as general rules over other properties and of defining operations on datatypes, this research could help out with providing a visual tip and equation editor. A great editing facility to product these equations and restrictions, so that errors may be prevented, would improve your usability of future graphic modelling systems. Support for SWRL in Proté gé (Cooper and Baramidze, 2005) will assist with the construction of a modelling system with innovative editing of rules.
A future task to be undertaken could be the inclusion of uncertainty in the automatically produced models, for situations where accurate information should not be provided for the model. This would require provision of an way of handling uncertainty for parameters within the ontology, e. g. as 3 values describing a triangular distribution rather than unique absolute value. The choice support meta-program could be expanded to publish out the code to do Monte-Carlo sampling, hence taking a statistical uncertainty capability. Miller and Baramidze (2005) examine efforts to cultivate mathematical semantic representations above the syntactical representations involving MathML. this effort should allow standardisation of representation of mathematical expressions that bring up nodes, and their values and expressions, to the other. Constraints could then be combined with prevent invalid mathematical expression. Miller and Baramidze also explain their research in Discrete-Event Modelling Ontology (Test) for simulation together with modelling. This uses OWL to define a simulation and modelling class hierarchy. It could be very useful to create a sample to demonstrate this which includes a practical model to test the use of this ontology.
It would be interesting and useful to develop an environment where people might use example models and examine their usability and effectiveness. This could follow the same model to that raised for the development of available source software or collaborations including Wikipedia (2007), and the Semantic Web Environmental service SWED (2006). Assessment of usability for venture is complex and (Manley et al, 2003) explain how this involves interdisciplinary expertise from a lot of fields. Semantic Web research also requires an interdisciplinary process as explained by Berners-Lee et al “Understanding and fostering the growth of the world wide web, both in engineering together with societal terms, will require the development on the new interdisciplinary field. ” A project such as this can bring together those with diverse backgrounds, interests together with expertise. Cheung et al (2007) make the purpose that open source development can avoid vendor lock-in, get rid of unnecessary complexity, give freedom to change applications, and provide stage and application independence. Johnson (2004) has evolved more sophisticated ways of understanding and providing for complex human activity and testing the success of this.
It could be possible to extend the semantics used inside specification of models providing the creation of some sort of framework for simulations. Lacy and Gerber (2004) examine how OWL can be used to aid modelling and simulation. Since ontology uses open principles, these simulations could become broadly available on the internet. It is important that this necessary infrastructure is created to allow this facility to be added. The approaches of others to this problem have been examined. Page (1998), Page et al (2000) and Page and Opper (2000) examine the type of web-based simulations. Cooper et al (2001) demonstrate the technology behind web-based simulations, and argue the need for demonstrating the application of web-based simulations for serious projects. Fishwick and Miller (2004) examine the use of ontologies for modelling together with simulation. The authors were mixed up in RUBE project that developed a system for battle simulations, illustrated in Fishwick and Miller (2004). The RUBE project uses available standards and Proté gé for any ontology, and outputs a few code automatically. Kuljis and Paul (2001) evaluate progress in this field of web simulation. They argue the need for web-based simulations to be focussed on solving real-world problems in order to be successful. Kim et al (2002) explain how techniques of producing executable code from paperwork specified in standardised XML enables you to create simulations.
Reed et al (2000) take a look at possibilities for improving this aircraft design process using web-based modelling and simulation. Simulations could also be used for optimization and Chen and Yü cesan (2001) examine this. So web based simulation is an area of research well worth exploring. The use of process models allows accurate manufacturing times to remain generated. This requires dynamic models of factories, cells and techniques. Also it is necessary for users of a system so as to gather information from various computer systems such as databases together with spreadsheets. There is a conflict relating to the aim to develop a superb representation of knowledge using an ontology editor, and the practical need to edit the data inside database or application it can be currently held in. Your research examined has undertaken so far, prototypes ways of constructing information and of finding it. Other researchers which include Aragones et al, (2006) and Crapo et al (2000) and (2002) also have investigated this problem.
Shim et al (2006) discuss interface issues for this kind of problem, they investigate methods for “powerful, yet simple interface designs that enable interactive issues, reporting, and graphing functions”. They also examine end user scheming history – “The evolution with the human– computer interface is the evolution of computing. The graphical interface (GUI) that was refined at Xerox, popularized by Macintosh, and later included into Windows”. Recent developments in the utilization of Meta languages for platform independence should make the development of end-user programming quicker and easier. Bishop (2006) teaches current problems “The current practice is designed for GUIs to be specified by creating objects, calling ways to place them in the right places in a window, and then linking them to code that will course of action any actions required. When hand-coded, such a course of action is tedious and error-prone; when a builder or designer program is utilized, hundreds of lines associated with code are generated together with incorporated into one’s process, often labeled ‘do not necessarily touch’. Either approach violates the software engineering principles of productivity and maintainability. ” The author investigates, evaluates and advocates the utilization of platform independent programming different languages.
The solution to these kind of problems involves programming using Semantic Web languages rather than just using them for information representation. This probably will make translation for interoperability easier plus more reliable, and further enhance the maintainability of software solutions.
Aragones, A., Bruno, J., Crapo, Some sort of., Garbiras M., 2006. An Ontology-Based Architecture for Adaptive Work-Centered Interface Technology. In: Jena Customer Conference, 2006, Bristol, UK.
Berners-Lee, T., Hall, Watts., Hendler, J., Shadbolt, And., Weitzner, D. J., 2006. Preparing a Science of the Web. Science 11 August 2006: Vol. 313. virtually no. 5788, pp. 769 – 771.
Bishop, J., 2006. Multi-platform user interface construction: a challenge with regard to software engineering-in-the-small. In: International Conference on Software Executive, Proceeding of the 28th international conference on Software executive pp 751-760.
Chen, C. -H., Yü cesan, I., 2001. Distributed Web-Based Simulation Trials For Optimization. Journal involving Simulation Practice and Theory, 9, pp 73-90.
Cheung, Watts. M., Maropoulos, P. G., Gao, J. X., Aziz, They would., 2005. Ontological Approach for Organisational Knowledge Re-use in Product Developing Environments. In: 11th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising – WINTER SNOW STORMS 2005, University BW Munich, Philippines.
Cheung, W. M., Matthews, P. C., Gao, J. X., Maropoulos, P. G., 2007. Advanced product development integration buildings: an out-of-box solution to help distributed production networks. International Journal of Production Research March 2007.
Ciocoiu, Meters., Gruninger, M., Nau, D. S., 2000. Ontologies for Integrating Engineering Applications. Newspaper of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 1(1) pp 12-22.
Crapo, Some sort of. W., Waisel, L. B., Wallace, W. A., Willemain, T. R., 2002. Visualization and Modelling for Intelligent Systems. In: C. T. Leondes, impotence. Intelligent Systems: Technology together with Applications, Volume I Setup Techniques, 2002 pp 53-85.
Crapo, A. W., Waisel, L. N., Wallace, W. A., Willemain, W not. R., 2000. Visualization and also the process of modeling: a cognitive-theoretic view. In: Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data – Proceedings with the sixth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge detection and data mining pp 218-226.
Eklund, K., Roberts, N., Green, S., 2002. OntoRama: Browsing RDF Ontologies with a Hyperbolic-style Browser. In: The main International Symposium on Cyber Worlds, CW02, Theory and Tactics, IEEE Press. (2002) pp 405-411.
Elenius, Debbie., 2005. The OWL-S Editor – A Domain-Specific Extension to Proté gé. Within: 8th Intl. Proté gé Conference – July 18-21, 2005 : Madrid, Spain.
Ernst, And. A., Storey, M., Allen, P., Musen, M., 2003. Addressing cognitive issues in know-how engineering with Jambalaya. In: Workshop on Visualization with Knowledge Engineering at KCAP [http: //www. neilernst. net/docs/pubs/ernst-kcap03. pdf].
Fishwick, P. A., Miller, J. Some sort of., 2004. Ontologies for Modeling together with Simulation: Issues and Options. In: Proceedings of your 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, Fla, pp 259-264.
Garcia-Castro Third, Gomez-Perez A, 2006. Interoperability with Proté gé using RDF(Ohydrates) as interchange words. In: 9th Intl. Proté gé Conference, July 23-26, 2006 – Stanford, California.
Horrocks, As i., 2002. DAML+OIL: a Reason-able Web Ontology Language. In: proceedings in the Eighth Conference on Increasing Database Technology (EDBT 2002) March 24-28 2002, Prague.
Horrocks, As i., Patel-Schneider, P. F., van Harmelen, F., 2003. With SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of an web ontology language. Newspaper of Web Semantics, Vol 1(1), pp 7-26.
Manley, P., 2004. Interactions, Collaborations and breakdowns. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Proceedings in the 3rd annual conference with Task models and diagrams Vol ninety
Prague, Czech Republic.
Johnson, P., May, J., Johnson, H., 2003. Introduction to Multiple Collaborative Tasks. In: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Amount 10 (4) December 2003 pp 277-280.
Kim, T., Lee, T., Fishwick, P., 2002. A Two Period Modeling and Simulation Course of action for Web-Based Modeling and Simulation. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, 12(3), 230-248.
Kuljis, J., Paul, R. J., 2001. A great appraisal of web-based simulation: whither we wander?. Simulation Practice and Theory, 9, pp 37-54.
Lacy, M., Gerber, W., 2004, Potential Modeling and Simulation Applications in the Web Ontology Language – OWL. Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation National gathering pp265-270.
Miller, J. A., Baramidze, G., 2005. Simulation and the Semantic Web. In. Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation National gathering.
Miller, J., Fishwick, P. A., Taylor, S. J. E., Benjamin, P., Szymanski, N., 2001. Research and business opportunities in Web-Based Simulation. Simulation Process and Theory, 9, pp 55-72.
Web site, E. H., Buss, Some sort of., Fishwick, P. A., Healy, K. J., Nance, R. Orite., Paul, R. J., 2000. Web-Based Simulation: Revolution or Evolution?. ACM Deals on Modeling and Computer Simulation, 10(1), pp 3-17.
Page, E. H., Opper, J. M., 2000. Investigating the application of web-based simulation principles within the architecture for a next-generation laptop computer generated forces model. Future Generation Computer systems Volume 17(2) pp 159-169.
Reed, M. A., Follen, G. J., Afjeh, A. A., 2000. Increasing the Aircraft Design Course of action Using Web-Based Modeling together with Simulation. ACM Transactions with Modeling and Computer Simulation, 10(1), pp 58-83.
Semantic Web Environmental directory SWED, 2006. Summary [http: //www. swed. org. uk/swed/about/].
Shim, M. P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, M. F., Power, D M., 2002, Past, present, and future of decision help technology. Decision Support Solutions 33 pp 111-126.
Storey, Meters., Lintern, R., Ernst, N., Perrin, D., 2004, Visual images and Proté gé Within: 7th International Proté gé Conference – July 2004 : Bethesda, Maryland.
University involving Victoria, 2006. Model Run Visualization (MDV) http: //www. thechiselgroup. org/? q=mdv
Wikipedia, 2007. Greet to Wikipedia http: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Main_Page
Zhang, Z., 2005. Ontology Query Languages for the Semantic Web: A Performance Evaluation. MSc Thesis, (Under the Direction of John. A. Miller).