See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324209746

Fuzzy Ontologies Model for Semantic Web

Conference Paper · April 2010

CITATIONS READS

10 2,638

3 authors:

Hanene GHORBEL Agrebi Afef Bahri

Institut Superieur de Gestion de Sousse Université de la Manouba
16 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rafik Bouaziz
University of Sfax
246 PUBLICATIONS   1,056 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ACI and CMCU projects View project

Fuzzy ontologies building View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hanene GHORBEL Agrebi on 04 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Fuzzy Ontologies Model for Semantic Web

Hanêne GHORBEL Afef BAHRI Rafik BOUAZIZ

MIRACL Laboratory
FSEGS, Route de l’Aéroport km 4,
B.P. 1088, 3018 Sfax - Tunisie
Tel. + 216 22 67 33 31
Hanen.Ghorbel@fsegs.rnu.tn
MIRACL Laboratory
FSEGS, Route de l’Aéroport km 4,
B.P. 1088, 3018 Sfax - Tunisie
Tel. + 216 94 14 23 09
afef.bahri@gmail.com
MIRACL Laboratory
FSEGS, Route de l’Aéroport km 4,
B.P. 1088, 3018 Sfax - Tunisie
Tel. + 216 97 63 64 42
raf.bouaziz@fsegs.rnu.tn

Abstract— Ontologies are set to play a key role in the
semantic web and are used for knowledge
representation, sharing and reuse. The web content is,
for the most part, subject to imperfection (i.e.,
imprecision, uncertainty, ambiguity). The majority of
ontology modeling formalisms and tools are based on
crisp logic and do not provide way to represent
imperfection. In this paper, we study the integration of
fuzzy logic in ontologies, in order to define a fuzzy
ontological model. We equally propose in this paper a
new formalism for fuzzy ontology building, as a new
UML profile. Using this new UML profile, we can organize
all the basic components of fuzzy ontologies.
Keywords-Component; semantic web, fuzzy ontologies, fuzzy
ontological model, fuzzy ontologies description, UML-Fuzzy
Ontologies profile.
I. INTRODUCTION
In Semantic Web, the manipulation of Web resources by
machine requires the description of these resources. Several
languages have been defined for that purpose. They can
express data and metadata. With this intention, we can use
RDF Schema (various abbreviated as RDFS, RDF(S), RDF-
S, or RDF/S) which represents an extensible knowledge
representation language. RDFS provides basic elements for
the description of ontologies with Resource Description
Framework (RDF) vocabularies, intended to structure RDF
resources [Broekstra, 01]. We can also use it to describe
services and give an abstract model of a domain through the
use of ontologies [Ghorbel, 08a]. Informally, ontology
consists of a hierarchical description of the concepts of a
particular domain, along with the description of the
properties instances of each concept. Web content is then
annotated by relying on the concepts defined in specific
domain ontology. However, ontology description languages
become less suitable in all those domains in which the
concepts to be represent have not a precise definition. If we
take into account that we have to deal with Web content,
then it is easily verified that this scenario is, unfortunately,
likely the rule rather than an exception. For instance, just
consider the case we would like to build ontology about
"Management of employee’s competences". Then we may
encounter the problem of representing ideas like "Ahmed
acquires the competence – know how to interpret a message
– with a good level". As it becomes apparent such notions
hardly can be encoded into concepts in ontology, as they
involve so-called fuzzy or vague concepts, like "Acquire",
and "Level-Acquisition" (cf. Figure 1) for which a clear and
precise definition is not possible. The problem to deal with
imprecise concepts has been addressed several decades ago
by Zadeh [Zadeh, 75], who gave bird in the meanwhile to the
so-called fuzzy set and fuzzy logic theory and a huge number
of real life applications are based on it. Unfortunately,
despite the popularity of fuzzy set theory, relative little work
has been carried out in extending ontology description
languages towards the representation of imprecise concepts
[Ghorbel, 08b].
Person Acquires Competence
Is-a Is-a Is-a
Level-
Middle- Acquisition
Young- Old-
Aged- (property)
Person Person
Person
Figure 1. Exemple of a fuzzy ontology
In this paper, we consider a fuzzy extension of classic
(precise) ontologies. We propose a fuzzy ontology model
based on UML and discuss about its use in Semantic Web
applications. We begin in section II by representing our
motivations and some related work. In section 3, we extend
the description of crisp ontologies with fuzzy logic. Section 4
presents our fuzzy ontology formal description. In section 5
we present our fuzzy ontology formalism "UML – Fuzzy
Ontologies". Finally in section 6, we conclude and we
present some further works.
II. MOTIVATIONS AND RELATED WORK
Fuzzy ontology construction may be a difficult task,
especially if it is done by hand. Some crisp ontologies exist,
such as WordNet, exhibiting different kinds of relations
between concepts. For some extents, these relations can be
mapped to degrees of membership values. For instance,
relations such as synonymy and hyponymy (specialization)
yield degrees of membership, as already discussed. Other
semantic relations like "Acquire", in the example of Fig. 1,
can be interpreted in terms of degrees of membership. A
degree of membership may reflect the category of the
relation that it comes from. Another approach (e.g.
[Remillieux, 07]) can use corpus analysis and statistical
occurrence of terms to establish relations.
Ontologies should be checked and tuned by experts, even if
their draft versions are automatically generated. This is
necessary not only because of the limitations of the
automatic generation process, but also because ontologies
are application-dependent and often include pragmatic
information. We consider that the definition of fuzzy
ontological model may resolve these problems.
In [Pereira, 06], a fuzzy relational model for ontologies is
introduced. However, it is only very simple, with no proper
semantics generally applicable in particular domains.
Gottgtroy [Gottgtroy, 06] focuses on mining knowledge
from databases and uses fuzzy rules to refine the resulting
ontologies. But his concrete approach to this topic is rather
unclear and the formal semantics is lacking again.
Moreover, there is an indirectly related research in Fuzzy
OWL [Stoilos, 06] and Fuzzy DL reasoning [Straccia, 06].
However, these approaches still exploit the "classical"
logics based knowledge representation, which we find
inappropriate for reasoning with learned ontologies.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods of heuristic [Jerry, 05] or
analogical [Kokinov, 03] reasoning present alternative
paradigms that have, however, not been connected to a
mechanism of automatic real-world knowledge acquisition.
Several fuzzy description logics can be found in the
literature (some examples are enumerated in [Straccia, 06]),
including a fuzzy extension of OWL [Stoilos, 06]. Fuzzy
ontologies are not part of the W3C standards, so new tools
would be necessary to be developed. Thanks to the results
of [Bobillo, 08a; Bobillo, 08b], a fuzzy ontology can be
reduced to an equivalent crisp one (in OWL) and it is
possible to reason with it using existing inference engines.
We find that work in fuzzy logic is varied. But we miss a
methodology to handle the complex components correctly.
This is a practical disadvantage our approach aims to tackle
(among other things).
III. FUZZY ONTOLOGIES
A. What is a crisp ontology?
"The short answer for this question is: A crisp ontology is a
precise (i.e., binary) specification of a conceptualization"
The word "Ontology" seems to generate a lot of controversy
in discussions about AI. It has a long history in philosophy,
in which it refers to the subject of existence. It is also often
confused with epistemology, which is about knowledge and
knowing. In the context of knowledge sharing, we use the
term crisp ontology to mean a precise specification of a
conceptualization. That is, a crisp ontology is a description
(like a formal precise specification of a program) of the
precise concepts and precise relationships that can exist for
information systems. This definition is consistent with the
use of crisp ontology as a set of precise concept definitions,
but more general. And it is certainly a different sense of the
word than its use in philosophy.
A crisp ontology (noted O) organizes domain knowledge in
terms of concepts (noted C), properties (noted P), relations
(noted R) and axioms (noted A), and can be formally defined
as follows.
Definition 1: Crisp ontology is a 4-tuple O = (C, P, R and
A), where:
1. C is a set of concepts defined for the domain. A
concept is often considered as a class in ontology.
2. P is a set of concept properties.
3. R is a set of binary semantic relations defined
between concepts in C.
4. A is a set of axioms. An axiom is a real fact or
reasoning rule.
B. What is a fuzzy ontology?
Fuzzy ontologies are an extension of the domain of crisp
ontologies for solving the uncertainty problems. Current
fuzzy ontological models do not focus on essential semantic
relationships between fuzzy concepts, which lead difficulty
in ontology integrating. To represent formally the fuzzy
knowledge, we apply the fuzzy logic and we propose an
appropriate model.
1) A quick look to fuzzy logic
The fuzzy logic is based on two fundamentals: fuzzy
linguistic variable and membership function.
- Fuzzy linguistic variable: proposed by L. Zadeh
[Zadeh, 75]. It is non-numeric variable and can be
formally defined as follows.
Definition 2: Fuzzy linguistic variable is a 3-tuple (X, T and
M), where:
1. X is a name of fuzzy linguistic variable, e.g., "age"
or "speed".
2. T is a set of terms which are the values of the fuzzy
linguistic variable, e.g. T = {young, middle aged,
old} or T = {fast, middle, slow}.
3. M is a mapping rule which map every term of T to
a fuzzy set.
- Membership function: is a graphical representation of
the magnitude of participation of each input. It
associates a weighting with each of the inputs that are
processed, define functional overlap between inputs, and
ultimately determines an output response. The rules use
 the input membership values as weighting factors to axioms (noted A). So, a fuzzy ontology can be formally
determine their influence on the fuzzy output sets of the defined as follows.
final output conclusion. Once the functions are inferred, Definition 3: A fuzzy ontology is a 7-tuple OF = (C, P, CF,
scaled, and combined, they are defuzzified into a crisp PF, R, RF and A), where:
output which drives the system. There are different 1. C is a set of crisp concepts defined for the domain.
memberships functions associated with each input and
2. P is a set of crisp concept properties.
output response. Some features to note are: trapezoidal
function, triangular function, l-function and r-function. 3. CF is a set of fuzzy concepts (cf. Definition 4).
4. PF is a set of fuzzy concept properties (cf.
The trapezoidal function, trz(x;a,b,c,d), is defined as Definition 5).
follows: let a < b ≤ c < d be rational numbers then
5. R is a set of crisp binary semantic relations defined
⎧x − a between concepts in C.
a <= x <= b
⎪ b − a if
⎪ 6. RF is a set of fuzzy binary semantic relations
⎪ 1 if b < x <= c defined between concepts in C or fuzzy concepts in
trz (x;a,b,c,d) = ⎨
CF (cf. Definition 6).
⎪− x + d if c < x <= d 7. A is a set of axioms. An axiom is a real fact or
⎪ d − c
⎪ reasoning rule.
⎩ 0 if x < a or x > d In this last definition, we found 3 new concepts: a set of
fuzzy concepts (noted CF), a set of fuzzy properties (noted
A triangular function, tri(x;a,b,c), is such that
PF) and a set of fuzzy relations (noted RF). Let us start with
⎧x − a the set CF; which can be formally defined as follows.
⎪ b − a if a <= x <= b Definition 4: A set of fuzzy concepts (noted Cf) represents
⎪ the set of fuzzy concepts where a fuzzy concept (noted cf) is
tri (x;a,b,c) = ⎪
x−c
⎨ if b < x <= c a concept which possesses, at least, one fuzzy property
⎪ b − c (noted pf).
⎪0 if x < a or x > c CF = {cf, cf = (Ncf, P and Pf)}
⎪
⎩
Where:
The L-function is defined as
⎧1 if x < a 1. Ncf is the name of a fuzzy concept, e.g. "Young
⎪ Person", "Middle aged Person" or "Old Person".
L (x;a,b) = ⎪
⎨
− x + b
if a < x <= b 2. P is a set of crisp properties.
⎪ b − a 3. PF is a nonempty set of fuzzy properties (cf.
⎪⎩ 0 if x > b Definition 5).

Finally, The R-function is defined as Let us consider now to the definition of the set of fuzzy
properties (noted PF); it can be defined as follows.
⎧0 if x < a
⎪
⎪x − a Definition 5: A set of fuzzy properties (noted Pf) is a
R (x;a,b) = ⎨ if a < x <= b
− a nonempty set of fuzzy properties. A fuzzy property in this
⎪b set (noted pf) is a property represented with a fuzzy
⎪⎩1 if x > b
linguistic variable.
2) Our fuzzy ontological model
Information systems can include uncertainties and PF = {pf, pf = (Npf, T and M)}
imperfections. The goal of the definition of fuzzy ontologies
is to integrate these characteristics. So, we must be able to
Where:
modulate uncertainties, on the one hand, and to product
representations accessible and understandable by machines, 1.Npf is the name of fuzzy property, e.g. "age".
on the other hand. 2.T is a set of terms which are the values of the fuzzy
A fuzzy ontology (noted OF) organizes domain knowledge property, e.g. T = {young, middle aged, old}.
in terms of crisp concepts (noted C), crisp properties (noted
3.M is a mapping rule which maps every term of T
P), fuzzy concepts (noted CF), fuzzy properties (noted PF),
crisp relations (noted R), fuzzy relations (noted RF) and to a fuzzy set.
We present, on figure 2, an illustrative example of fuzzy IV. FUZZY ONTOLOGIES FORMAL DESCRIPTION
concepts and its set of fuzzy propriety. The definition of the basic components of a fuzzy
ontological model is very delicate. Indeed, it must be
complete and not redundant. To carry out this objective, we
Concept Property set studied the works of Straccia [Straccia, 06] and of Stoilos
Person
First-Name [Stoilos, 06] which treat mainly about fuzzy description
Name logic.
Is-a Address The integration of fuzzy logic in the description logic is done
Age principally by the definition of membership functions
associated with concepts and relations [Straccia, 05]. For
example, the concept "Young Person" is defined based on
Fuzzy Fuzzy Fuzzy Fuzzy linguistic
concept concept concept variable set
the membership function associated with the linguistic
variable "Young". The degree of membership of element to
Youth Middle aged Old Age = {old, middle-aged, the concept "Young Person" is given by the following
Person Person Person youth} trapezoidal formula:
⎧(Age - 12) / (18 - 12) if 12 ≤ Age ≤ 18
Figure 2. Example of fuzzy concept ⎪
⎪1 if 18 < Age ≤ 30
Trz (Age;12,18,30,40)= ⎨(-Age + 40) / (40 - 30) if 30 < Age ≤ 40
⎪
Finally, we define the set of fuzzy relations (noted Rf) as ⎪⎩0 if Age < 12 Or Age > 40
follows.
Definition 6: A set of fuzzy binary semantic relations
We do not use the expression defined in [Straccia, 05] for the
(noted Rf) represents the set of fuzzy binary semantic
declaration of "Young Person". We rather propose the
relations. A fuzzy binary semantic relation in this set (noted following expression which appears mathematically more
rf) is a relation represented with a fuzzy linguistic variable. rigorous to us:
RF = {rf, rf = (Nrf, T and M)} Young-Person = Person I Young (Age; 12, 18, 30, 40; s)

Where: With
1. Nrf is the name of fuzzy relation e.g. "Distance". Young (Age; 12, 18, 30, 40; s) = {x / Trz (Agex; 12, 18, 30, 40) >= s};
2. T is a set of terms which are the values of the fuzzy s is a threshold of membership degree

relation, e.g. T= {short, middle, long}. We equally adopt the some idea to the defintion of fuzzy
3. M is a mapping rule which maps every term of T ontological compoenents. We hereafter define the various
to a fuzzy set. components of the our fuzzy ontological model.
We present on figure 3 an illustrative example of fuzzy Whatever the used ontology language, the description of an
relations. ontology is based on the concept of classes, relations and
properties [Ghorbel, 08a]. This description is based on an
exact logic and cannot be used for the description of fuzzy
Fuzzy linguistic variable set ontologies. We then propose to define a new type of class,
Distance = {short, middle, long}
entitled "Fuzzy_Class", and a series of the types of classes
which specialize the first (cf. Figure 4). These types are
intended for the design of fuzzy ontologies:
Property Property - Fuzzy_Class: it is the root class which represents a
set Concept Concept set generalization of various fuzzy classes. It has
Airport Hotel "Degree_of_Membership" property, which is a
Name Name
Locality Short-Distance Locality
calculable property.
- Fuzzy_Class_Trz: it is a specialization of the class
Middle-Distance "Fuzzy_Class". It is used to represent fuzzy concepts
which have trapezoidal functions. It has 4 properties
Long-Distance Fuzzy_a, Fuzzy_b, Fuzzy_c and Fuzzy_d which represent
respectively the attributes "a", "b", "c" and "d" of the
corresponding membership function.
Figure 3. Example of fuzzy relation - Fuzzy_Class_Tri: it is a specialization of the class
"Fuzzy_Class". It is used to represent fuzzy concepts
Fuzzy ontology model is complex. We must find the means which have trianguler functions. It has 3 properties
to ensure their correct descriptions. Fuzzy_a, Fuzzy_b, and Fuzzy_c which represent
 respectively the attributes "a", "b" and "c" of the
corresponding membership function.
- Fuzzy_Class_L: it is a specialization of the class
"Fuzzy_Class". It is used to represent fuzzy concepts
which have L-functions. It has 2 properties Fuzzy_a and
Fuzzy_b to represent respectively the attributes "a" and
"b" of the corresponding membership function.
- Fuzzy_Class_R: it is a specialization of the class
"Fuzzy_Class". It is used to represent fuzzy concepts
which have R-functions. It has 2 properties Fuzzy_a and
Fuzzy_b to represent respectively the attributes "a" and
"b" of the corresponding membership function.
Fuzzy_Class
Degree_of_Membership
Fuzzy_Class Fuzzy_Class Fuzzy_Class Fuzzy_Class
_Trz _Tri _R _L
Fuzzy_a
Fuzzy_a Fuzzy_a Fuzzy_a
Fuzzy_b Fuzzy_b Fuzzy_b Fuzzy_b
Fuzzy_c Fuzzy c
Fuzzy_d
Figure 4. Fuzzy ontological components structuring
The use of these classes allows a correct description of
fuzzy ontological components. In fact, each fuzzy
ontological component will be defined as a subclass of one
of the "Fuzzy_Class" types. For example, the fuzzy class
"Young-Person" may be defined as a subclass of two
classes:
- The class "Person": since it represents its basic class.
- The class "Fuzzy_Classe_Trz": since it represents the
basic class of all the fuzzy trapezoidal concepts.
With these extensions, we guarantee the correct description
of all fuzzy components of our fuzzy ontological model. We
now seek to find a formalism to ensure the correct
representation of these components. For this purpose, we
propose a new formalism based on the use of UML and
especiallay the UML class diagram. We define then new
UML profiles for fuzzy ontologies.
V. AN UML-FUZZY ONTOLOGIES PROFILE
In this section, we present an UML profile, entitled UML-
Fuzzy Ontologies, which is a specialized variant of the UML
2.1.2 for fuzzy ontologies applications. The main aim of our
proposal is to supply to the designers of fuzzy ontologies
UML extensions to support fuzzy ontologies components.
An UML extension is specified in the UML meta-model by a
stereotype. This latter defines how an existing meta-class
may be extended, and enables the use of a platform or a
domain specific terminology or notation, in addition to the
ones used for the extended meta-class [OMG, 07]. In our
work, UML-Fuzzy Ontologies stereotypes extend meta-
model classes with specific fuzzy_a_trz, fuzzy_b_trz,
fuzzy_c_trz, fuzzy_d_trz, fuzzy_a_tri, fuzzy_b_tri,
fuzzy_c_tri, fuzzy_a_l, fuzzy_b_l, fuzzy_a_r, fuzzy_b_r and
degree_of_membership attributes, specific Update and
Calculate_degree_of_membership operations and a specific
fuzzy_class_trz, fuzzy_class_tri, fuzzy_class_l and
fuzzy_class_r that allow the design of class diagrams for
fuzzy ontologies. Our approach is based on the Extension
relationship proposed in UML 2.1.2 Profiles package
[OMG, 07].
A. Why we Use UML to Develop Ontologies?
UML is a good tool to represent fuzzy ontologies. When
using UML for fuzzy ontology development, one of the
principal goals is to assure the quality of fuzzy ontologies.
UML class diagrams provide a static modeling capability
that is well suited for representing fuzzy ontologies, so the
structural complexity of a UML class diagram is one of the
most important measures to evaluate the quality of a fuzzy
ontology [Kang, 04].
Fuzzy ontologies include class/subclass hierarchies,
relationships between classes, class attribute definitions and
axioms that specify constraints which can be easily modeled
in a UML class diagrams. There are a number of good
reasons why UML is a promising notation for fuzzy
ontologies:
- UML is a graphical notation based on many years of
experience in software analysis and design by a variety
of companies in a wide spectrum of industries and
domains.
- UML is an open standard maintained by the OMG
(Object Management Group).
- UML has standard mechanisms for defining extensions
for specific application contexts such as fuzzy ontology
modelling.
- UML is widely adopted in industry and taught in many
university courses. Current techniques for fuzzy
ontology development are based on knowledge
representations such as Knowledge Interchange Format
(KIF) which are not widely known outside the AI
research community.
- UML is supported by widely-adopted case tools. These
UML case tools are more accessible to software
practitioners than current fuzzy ontology tools from the
research community such as Fuzzy Protégé [Ghorbel,
09], which requires expertise in knowledge
representation.
A profile in the UML provides a generic extension
mechanism for customizing UML meta-model for particular
domains and platforms. Profiles are defined using
stereotypes, tagged values, and constraints that are applied
to specific model elements, such as classes, attributes,
operations, and activities. A Profile is a collection of such
extensions that collectively customize UML for a particular
domain (e.g., aerospace, healthcare, financial) or platform “Profile” UML-Fuzzy Ontologies
(e.g., J2EE, .NET). In our work, we update UML for fuzzy
ontologies. “Data type” “Data type” “Data type” “Data type”
Fuzzy_a_trz Fuzzy_b_trz Fuzzy_c_trz Fuzzy_d_trz
B. Fuzzy ontologies data type value :Real value :Real value :Real value :Real
The main aim of the UML-Fuzzy Ontologies is to supply to
the designers of fuzzy ontologies UML extensions “Data type” “Data type” “Data type”
Fuzzy_a_tri Fuzzy_b_tri Fuzzy_c_tri
(stereotypes) to support fuzzy_class_trz, fuzzy_class_tri,
value :Real value :Real value :Real
fuzzy_class_l and fuzzy_class_r classes stereotypes.
A stereotype defines how an existing meta-model may be “Data type” “Data type”
extended, and enables the use of platform or domain Fuzzy_a_l Fuzzy_b_l
specific terminology or notation, in addition to the ones value :Real value :Real
used for the extended meta-model [OMG, 07]. However, the
standard stereotype cannot express features of fuzzy class “Data type” “Data type”
Fuzzy_a_r Fuzzy_a_r
because it does not allow the definition of structural and
value :Real value :Real
behavioral features [Debnath, 03]. Each class is also
characterized by a calculate_of_membership operation that “Data type”
ensures the degree of membership calculation while using Degree_of_membership
the data fuzzy_a, fuzzy_b, fuzzy_c and fuzzy_d of the value :Real
corresponding membership function. For this reason, we
base our proposal on the Extension relationship proposed in
Figure 5. Data type of UML-Fuzzy Ontologies profile
UML 2.1.2 Profiles package [OMG, 07] and we define 11
new UML data types called:
- Fuzzy_a_trz: stands for the attribute fuzzy_a of C. Degree of membership calculation stereotype
trapezoidal membership function, We characterize the UML-Fuzzy Ontologies profile by a
- Fuzzy_b_trz: stands for the attribute fuzzy_b of calculate degree of membership stereotype to declare
trapezoidal membership function, Degree_of_membership_calculation method in the class
- Fuzzy_c_trz: stands for the attribute fuzzy_c of diagrams (cf. Figure 6). It allows, as its name indicates it, to
trapezoidal membership function, calculate the degree of membership according to the type of
- Fuzzy_d_trz: stands for the attribute fuzzy_d of the membership function. We find then 4 types of method
trapezoidal membership function, which specialize Degree_of_membership_calculation:
- Fuzzy_a_tri: stands for the attribute fuzzy_a of triangular - Degree_of_membership_calculation_trz: ensures the
membership function, calculation of degree of membership of a trapezoidal
- Fuzzy_b_tri: stands for the attribute fuzzy_b of triangular membership function. It depends on the data fuzzy_a_trz,
membership function, fuzzy_b_trz, fuzzy_c_trz and fuzzy_d_trz.
- Fuzzy_c_tri: stands for the attribute fuzzy_c of triangular - Degree_of_membership_calculation_tri: ensures the
membership function, calculation of degree of membership of a triangular
- Fuzzy_a_l: stands for the attribute fuzzy_a of L-function membership function. It depends on the data fuzzy_a_tri,
of membership, fuzzy_b_tri and fuzzy_c_tri.
- Fuzzy_b_l: stands for the attribute fuzzy_b of L-function - Degree_of_membership_calculation_l: ensures the
of membership, calculation of degree of membership of an L-function. It
- Fuzzy_a_r: stands for the attribute fuzzy_a of R-function depends on the data fuzzy_a_l and fuzzy_b_l.
of membership, - Degree_of_membership_calculation_r: ensures the
- Fuzzy_a_r: stands for the attribute fuzzy_b of R-function calculation of degree of membership of an R-function. It
of membership, and depends on the data fuzzy_a_r and fuzzy_b_r.
- Degree_of_membership: stands for the attribute
degree_of_membership. D. Fuzzy Class stereotype
As shown in figure 5, these meta-classes are characterized by To correctly present fuzzy ontologies using UML-Fuzzy
a property “value” which indicates the attribute value Ontologies, we must introduce Fuzzy_Class (cf. Figure 4) in
written by the related update method. It has the type Real. the meta-model of UML. This new type of class is
specialized by 4 other subclasses (cf. Figure 7):
- Fuzzy_Class_Trz: stand for fuzzy concepts which have a
trapezoidal membership function.
- Fuzzy_Class_Tri: stand for fuzzy concepts which have a
triangular membership function.
 - Fuzzy_Class_L: stand for fuzzy concepts which have an
L-function of membership.
- Fuzzy_Class_R: stand for fuzzy concepts which have an
R-function of membership.
“Profile” UML-Fuzzy Ontologies
“Stereotype”
“Meta-Class” Degree_of_membership
Operation _calculation
“Stereotype” “Stereotype” “Stereotype”
Degree_of_member Degree_of_members Degree_of_member Degree_of_member
ship_calculation_trz hip_calculation_tri ship_calculation_l ship_calculation_r
Figure 6. Degree of membership calculation stereotype
“Profile” UML-Fuzzy Ontologies
“Meta-Class”
“Stereotype”
Fuzzy_Class
Class
“Stereotype” “Stereotype” “Stereotype” “Stereotype”
Fuzzy_Class_trz Fuzzy_Class_Tri Fuzzy_Class_L Fuzzy_Class_R
Figure 7. Fuzzy Class stereotype
With all these extensions carried out on the UML meta-
model, we obtained UML - Fuzzy Ontologies profile which
allow for a correct representation of our fuzzy ontological
model. Indeed, we succeeded in supporting characteristics of
the fuzzy properties and the fuzzy relations (i.e., its attributes
and its function of membership) by using new data types (cf.
section 5.2). We also succeeded in supporting the various
types of fuzzy concepts by using new fuzzy classes (cf.
section 5.4). Finally, we have to implement moreover a new
stereotype which ensures an automatic degree of
membership calculation of the different membership
functions (cf. section 5.3).
VI. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER WORKS
In this article, we defined a fuzzy ontological model, while
basing ourselves on fuzzy logic [Zadeh, 75] and on the
fuzzy description logic [Straccia, 06]. This model uses a
new approach for the formal description of fuzzy ontologies.
To be able to represent it correctly (i.e., to schematize), we
define a new formalism for fuzzy ontologies. We have to
carry out an extension on UML 2.1.2. We define then a new
profile UML entitled UML-Fuzzy Ontologies. Using this
new model and this new profile UML, we succeed in
organization all the basic components which we defined for
fuzzy ontologies. However, we must now think about the
implementation of these solutions. We seek to create a
framework for the design and the operationnalisation of
fuzzy ontologies based on our fuzzy ontological model and
our profile UML "UML - fuzzy ontologies". This framework
will be an extension of our fuzzy ontology editing
framework "Fuzzy Protégé" [Ghorbel, 09].
Finally, we look equally to propose a prototype of an
intelligent search engine which will be used within of the
Semantic Web. This intelligent search engine has as an
information source the fuzzy knowledge bases which will be
generated by our framework.
“Stereotype”
REFERENCES
[Bobillo, 08a] F. Bobillo and U. Straccia; “Towards a Crisp
Representation of Fuzzy Description Logics under
Łukasiewicz Semantics”; Proc. of Springer Berlin/
Heidelberg; degital object identifier: 10.1007/978-3-540-
68123-6_34; pp 309 – 318; May 2008.
[Bobillo, 08b] F. Bobillo, M. Delgado and J. Gomez-
Romero; “Optimizing the Crisp Representation of the
Fuzzy Description Logic SROIQ”; Proc. of 3rd
International Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the
Semantic Web - Lecture Notes in Computer Science
5327, pp 189 – 206; 2007.
[Broekstra, 01] J. Broekstra, M. Klein, S. Decker, D. Fensel,
F. Harmelen and I. Horrocks; “Enabling knowledge
representation on the Web by extending RDF schema”;
Proc. of 10th international conference on World Wide
Web; pp 467 – 478; Hong Kong, 2001.
[Debnath, 03] N. Debnath, D. Riesco, A. Maccio, G.
Montejano, and P. Martellotto; “Definition of new kind
of UML stereotype based on OMG metamodel”; Proc of
ACS/IEEE Arab International Conference on Computer
Systems and Applications: AICCSA’03; pp 49 – 54;
Tunis, Tunisia, 2003.
[Ghorbel, 08a] H. Ghorbel, A. Bahri and R. Bouaziz ; “Les
langages de description des ontologies : RDF & OWL”;
Proc. of Génie électrique et informatique GEI’2008 ; pp
597 – 606; Sousse, Tunisie ; Mars 2008.
[Ghorbel, 08b] H. Ghorbel, A. Bahri and R. Bouaziz; “A
Framework for Fuzzy Ontology Models”; Proc. of
journées Francophones sur les Ontologies JFO’2008;
Lyon, France; pp 21 – 30 ; Décembre 2008, ACM.
[Ghorbel, 09] H. Ghorbel, A. Bahri and R. Bouaziz; “Fuzzy
Protégé for Fuzzy Ontology Models”; Proc. of 11th
International Protégé Conference IPC'2009; Academic
Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Netherlands; Juin 2009.
[Gottgtroy, 06] P. Gottgtroy, N. Kasabov, and S.
MacDonell; “Evolving ontologies for intelligent decision
support”; Proc. of Elie Sanchez editor, Fuzzy Logic and
 the Semantic Web, Capturing intelligence, chapter 21; pp
415 – 440; 2006; Elsevier.
[Jerry, 05] R. Jerry Hobbs and S. Andrew Gordon; “Toward
a large-scale formal theory of commonsense psychology
for metacognition”; Proc. of AAAI Spring Symposium
on Metacognition in Computation; pp 49 – 54; Stanford,
CA; 2005; ACM.
[Kang, 04] D. Kang, B. Xu and J. Lu; “A complexity
measure for ontology based on UML”; Proc. of 10th IEEE
International Workshop on Future Trends of ; degital
object identifier: 10.1109/FTDCS.2004.1316620; pp 222
– 228; May 2004.
[Kokinov, 03] B. Kokinov and M. Robert French;
“Computational models of analogy making” ; Proc. of L.
Nadel, editor, Encyclopedia of Conginitve Science,
volume 1 ; pp 113 – 118; Nature Publishing Group,
London, 2003.
[OMG, 07] OMG; “Unified Modeling Language (UML),
Infrastructure, v2.1.2”, formal/2007-11-04, November
2007.
[Pereira, 06] R. Pereira, I. Ricarte, and F. Gomide; “Fuzzy
relational ontological model in information search
View publication stats
systems”; Proc. of Elie Sanchez, editor, Fuzzy Logic and
the Semantic Web, Capturing Intelligence, chapter 20; pp
395 – 412; Elsevier, 2006.
[Remillieux, 07] A. Remillieux, C. Petitmengin, J-L Ermine
and C. Blatter; “Construction d’une ontologie pour le
partage des connaissances implicites de conduite du
changement (IKSO)” ; Proc. of journées Francophones
sur les Ontologies JFO’2007 ; Sousse, Tunisie ; pp 175 –
194 ; Octobre 2007.
[Stoilos, 06] G. Stoilos, N. Simou, G. Stamou and S.
Kollias; “Uncertainty and the Semantic Web”; Proc. of
IEEE Intelligent Systems; Volume 21/ Issue 5; pp 84 –
87; 2006.
[Straccia, 06] U. Straccia; “A fuzzy description logic for the
Semantic Web”; Proc. of Elie Sanchez, editor, Fuzzy
Logic and the Semantic Web, Capturing Intelligence,
chapter 4; pp 73 – 90; Elsevier, 2006.
[Zadeh, 75] L. Zadeh, “The concept of a linguistic variable
and its application to approximate reasoning”; Proc. of
Information Science ; Volume 4, Issue 4 ; pp 301 –
357; 1975.