1. Progress on the Risk OntologyComplying with the Risk Registry / Case Studies Nick Bassiliades, Dimitris Vrakas Logic Programming & Intelligent Systems group Dept. of Informatics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

2. Outline • Introduction • Previous ontology version • Risk Registry Schema • New ontology version • Next Steps

3. Why do we need Ontologies? • All the variables associated with the Risk Assessment Process must be defined in the Risk Ontology(ies) • Inputs / Outputs to RAT • Past cases or Models • Others • Why? • To facilitate integration of risk assessment practices from different domains • To eliminate misunderstandings concerning the use of terms • To allow the use of various ways to describe the same term (synonyms, translations, etc) • To enable reasoning in a higher level of abstraction (general rules that apply to a group of specific cases)

5. IRIS Risk Glossary + Case Studies Schema The Ontology Server Case Studies

6. Outline • Introduction • Previous ontology version • Risk Registry Schema • New ontology version • Next Steps

7. Previous OntologyClass Hierarchy

8. Previous OntologyObject Properties Relating Riskto Other Concepts

9. Previous OntologyRisk Class Properties

10. Previous OntologyEvent Properties

11. Previous OntologyProbability Properties

12. Previous OntologyConsequence Properties

13. Previous OntologyRisk Specializations

14. Previous OntologyConsequence Specializations

15. Outline • Introduction • Previous ontology version • Risk Registry Schema • New ontology version • Next Steps

16. Risk Registry Schema • Different variables / chara-cteristics / attributes of Risk • Properties of class Risk • Different types of Risk • Subclasses of class Risk • Spatio-temporal information for the triggering of a risk occurrence • Explanation on the values that attributes of Risk can take • Determine ranges of properties

17. Risk Registry Data (1/2) • Case study administrative information • Each line of the table is a different instance/object of the corresponding risk class • Although currently content is just simple text, they have been modeled as objects to capture future deployment of fine-grained domain-specific ontologies • Risk Identification Methodology suggests two more properties: probability and value • Another risk property • Plural suggests 1-to-many relationship … • …but actually risk relationship to factor is 1-to-1 • Multiple Risk instances for each alternative factor • Currently 1-to-1 relationship • Needs to map to fine-grained domain-specificontologies ?? • Needs to be represented as a workflow??

18. Risk Registry Data (2/2) • There are no examples • Assumed simple text • There are no examples, therefore ideas from previous ontology have been used • A separate object, because it may hold internal properties (distribution, value) • Use of the same name implies a single object with two properties (description, value) • Although singular is used, sample data suggest multiple impacts • However, NOT 1-to-many relationship … • … but several 1-to-1 relationships with risk (multiple instances)

19. Outline • Introduction • Previous ontology version • Risk Registry Schema • New ontology version • Next Steps

20. New ontology versionClass Hierarchy Risk Properties • Abstract classes for inheritance purposes • value • hasProbability • Types of Impact • Hierarchy slightly changed from previous Administrative Information • Types of Risk • Previous types dropped

21. New ontology version Properties of Risk Class

22. New ontology version Domains-Ranges of Properties

23. New ontology version Property Hierarchy

24. New ontology version Restrictions of Risk Sub-Class

25. New ontology versionRiskVariables (Factor, Component, Mechanism and Impact)

26. New ontology versionOther Concepts (Probability, Event)

27. New ontology versionAdministrative Class CaseStudy

28. New ontology versionCreatingOntology Instances from Registry • 4 impacts • Thus 4 instances 1 factor 1 mechanism 3 components

29. New ontology versionSample Ontology Instance

30. New ontology versionRelationships between Instances

31. Outline • Introduction • Previous ontology version • Risk Registry Schema • New ontology version • Next Steps

32. Next StepsRiskOntology Refinement • Work with engineers to improve risk ontology • Follow advancements of case studies • E.g. Impact of one risk may lead to occurrence of another risk • Chained risks (need to be modeled?) • E.g. Maintain groups of risks with similar factors/impacts?

33. Next StepsHarmonize with Domain Ontologies • Integrate fine-grained domain ontologies • explore how risk variables can break down to more detailed structured descriptions (and not just text) • interrelate risk variables to each other through process workflow (mechanism) • Also, harmonize with integration (DSS) ontologies

34. Next StepsOntology Population & Querying • Currently data from risk registries have been encoded manually (proof-of-concept) • Suggestion: automate in the future? • Link ontology to a risk registry database (??) • Risk insertion/retrieval in/from database will be enhanced with ontology reasoning capabilities • Suggestion: Build a knowledge portal (??) • Better dissemination of case studies • Better exploitationofthe ontology • Risk Knowledge Management

35. Thank you! • New Ontology can be found at: http://lpis.csd.auth.gr/ontologies/2010/iris.owl • Previous Ontology can be found at: http://lpis.csd.auth.gr/ontologies/2009/iris.owl