You are required to read and agree to the below before accessing a full-text version of an article in the IDE article repository.

The full-text document you are about to access is subject to national and international copyright laws. In most cases (but not necessarily all) the consequence is that personal use is allowed given that the copyright owner is duly acknowledged and respected. All other use (typically) require an explicit permission (often in writing) by the copyright owner.

For the reports in this repository we specifically note that

  • the use of articles under IEEE copyright is governed by the IEEE copyright policy (available at http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/copyrightpolicy.html)
  • the use of articles under ACM copyright is governed by the ACM copyright policy (available at http://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_policy/)
  • technical reports and other articles issued by M‰lardalen University is free for personal use. For other use, the explicit consent of the authors is required
  • in other cases, please contact the copyright owner for detailed information

By accepting I agree to acknowledge and respect the rights of the copyright owner of the document I am about to access.

If you are in doubt, feel free to contact webmaster@ide.mdh.se

Concepts and relationships in safety and security ontologies: A comparative study

Fulltext:


Publication Type:

Conference/Workshop Paper

Venue:

5th International Conference on System Reliability and Safety

Publisher:

IEEE


Abstract

Safety and security ontologies quickly become essential support for integrating heterogeneous knowledge from various sources. Today, there is little standardization of ontologies and almost no discussion of how to compare concepts and their relationships, establish a general approach to create relationships, or model them in general. However, concepts with similar names are not semantically similar or compatible in some cases. In this case, the problem of correspondence arises among the concepts and relationships found in the ontologies. To solve this problem, a comparison between the Hazard Ontology (HO) and the Combined Security Ontology (CSO) is proposed, in which the value of equivalence between their concepts and their relationships was extracted and analyzed. Although the HO covers the concepts related to the safety domain and the CSO includes security-related concepts, both are based on the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO). For this study, HO and CSO were compared, and the results were summarized in the form of the comparison tables. Our main contribution involves the comparisons among the concepts in HO and CSO to identify equivalences and differences between the two. Due to the increasing number of ontologies, their mapping, merging, and alignment are primary challenges in bridging the gaps that exist between the safety and security domains.

Bibtex

@inproceedings{Adach6521,
author = {Malina Adach and Kaj H{\"a}nninen and Kristina Lundqvist},
title = {Concepts and relationships in safety and security ontologies: A comparative study},
month = {November},
year = {2022},
booktitle = {5th International Conference on System Reliability and Safety},
publisher = {IEEE},
url = {http://www.es.mdh.se/publications/6521-}
}