• Several types of ODPs
• Structural ODPs
• Correspondence ODPs
• Content ODPs
• Reasoning ODPs
• Presentation ODPs
• Lexico-Syntactic ODPs
• Available at ODP Repository

Structural ODPs

• Logical ODPs and Architectural ODPs make up the Structural ODPs
• Logical ODPs
• Composition of logical constructs that solve a problem of expressivity
• Eg: Expressing n-ary relation between concepts
• They are further divided into Logical Macros and Transformation patterns
• Logical Macros are shortcuts to recurrent intuitive logical expressions
• Transformation patterns translate a logical expression from one language to the other

Structural ODPs

• Architectural ODPs
• They have an affect on the overall shape of the ontology
• They aim to constrain how the ontology should look like
• They are chosen if there are specific needs such as any computational complexity constraints

Reasoning ODPs

• They are applications of Logical ODPs to obtain certain reasoning results
• Eg: Classification (all superclasses for each class in the ontology)
• They provide hints to the reasoner as to what kind of reasoning has to be performed in order to answer queries

Correspondence ODPs

• Correspondence ODPs are divided into Reengineering ODPs and Mapping (or Alignment) ODPs
• Reengineering ODPs
• They are design solutions that transform a conceptual model into an ontological model
• The source model can be a non-ontological model such as a thesaurus, UML model etc.
• Schema reengineering patterns and Refactoring patterns are sub categories of Reengineering ODPs
• Schema reengineering patterns are rules to transform a non-OWL ontology to an OWL ontology

Correspondence ODPs

• Refactoring patterns transform (refactor) models in the same form. For example, from one OWL 2 DL ontology to another
• Eg: An ontology defines an object property to represent preparing coffee between agent and coffee
• Time of coffee preparation and the tool used should also be added
• An n-ary Logical ODP needs to be used because the property preparing coffee needs to be associated with agent, coffee, time, tool
• The n-ary Logical ODP and the mechanism to replace the existing object property together form the Refactoring ODP

Correspondence ODPs

• Mapping patterns provide design solutions to relate two ontologies without changing the logical types of the ontology entities
• They provide semantic relations between mappable elements in the ontologies
• There are 3 basic semantic relations used for mapping: equivalence, containment, and overlap
• The negative counterparts are also included such as not equivalent, not contained, and no overlap or disjoint

Presentation ODPs

• They deal with usability and readability of ontologies from a user perspective
• They are meant to be good practices that support reuse of ontologies
• Naming ODPs and Annotation ODPs are types of Presentation ODPs
• Naming ODPs are naming conventions for files, namespaces, and ontological entities (class, property, instace)
• Annotation ODPs provide annotation properties such as label (description of an entity, synonyms etc.), seeAlso, versionInfo etc.

Lexico-Syntactic ODPs

• They are linguistic structures or schemas that consist of words following specific order
• They can be used to associate natural language sentences with other ODPs such as Logical and Content ODPs

Content ODPs (CPs)

• Small ontologies that mediate between use cases (problem types) and design solutions
• They are the building blocks to create ontologies
• An ontology can be built by composing different CPs with appropriate dependencies between them and by expanding the CPs as needed

• An ODP can be described using the following fields
• Name
• Intent
• Competency questions
• Alternate names
• Scenarios: Examples of requirements in natural language that can be modelled using this pattern
• Diagram: UML diagram representing the pattern
• Elements: list classes and relations in the pattern

• Consequences: description of benefits and trade-offs
• Known uses: examples of realistic ontologies where the pattern can be used
• Extracted/Reengineered from: reference ontology or conceptual schema from which the pattern has been extracted
• Related patterns: other patterns that are either a specialization, generalization, composition, or component of this pattern. Also lists patterns that are generally used along with the described pattern
• Building block: a reference implementation (URI or owl file)

• Name: Agent Role
• Intent: To represent agents and the role they play
• Competency questions
• what is the role that is played by an agent?
• which agent plays this role?
• Consequences: allows designers to make assertions on roles played by agents without involving the agents that play those roles, and vice versa. It does not allow to express temporariness of roles
• Scenarios: She greeted us all in her various roles of mother, friend, and daughter

• Name: Information Realization
• Description: It represents the relations between information objects like poems, songs, formulas, etc., and their physical realizations like printed books, registered tracks, physical files, etc
• Intent: To represent information objects and their physical realization.
• Competency questions
• what are the physical realizations of this information object?
• what information objects are realized by this physical object?
• Consequences: This pattern allows to distinguish information objects from their concrete realizations
• Scenarios: The book of the "Divina Commedia"