List of Symbian Operating System features. 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... relationships between all three Ontologies are identified and annotated. The reason for this is to formulate inter-relationships between the Ontologies. Like Ontology, a well-defined class diagram, part of UML, can describe concepts and relationships in a certain domain. Both approach have much to offer and can work together most effectively in an integrated environment. Figure 4 illustrates the general UML structure that was used to annotate how all three Ontologies were related. The three developed Ontologies are self-documenting and are stored in Protégé 4.1 project files. Such documentation makes it possible for future researchers to modify the Ontologies or add additional tools to them. As a final note about the methodology used to develop these initial mobile phone’s operating systems Ontologies, a modified version of this methodology should be used when adding additional tools to the HFCC federation. The modified methodology includes the following: • Confirm that the purpose is still valid; expand the scope to include the new tool Ontologies. Remove invalid ones from the framework, they are no longer needed. • Only perform feature modeling of the new tools so that needed constructs for the federation Ontology are identified. Since the federation Ontology is already established, it is only necessary to extend and modify it, not re-build it entirely. • Modify the federation Ontology to account for the new/modified Ontology terms. • Modify each UML relationship diagram as needed to account for the new tool Ontologies and the changes to the federation Ontology. A domain analysis of the mobile operating system’s domain was undertaken. The analysis was accomplished by examining two specific mobile phone’s operating systems, building feature models of those tools, and then identifying key terminology of the feature models. There are two reasons why this domain analysis cannot be considered to be a complete analysis of the domain of mobile phone’s operating systems. First, only two tools (out of many of possibilities) were analyzed. Secondly, a domain analysis is not an “additive” activity; simply analyzing additional tools (beyond those two) by themselves does not completely add to the overall analysis. The ways in which the new additions affect and change the previously established analysis must also be considered. Therefore, the limited domain analysis conducted as part of this research can be considered a necessary, but not sufficient, analysis towards establishing a unified framework for mobile phone’s operating systems. The first tool analyzed in the domain analysis was Symbian, a mobile operating system and computing platform designed for smart phones. The feature model was developed by identifying software features from the Symbian OS Architecture Source book [5] and by actual day-to-day use of the tool. Figure 5 illustrates a single excerpt from the overall feature model for Symbian. This excerpt illustrates the features associated with the architecture of Symbian operating system services, is just a small portion from the total architecture. Each of these features then becomes a candidate for possible inclusion in the federation Ontology. The complete list of Symbian features is shown below in figure 6. It is generated by Protégé 4.1 OWL tool. This feature list is taken directly from the Symbian feature model. The features aligned as first level at the left of the figure are high-level "parent" features, while those second, third level,... etc represent more detailed "atomic" features. Figure 7 is taken from the Ontology editor tool. It gives a thorough idea about the ontological concepts’ hierarchy of Symbian operating system. Meanwhile, figure 8 presents the Ontological graph automated by OWL as layers of classes given by a top down approach. The second tool analyzed during the domain analysis was the Android OS. It is for low powered devices that run on battery, and having plenty of hardware like cameras, light and orientation sensors, Wi-Fi and Universal Mobile Telecommunication Systems (3G telephony) connectivity and a touch-screen. Unlike on other mobile operating systems, Android applications are written in java and run in virtual machines. The Android OS feature model was developed by identifying essential features from the Android OS user guide [6], Analysis of the Android Architecture Book [7] and by actual day-to- day use of the suite. Figure 9 below illustrate excerpts (condensed feature diagram) from the overall feature model for Android OS. From the complete feature model of Android OS, it was possible to extract relevant features (with their descriptions). Each of these features then becomes a candidate for possible inclusion in the federation Ontology. The complete list of Android OS features is listed below in figure 10. This feature list is taken directly from the Android OS feature model, and generated by the OWL Protégé 4.1 as Ontology classes. As in the case of the Symbian features list, the features aligned as first level at the left of the figure are high-level "parent" features, while those second, third level,... etc represent more detailed "atomic" features. Figure 11 is taken from the Ontology editor tool. It gives a thorough idea about the Ontological concepts’ hierarchy of android operating system. Meanwhile, figure 12 presents the Ontological graph automated by OWL as layers of classes given by a top down approach. After performing a domain analysis using an in-depth investigation of Symbian OS and Android OS, the two lists were considered together to identify commonalities -- commonalities that would also likely be common with other mobile phone’s operating systems--. These commonalities begin to form the list of terms that eventually will make up the federation Ontology. After identifying these common terms in the domain of mobile phone’s operating systems, the words were organized into logical groupings using an "affinity diagram" technique (recall Figure 2). From these affinity diagrams, it was then straight-forward to establish the hierarchical structure of the federation Ontology. The completed federation Ontology classes are shown below in Figure 13. The relationships between the three Ontologies were identified and annotated. This was done using UML. Both a top down and bottom up approach were taken to identify the relationships between the three Ontologies and record those relationships in static class diagrams. Figure 14 is just one example of how the relationships between the three Ontologies are related. While the most important original contribution to the field of wireless cellular communication is to build a mobile phone’s operating system Ontology, there are several other contributions: 1. The application of the HFCC to a sample set of mobile phone’s operating system (i.e., Symbian and Android) increases the interoperability between the selected set. 2. The methodology was adapted from other sources (notably [3]), but was tailored for identifying and capturing the unique characteristics of mobile phone’s operating systems. This methodology can be used to add other mobile phone’s operating systems to the tool Ontology. The methodology is as important as the Ontology itself. 3. Three separate Ontologies (and their inter-relationships) are presented: a high-level mobile phone’s operating system Ontology, an Ontology that describes the Common Object Model architecture of Symbian, and an Ontology that describes important (from an interoperability viewpoint) classes from Android OS architecture. 4. The mobile operating system Ontology is a modular Ontology. This division into modules has two major advantages: firstly, it facilitates the future introduction of new domain Ontologies, and secondly, it makes the domain (mobile operating system) Ontology more reusable. 5. The main purpose for developing Ontology is to overcome some of the obstacles (such as the limitation of interoperability, lack of communication, and poor shared understanding. 6. The use of feature models as a key asset to manage the commonalities and the variabilities of the mobile phone’s operating systems. This article presented the methodology of a research effort devoted to establishing the set of mobile phone’s operating systems Ontologies for integration into the HFCC. It summarizes the results of the domain analysis undertaken to produce the federation Ontology. Besides, it presents the details of the federation Ontology as well as the two specific tool Ontologies. Finally, the article presents the results of how the three Ontologies inter-relate by using UML to annotate the inter-relationships. While this methodology and strategy was useful in constructing the feature tree for Symbian and Android, it is only provide a guide for the actual work. During this Ontology construction process, [8]'s guidelines for Ontology construction were adhered to as much as possible: clarity, coherence, extensibility, minimal Ontological commitment, and minimal encoding bias. However, because it was necessary to adhere closely to the actual class constructs of the tools themselves, it was often not possible to satisfy each of these guidelines. The mobile phone’s operating systems federation Ontology is then left open for further future Enhancement and ...

Context 2

... of these features then becomes a candidate for possible inclusion in the federation Ontology. The complete list of Symbian features is shown below in figure 6. It is generated by Protégé 4.1 OWL tool. ...