A Modification to the Hazardous Situation ODP to Support Risk Assessment and Mitigation Michelle Cheatham 1 , Holly Ferguson 2 , Charles Vardeman II 2 , and Cogan Shimizu 1 1 Wright State University {michelle.cheatham,cogan.shimizu}@wright.edu 2 University of Notre Dame {hfergus2,cvardema}@nd.edu Abstract. The Hazardous Situation ontology design pattern models the consequences of exposure of an object to a hazard. In its current form, the ODP is well suited for representing the consequences of exposure after the fact, which is very useful for applications such as damage assessment and recovery planning. In this work, we present a modification to this pattern that enables it to additionally support proactive questions central to risk assessment and mitigation planning. Keywords: hazard, ontology design pattern, risk assessment, risk mit- igation 1 Introduction As defined in [1], a hazard is “a potential source of harm to someone or some- thing.” The concept of a hazard is central to answering very important questions in a variety of domains. For example, assessment of an individual’s finances prior to approving or denying a loan request relies on the ability to enumerate and explore the details of the financial hazards that may impact the individual. De- veloping architectural and construction plans for a new building necessitates consideration of hazards such as earthquakes, fires, and high winds in order to mitigate the risks presented by each. And establishing safety protocols and incident response plans at a chemical plant requires an understanding of the chemicals involved and their potential consequences when touched, inhaled, or otherwise interacted with. Ten years ago, the U.S. National Science Foundation funded a committee to assess the current state of research related to understanding the “societal responses to natural, technological, and willful threats.” The summary of the committee’s report [6] laments that hazard and disaster policy is often reactive rather than proactive and points out that (proactive) risk mitigation and (reac- tive) disaster management should not be treated as isolated fields. Additionally, the report states that lack of data accessibility is hindering progress in both of these fields. As we will see in Section 2, there has been significant work on mod- eling various aspects of risks, risk management, and incident response. However,