DOCSLIB.ORG

Requirements for an Ontology Supporting Certificates Interoperability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Requirements for an Ontology Supporting Certificates Interoperability ASSERT4SOA Advanced Security Service cERTificate for SOA CP - STREP - Grant No. 257351 Requirements for an ontology supporting certificates interoperability Deliverable D3.1 Rev. 1.0 Legal Notice All information included in this document is subject to change without notice. The Members of the As- sert4Soa Consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this document, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Members of the Assert4Soa Consortium shall not be held liable for errors contained herein or direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages in connection with the furnishing, performance, or use of this material. Assert4Soa Project Title Assert4Soa - Advanced Security Service cERTificate for SOA Grant Number 257351 Project Type CP - STREP Requirements for an ontology supporting cer- Title of Deliverable tificates interoperability Subtitle of Deliverable Deliverable No. D3.1 Dissemination Level Public Internal Rev. No. 1.0 Contractual Delivery 30 September 2011 Date Actual Delivery Date 30 September 2011 Contributing WPs WP3 Editor(s) Claudia Pandolfo (ENG), Domenico Presenza (ENG) Author(s) Marco Anisetti (UNIMI), Claudio A. Ardagna (UNIMI), Ernesto Damiani (UNIMI), Stefa- nia D'Agostini (ENG), Valentina Di Giacomo (ENG), Claudia Pandolfo (ENG), Domenico Presenza (ENG), Antonino Sabetta (SAP), Gimena Pujol (UMA) Reviewer(s) Renato Menicocci (FUB), Zaharina Stoynova (SIT) D3.1 - Requirements for an ontology supporting certificates interoperability 3 / 69 Executive Summary The objective of this document is to present the requirements for an ontology suitable to support some of the functionalities envisaged for the ASSERT4SOA software infrastructure. Broadly speaking an ontology can be understood as a description, given in a formal language, of part of the world (a domain) with the purpose to give a firm basis to the language that a community of agents (either human or computational) shares to predicate about that part of the world. The ASSERT4SOA ontology is intended to support the unambiguous communi- cation between Service Consumers, Service Providers, Certification Authorities and Evaluation Bodies. Security requirements and Software services represent the core of the domain of the discourse described by the ASSERT4SOA ontology. In fact, from an abstract point of view, an ASSERT4SOA security certificate (i.e. an ASSERT in the project's terminology) is a machine-readable document stating that a security requirement (e.g. integrity of exchanged messages) is addressed by a software service. Moreover, all the three types of ASSERT (ASSERT-E, ASSERT-O, ASSERT-M) entail some partial model of the Software service which is the subject of the certificate. A challenge for the ASSERT4SOA ontology is to be enable the automatic answer- ing to the decision problems entailed by the main use cases of the ASSERT4SOA infrastructure (e.g. mapping between the different types of ASSERT, discovery relation between the definition security properties, checking consistency between a model of a service and the definition of a security property). This deliverable present a set of possible formal languages that could fit the purpose. This document is organised in two parts. The first part reports on the state of the art on enabling technologies (ontology-based reasoning, Semantic Web and Semantic Web services) and related work (Security ontologies). The second part presents the functional and non-functional requirements for the ASSERT4SOA ontology. Assert4Soa Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Goals and scope . 5 1.2 Main use cases . 6 1.2.1 ASSERT Certified Service Lifecycle . 6 1.2.2 Authoring of a Security Property . 7 1.2.3 Development of a software implementing internal security controls 8 1.2.4 Check consistency between a security requirement and a service model . 9 1.2.5 Issue of a Security Certificate . 9 1.2.6 Implementation of external controls . 10 1.2.7 Compare requested with provided ASSERT . 11 I State of the art 13 2 Ontology-based Reasoning 14 2.1 Knowledge Representation and Reasoning . 14 2.2 Ontologies . 15 2.3 Formal languages for ontologies . 16 2.3.1 Frame Logic (F-logic) . 17 2.3.2 CyCL . 18 2.3.3 Description Logics (DLs) . 18 2.3.4 RDF and RDF Schema . 19 2.3.5 Web Ontology Language (OWL) . 20 2.3.6 Web Service Modeling Language (WSML) . 22 3 Semantic Web and Semantic Web services technologies 24 3.1 The Semantic Web . 24 3.2 Semantic Web Services . 24 3.2.1 OWL-S . 25 3.2.2 Web service Modeling Ontology (WSMO) . 26 3.2.3 Unified Service Description Language (USDL) . 27 3.2.4 Linked Open Services (LOS) . 28 3.2.5 Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema (SAWSDL) 28 3.2.6 DIANE . 29 3.2.7 SOAF . 30 D3.1 - Requirements for an ontology supporting certificates interoperability 3 / 69 Assert4Soa 4 Security ontologies 31 4.1 Existing ontologies . 31 4.1.1 OWL-S Security Ontologies . 31 4.1.2 NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Security Ontology . 32 4.1.3 Common Criteria ontology . 33 4.1.4 Problem Domain Ontology (PDO) . 33 4.1.5 The Security Ontology . 34 4.1.6 Linkpings Universitet Security Ontology (SecOnt) . 35 4.1.7 SEKT Ontology . 36 4.1.8 security Characterization Language (SCL) ontology . 36 4.2 Comparison of security ontologies . 37 II Requirements 39 5 Functional requirements 40 5.1 Overview . 40 5.2 Purpose . 40 5.3 Scope . 40 5.4 Level of Formality . 41 5.5 Intended Users . 41 5.6 Intended Uses . 41 5.7 Representational Requirements (Groups of Competency Questions) . 42 5.7.1 Requirements on security properties . 42 5.7.2 Requirements on certificates . 43 5.7.3 Requirements on service model ontology . 48 5.7.4 Requirements on Upper Ontology . 52 5.8 Pre-Glossary of Terms . 53 5.8.1 Terms . 53 6 Non functional requirements 61 6.1 Introduction . 61 6.2 Requirements on ontology protection . 62 6.2.1 Requirements for the Ontology Manager . 63 Bibliography 65 D3.1 - Requirements for an ontology supporting certificates interoperability 4 / 69 Assert4Soa Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Goals and scope The objective of this document is to present the requirements for an ontology suitable to support some of the functionalities envisaged for the ASSERT4SOA software infrastructure [4]. More specifically the expected role of an ontology within the ASSERT4SOA infrastructure is twofold: 1. to support the description of security properties of software services; 2. to support the interoperability and comparison of the different types of AS- SERT4SOA certificates (i.e. ASSERT-E, ASSERT-O, ASSERT-M). Broadly speaking an ontology can be understood as a description, given in a formal language, of part of the world (a domain) with the purpose to give a firm basis to the language that a community of agents (either human or computational) shares to predicate about that part of the world. The ASSERT4SOA ontology is intended to support the unambiguous communi- cation between Service Consumers, Service Providers, Certification Authorities and Evaluation Bodies. Such an ontology is needed not least because there is the need: • for Service Consumers and Service Providers to unambiguously communicate about the meaning of the terms (e.g. authenticity, confidentiality) denoting the security requirements fulfilled by a consumed/provided software service. This need is in common with Service Providers/Developers, Certification Authorities and Evaluation Bodies that have to unambiguously communicate about the security claim that is requested to be certified. • for Service Consumers and Certification Authorities to unambiguously com- municate about the assumptions and evidences (e.g. testing results, formal proofs) supporting the claim that a software service fulfils a security require- ment. Also this need is shared by Service Providers, Certification Authorities and Evaluation bodies in the context of a certification process. Security requirements and Software services represent the core of the domain of the discourse described by the ASSERT4SOA ontology. In fact, from an ab- stract point of view, an ASSERT4SOA security certificate (i.e. an ASSERT in the D3.1 - Requirements for an ontology supporting certificates interoperability 5 / 69 Assert4Soa project's terminology) is a machine-readable document stating that a security re- quirement (e.g. integrity of exchanged messages) is addressed by a software service. An ASSERT may also carry the description of the assumptions and evidences (e.g. results of tests performed) supporting the statement. All the three types of AS- SERT (ASSERT-E, ASSERT-O, ASSERT-M) entail, within the representation of the assumptions, some partial model of the Software service which is the subject of the certificate. The primary aim in describing a domain by means of a formal language is to allow automatic machine processing. Literature in the field offers a vast variety of languages for this purpose. Amongst the others, in the last decade, Description Logics have gained interest thanks to the adoption of one them by the W3C in the context of its Semantic Web initiative [8]. The interesting feature of Description Logics, and hence of the W3C OWL 2 DL language, is that they are a decidable fragment of the First Order Logic (FOL): inference problems like satisfiability, sub- sumption, instance checking and boolean conjunctive query answering expressed in the Description Logic underlying OWL 2 DL can be answered in polynomial time. These inference problems appear promising to back on the decision problems entailed by the main use cases of the ASSERT4SOA infrastructure (e.g. mapping between the different types of ASSERT, discovery relation between the definition security properties, checking consistency between a model of a service and the definition of a security property). This document is organised in two parts. The first part reports on the state of the art on knowledge representation based on ontology (Chapter 2), Semantic Web and Semantic Web services technologies (Chapter 3), and Security ontologies (Chapter 4).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schema.Org As a Description Logic
    Schema.org as a Description Logic Andre Hernich1, Carsten Lutz2, Ana Ozaki1 and Frank Wolter1 1University of Liverpool, UK 2University of Bremen, Germany fandre.hernich, anaozaki, [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Patel-Schneider [2014] develops an ontology language for Schema.org with a formal syntax and semantics that, apart Schema.org is an initiative by the major search en- from some details, can be regarded as a fragment of OWL DL. gine providers Bing, Google, Yahoo!, and Yandex that provides a collection of ontologies which web- In this paper, we abstract slightly further and view the masters can use to mark up their pages. Schema.org Schema.org ontology language as a DL, in line with the for- comes without a formal language definition and malization by Patel-Schneider. Thus, what Schema.org calls a without a clear semantics. We formalize the lan- type becomes a concept name and a property becomes a role guage of Schema.org as a Description Logic (DL) name. The main characteristics of the resulting ‘Schema.org and study the complexity of querying data using DL’ are that (i) the language is very restricted, allowing only (unions of) conjunctive queries in the presence of inclusions between concept and role names, domain and range ontologies formulated in this DL (from several per- restrictions, nominals, and datatypes; (ii) ranges and domains spectives). While querying is intractable in general, of roles can be restricted to disjunctions of concept names (pos- we identify various cases in which it is tractable and sibly mixed with datatypes in range restrictions) and nominals where queries are even rewritable into FO queries are used in ‘one-of enumerations’ which also constitute a form or datalog programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontologies and Description Logics
    Symbolic and structural models for image understanding Part II: Ontologies and description logics Jamal Atif - Isabelle Bloch - Céline Hudelot IJCAI 2016 1 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding Outline 1 What is an ontology ? 2 Ontologies for image understanding: overview 3 Description Logics 4 Description Logics for image understanding 5 Conclusion What is an ontology ? What is an ontology ? Example from F. Gandon, WIMMICS Team, INRIA What is the last document that you have read? Documents 3 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding What is an ontology ? Ontologies: Definition Ontology ethymology: ontos (being, that which is) + logos (science, study, theory) Philosophy Study of the nature of being, becoming and reality. Study of the basic categories of being and their relations. Computer Science Formal representation of a domain of discourse. Explicit specification of a conceptualization [Gruber 95]. Ref: [Guarino 09] 4 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding What is an ontology ? Ontologies: Definition ontology Formal, explicit (and shared) specification of a conceptualization [Gruber 95, Studer 98] Formal, explicit specification: a formal language is used to refer to the elements of the conceptualization, e.g. description logics Conceptualization: Objects, concepts and other entities and their relationships Concept Relation Denoted by: Denoted by: a name a name a meaning (intensional definition) an intension a set of denoted objects (extensional an extension definition) 5 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding What is an ontology ? The different types of ontologies According to their expressivity Source : [Uschold 04] 6 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C.
    [Show full text]
  • V a Lida T in G R D F Da
    Series ISSN: 2160-4711 LABRA GAYO • ET AL GAYO LABRA Series Editors: Ying Ding, Indiana University Paul Groth, Elsevier Labs Validating RDF Data Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, University of Oviedo Eric Prud’hommeaux, W3C/MIT and Micelio Iovka Boneva, University of Lille Dimitris Kontokostas, University of Leipzig VALIDATING RDF DATA This book describes two technologies for RDF validation: Shape Expressions (ShEx) and Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL), the rationales for their designs, a comparison of the two, and some example applications. RDF and Linked Data have broad applicability across many fields, from aircraft manufacturing to zoology. Requirements for detecting bad data differ across communities, fields, and tasks, but nearly all involve some form of data validation. This book introduces data validation and describes its practical use in day-to-day data exchange. The Semantic Web offers a bold, new take on how to organize, distribute, index, and share data. Using Web addresses (URIs) as identifiers for data elements enables the construction of distributed databases on a global scale. Like the Web, the Semantic Web is heralded as an information revolution, and also like the Web, it is encumbered by data quality issues. The quality of Semantic Web data is compromised by the lack of resources for data curation, for maintenance, and for developing globally applicable data models. At the enterprise scale, these problems have conventional solutions. Master data management provides an enterprise-wide vocabulary, while constraint languages capture and enforce data structures. Filling a need long recognized by Semantic Web users, shapes languages provide models and vocabularies for expressing such structural constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations
    Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations Evan Patterson Department of Statistics, Stanford University Abstract We introduce the relational ontology log, or relational olog, a knowledge representation system based on the category of sets and relations. It is inspired by Spivak and Kent’s olog, a recent categorical framework for knowledge representation. Relational ologs interpolate between ologs and description logic, the dominant formalism for knowledge representation today. In this paper, we investigate relational ologs both for their own sake and to gain insight into the relationship between the algebraic and logical approaches to knowledge representation. On a practical level, we show by example that relational ologs have a friendly and intuitive—yet fully precise—graphical syntax, derived from the string diagrams of monoidal categories. We explain several other useful features of relational ologs not possessed by most description logics, such as a type system and a rich, flexible notion of instance data. In a more theoretical vein, we draw on categorical logic to show how relational ologs can be translated to and from logical theories in a fragment of first-order logic. Although we make extensive use of categorical language, this paper is designed to be self-contained and has considerable expository content. The only prerequisites are knowledge of first-order logic and the rudiments of category theory. 1. Introduction arXiv:1706.00526v2 [cs.AI] 1 Nov 2017 The representation of human knowledge in computable form is among the oldest and most fundamental problems of artificial intelligence. Several recent trends are stimulating continued research in the field of knowledge representation (KR).
    [Show full text]
  • THE DATA COMPLEXITY of DESCRIPTION LOGIC ONTOLOGIES in Recent Years, the Use of Ontologies to Access Instance Data Has Become In
    THE DATA COMPLEXITY OF DESCRIPTION LOGIC ONTOLOGIES CARSTEN LUTZ AND FRANK WOLTER University of Bremen, Germany e-mail address: [email protected] University of Liverpool e-mail address: [email protected] ABSTRACT. We analyze the data complexity of ontology-mediated querying where the ontologies are formulated in a description logic (DL) of the ALC family and queries are conjunctive queries, positive existential queries, or acyclic conjunctive queries. Our approach is non-uniform in the sense that we aim to understand the complexity of each single ontology instead of for all ontologies for- mulated in a certain language. While doing so, we quantify over the queries and are interested, for example, in the question whether all queries can be evaluated in polynomial time w.r.t. a given on- tology. Our results include a PTIME/CONP-dichotomy for ontologies of depth one in the description logic ALCFI, the same dichotomy for ALC- and ALCI-ontologies of unrestricted depth, and the non-existence of such a dichotomy for ALCF-ontologies. For the latter DL, we additionally show that it is undecidable whether a given ontology admits PTIME query evaluation. We also consider the connection between PTIME query evaluation and rewritability into (monadic) Datalog. 1. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the use of ontologies to access instance data has become increasingly popular [PLC+08, KZ14, BO15]. The general idea is that an ontology provides domain knowledge and an enriched vocabulary for querying, thus serving as an interface between the query and the data, and enabling the derivation of additional facts. In this emerging area, called ontology-mediated querying, it is a central research goal to identify ontology languages for which query evaluation scales to large amounts of instance data.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Description of Web Services
    Semantic Description of Web Services Thabet Slimani CS Department, Taif University, P.O.Box 888, 21974, KSA Abstract syntaxes) and in terms of the paradigms proposed for The tasks of semantic web service (discovery, selection, employing these in practice. composition, and execution) are supposed to enable seamless interoperation between systems, whereby human intervention is This paper is dedicated to provide an overview of these kept at a minimum. In the field of Web service description approaches, expressing their classification in terms of research, the exploitation of descriptions of services through commonalities and differences. It provides an semantics is a better support for the life-cycle of Web services. understanding of the technical foundation on which they The large number of developed ontologies, languages of are built. These techniques are classified from a range of representations, and integrated frameworks supporting the research areas including Top-down, Bottom-up and Restful discovery, composition and invocation of services is a good Approaches. indicator that research in the field of Semantic Web Services (SWS) has been considerably active. We provide in this paper a This paper does also provide some grounding that could detailed classification of the approaches and solutions, indicating help the reader perform a more detailed analysis of the their core characteristics and objectives required and provide different approaches which relies on the required indicators for the interested reader to follow up further insights objectives. We provide a little detailed comparison and details about these solutions and related software. between some approaches because this would require Keywords: SWS, SWS description, top-down approaches, addressing them from the perspective of some tasks bottom-up approaches, RESTful services.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity of the Description Logic ALCM
    Proceedings, Fifteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2016) Complexity of the Description Logic ALCM Monica´ Martinez and Edelweis Rohrer Paula Severi Instituto de Computacion,´ Facultad de Ingenier´ıa, Department of Computer Science, Universidad de la Republica,´ Uruguay University of Leicester, England Abstract in ALCM can be used for a knowledge base in ALC. Details of our ExpTime algorithm for ALCM along with In this paper we show that the problem of deciding the consis- proofs of correctness and the complexity result can be found tency of a knowledge base in the Description Logic ALCM is ExpTime-complete. The M stands for meta-modelling as in (Martinez, Rohrer, and Severi 2015). defined by Motz, Rohrer and Severi. To show our main result, we define an ExpTime Tableau algorithm as an extension of 2 A Flexible Meta-modelling Approach an algorithm for ALC by Nguyen and Szalas. A knowledge base in ALCM contains an Mbox besides of a Tbox and an Abox. An Mbox is a set of equalities of the form 1 Introduction a =m A where a is an individual and A is a concept (Motz, The main motivation of the present work is to study the com- Rohrer, and Severi 2015). Figure 1 shows an example of two plexity of meta-modelling as defined in (Motz, Rohrer, and ontologies separated by a horizontal line, where concepts are Severi 2014; 2015). No study of complexity has been done denoted by large ovals and individuals by bullets. The two so far for this approach and we would like to analyse if it ontologies conceptualize the same entities at different lev- increases the complexity of a given description logic.
    [Show full text]
  • D1.2.1 WSMO Grounding in SAWSDL
    Project Number: 215219 Project Acronym: SOA4ALL Project Title: Service Oriented Architectures for All Instrument: Integrated Project Thematic Information and Communication Priority: Technologies D1.2.1 WSMO grounding in SAWSDL Activity N: 1 Fundamental and Integration Work Package: 1 Service Web Architecture Due Date: M6 Submission Date: 27/08/2008 Start Date of Project: 01/03/2006 Duration of Project: 36 Months Organisation Responsible of Deliverable: UIBK Revision: 1.0 Author(s): Jacek Kopecký, Adi Schütz UIBK Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013) Dissemination Level PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission) SOA4All –FP7 – 215219 – D1.2.1 WSMO grounding in SAWSDL Version History Version Date Comments, Changes, Status Authors, contributors, reviewers 0.1 2008/07/16 Initial version Jacek Kopecký 0.2 2008/07/24 Filling in more Jacek Kopecký, Adi Schütz 0.9 2008/07/25 A complete draft, ready for review Jacek Kopecký, Adi Schütz 0.95 2008/07/19 Review comments incorporated Elisabetta Di Nitto, Marin Dimitrov, Jacek Kopecký 1.0 2008/07/23 Version to be submitted Jacek Kopecký © SOA4ALL consortium Page 2 of 28 SOA4All –FP7 – 215219 – D1.2.1 WSMO grounding in SAWSDL Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ____________________________________________________ 5 1. INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Description Logics
    Description Logics Franz Baader1, Ian Horrocks2, and Ulrike Sattler2 1 Institut f¨urTheoretische Informatik, TU Dresden, Germany [email protected] 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK {horrocks,sattler}@cs.man.ac.uk Summary. In this chapter, we explain what description logics are and why they make good ontology languages. In particular, we introduce the description logic SHIQ, which has formed the basis of several well-known ontology languages, in- cluding OWL. We argue that, without the last decade of basic research in description logics, this family of knowledge representation languages could not have played such an important rˆolein this context. Description logic reasoning can be used both during the design phase, in order to improve the quality of ontologies, and in the deployment phase, in order to exploit the rich structure of ontologies and ontology based information. We discuss the extensions to SHIQ that are required for languages such as OWL and, finally, we sketch how novel reasoning services can support building DL knowledge bases. 1 Introduction The aim of this section is to give a brief introduction to description logics, and to argue why they are well-suited as ontology languages. In the remainder of the chapter we will put some flesh on this skeleton by providing more technical details with respect to the theory of description logics, and their relationship to state of the art ontology languages. More detail on these and other matters related to description logics can be found in [6]. Ontologies There have been many attempts to define what constitutes an ontology, per- haps the best known (at least amongst computer scientists) being due to Gruber: “an ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualisation” [47].3 In this context, a conceptualisation means an abstract model of some aspect of the world, taking the form of a definition of the properties of important 3 This was later elaborated to “a formal specification of a shared conceptualisation” [21].
    [Show full text]
  • Description Logics—Basics, Applications, and More
    Description Logics|Basics, Applications, and More Ian Horrocks Information Management Group University of Manchester, UK Ulrike Sattler Teaching and Research Area for Theoretical Computer Science RWTH Aachen, Germany RWTH Aachen 1 Germany Overview of the Tutorial • History and Basics: Syntax, Semantics, ABoxes, Tboxes, Inference Problems and their interrelationship, and Relationship with other (logical) formalisms • Applications of DLs: ER-diagrams with i.com demo, ontologies, etc. including system demonstration • Reasoning Procedures: simple tableaux and why they work • Reasoning Procedures II: more complex tableaux, non-standard inference prob- lems • Complexity issues • Implementing/Optimising DL systems RWTH Aachen 2 Germany Description Logics • family of logic-based knowledge representation formalisms well-suited for the representation of and reasoning about ➠ terminological knowledge ➠ configurations ➠ ontologies ➠ database schemata { schema design, evolution, and query optimisation { source integration in heterogeneous databases/data warehouses { conceptual modelling of multidimensional aggregation ➠ : : : • descendents of semantics networks, frame-based systems, and KL-ONE • aka terminological KR systems, concept languages, etc. RWTH Aachen 3 Germany Architecture of a Standard DL System Knowledge Base I N Terminology F E I R Father = Man u 9 has child.>... N E T Human = Mammal. u Biped . N E Description C R E F Logic A Concrete Situation S C Y E John:Human u Father S John has child Bill . T . E M RWTH Aachen 4 Germany Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Logic-Based Technologies for Intelligent Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives
    information Article Logic-Based Technologies for Intelligent Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives Roberta Calegari 1,* , Giovanni Ciatto 2 , Enrico Denti 3 and Andrea Omicini 2 1 Alma AI—Alma Mater Research Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna, 40121 Bologna, Italy 2 Dipartimento di Informatica–Scienza e Ingegneria (DISI), Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna, 47522 Cesena, Italy; [email protected] (G.C.); [email protected] (A.O.) 3 Dipartimento di Informatica–Scienza e Ingegneria (DISI), Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 25 February 2020; Accepted: 18 March 2020; Published: 22 March 2020 Abstract: Together with the disruptive development of modern sub-symbolic approaches to artificial intelligence (AI), symbolic approaches to classical AI are re-gaining momentum, as more and more researchers exploit their potential to make AI more comprehensible, explainable, and therefore trustworthy. Since logic-based approaches lay at the core of symbolic AI, summarizing their state of the art is of paramount importance now more than ever, in order to identify trends, benefits, key features, gaps, and limitations of the techniques proposed so far, as well as to identify promising research perspectives. Along this line, this paper provides an overview of logic-based approaches and technologies by sketching their evolution and pointing out their main application areas. Future perspectives for exploitation of logic-based technologies are discussed as well, in order to identify those research fields that deserve more attention, considering the areas that already exploit logic-based approaches as well as those that are more likely to adopt logic-based approaches in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Representation and Ontologies Part 2: Description Logics
    Knowledge Representation and Ontologies Part 2: Description Logics Diego Calvanese Faculty of Computer Science Master of Science in Computer Science A.Y. 2011/2012 Computational complexity Introduction to DLs DLs and UML Class Diagrams References Part 2: Description Logics Part 2 Description Logics unibz.it D. Calvanese (FUB) Part 2: Description Logics KRO { 2011/2012 (1/95) Computational complexity Introduction to DLs DLs and UML Class Diagrams References Part 2: Description Logics Outline of Part 2 1 Brief introduction to computational complexity Basic definitions Hardness and completeness Most important complexity classes 2 Introduction to Description Logics Ingredients of Description Logics Description Logics ontologies Reasoning in Description Logics Relationship between DLs and other representation formalisms 3 Description Logics and UML Class Diagrams UML Class Diagrams as ontology formalisms Reducing reasoning in UML to reasoning in DLs Reducing reasoning in DLs to reasoning in UML Reasoning on UML Class Diagrams 4 References unibz.it D. Calvanese (FUB) Part 2: Description Logics KRO { 2011/2012 (2/95) Computational complexity Introduction to DLs DLs and UML Class Diagrams References Part 2: Description Logics Outline of Part 2 1 Brief introduction to computational complexity Basic definitions Hardness and completeness Most important complexity classes 2 Introduction to Description Logics 3 Description Logics and UML Class Diagrams 4 References unibz.it D. Calvanese (FUB) Part 2: Description Logics KRO { 2011/2012 (3/95) Computational complexity Introduction to DLs DLs and UML Class Diagrams References Basic definitions Part 2: Description Logics Outline of Part 2 1 Brief introduction to computational complexity Basic definitions Hardness and completeness Most important complexity classes 2 Introduction to Description Logics 3 Description Logics and UML Class Diagrams 4 References unibz.it D.
    [Show full text]