DOCSLIB.ORG

Are We Better Off with Just One Ontology on the Web? 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Are We Better Off with Just One Ontology on the Web? 1 0 Semantic Web - (2019) 0 IOS Press 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 Are We Better Off With Just One Ontology 4 5 5 6 on the Web? 6 7 7 8 Armin Haller a,* Axel Polleres b 8 9 a Research School of Management & Research School of Computer Science, Australian National University, 9 10 Canberra, Australia 10 11 E-mail: [email protected] 11 12 b Institute for Information Business, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria 12 13 E-mail: [email protected] 13 14 14 15 15 Editors: Pascal Hitzler, Wright State University, USA; Krzysztof Janowicz, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 Abstract. Ontologies have been used on the Web to enable semantic interoperability between parties that publish information 21 21 independently of each other. They have also played an important role in the emergence of Linked Data. However, many ontologies 22 on the Web do not see much use beyond their initial deployment and purpose in one dataset and therefore should rather be called 22 23 what they are – (local) schemas, which per se do not provide any interoperable semantics. Only few ontologies are truly used as 23 24 a shared conceptualization between different parties, mostly in controlled environments such as the BioPortal. In this paper, we 24 25 discuss open challenges relating to true re-use of ontologies on the Web and raise the question: “are we better off with just one 25 26 ontology on the Web?” 26 27 27 Keywords: Ontology, Knowledge Representation 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 1. Introduction – Confounding conflicts refer to those arising from 32 33 1 the confounding of concepts which are in fact dis- 33 Back in 1993, Gruber introduced “ontologies” as tinct. An example is the maximum temperature on 34 explicit specification of a conceptualization 34 an “ ” con- a given day. Due to different time-periods (e.g., 35 sisting of a “set of objects, and the describable re- 35 36 calendar day vs. a 24 hour time-period) and dif- 36 lationships among them” represented in a declarative ferent methods of averaging (e.g., over a minute 37 37 formalism [23]. Uschold and Grüninger [65] argued vs. over an hour) the actual values, even when 38 38 later that semantic interoperability between parties that recorded by the same sensor, will often differ 39 39 exchange data is a key application of ontologies. when published by different parties. 40 40 The use of ontologies as an approach to overcome – Naming conflicts occur when naming schemes 41 41 the problem of semantic heterogeneity on the World of information differ significantly, for example 42 42 Wide Web has since been well established. Semantic synonyms and homonyms among attribute values. 43 43 heterogeneity occurs whenever two contexts do not use For example, the entities Product and Item are of- 44 44 the same interpretation of information. According to ten found to be synonyms in commerce applica- 45 45 Goh [21] three causes for such semantic heterogeneity tions. 46 46 can be identified. – Scaling and units conflicts refer to the adoption 47 47 of different units of measure or scales, e.g., impe- 48 48 *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. rial gallon vs US gallon vs litre. 49 49 1The plural use of the term “ontology” in computer science quite 50 likely still raises eyebrows for anyone with a background in ontology Many ontology-based approaches that address these 50 51 in philosophy. causes of semantic heterogeneity have been proposed 51 1570-0844/19/$35.00 c 2019 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved A. Haller and A. Polleres / Are We Better Off With Just One Ontology on the Web? 1 1 since [47, 71]. The idea is that a shared ontology which initions of terms. Examples of domain ontolo- 1 2 carries a formal semantics, acts as a gold standard for gies are the Gene Ontology [3], the Disease On- 2 3 the definition of information in different contexts and tology [57], ChEBI [15], the Building Topology 3 4 applications. Many kinds of ontologies have been pro- Ontology (BTO) [55] or VSSo [38], the Vehi- 4 5 posed that can be classified on a spectrum from very cle Signal and Attribute Ontology. The latter is 5 6 lightweight ones that may consist of terms only, with a recently developed car signal ontology that de- 6 7 little or no specification of the meaning of the term, to rives from the automotive standard VSS, and that 7 8 rigorously formalized logical theories [66]. In this pa- builds upon a mid-level ontology pattern, i.e., 8 9 per we focus on the latter, i.e., formal ontologies ex- from SSN/SOSA, for representing observations 9 10 pressed in RDFS/OWL. and actuations. 10 11 The ontology engineering community has proposed 4. Use case ontologies include a set of detailed 11 12 ontologies with different levels of abstractions to ease classes and relations highly dependent on the use 12 13 reuse and to also layer ontologies upon each other. case. For example, in a smart home environment 13 14 Although no agreed upon ontology hierarchy exists, for an apartment building, a use case ontology 14 15 adapting the ontology classification of Guarino [25], may extend terms in a domain ontology to be 15 16 we can largely distinguish four different levels of ab- able to use those terms for a number of similar 16 17 straction in ontology design as shown in Figure1. units in an apartment complex. 17 18 18 19 19 20 Highest 2. Challenges in Reusing Ontologies 20 e.g. CyC, SUMO, Upper General Most 21 DOLCE, BFO, CYC 21 Ontologies 22 While upper ontologies have experienced strong re- 22 e.g. PROV-O, FOAF, 23 ORG, SOSA/SSN search interest in the early 2000’s, their use on the 23 Mid-Level Ontologies 24 Web has largely been confined to the biomedical do- 24 Reusability e.g. GO, ChEBI, 25 DO, BTO, VSSo Abstraction of Level main where the community, through the OBO foundry, 25 Domain Ontologies 26 maintained and mandated the use of the BFO upper on- 26 27 tology. In fact, in an analysis of links [29] in the LOD 27 Use-Case Ontologies Most SpecificMost 28 Lowest Cloud [1] we have discovered that not a single dataset 28 29 in a corpus of 430 Linked Open Datasets that were in- 29 Fig. 1. Levels of Abstraction in Ontology Design 30 vestigated for this study reuses DOLCE or SUMO, the 30 31 other two main open-source upper ontologies. 31 32 1. Upper ontologies that define very general terms This lack of adoption of upper ontologies outside 32 33 that are common across all knowledge domains, the biomedical domain can mostly be attributed to 33 34 examples of which are CYC [40], SUMO [46], the complexity and rigidity of these ontologies and 34 35 DOLCE [19] and BFO [60]. the often unintended inferences that would result from 35 36 2. Mid-level ontologies (sometimes also called top importing the upper ontology in a mid-level or do- 36 37 domain ontologies or global domain area ontolo- main ontology. Examples of such unintended infer- 37 38 gies) act as a bridge between the abstract con- ences are global domain and range restrictions de- 38 39 tent of an upper ontology and the richer detail of fined in an upper ontology (e.g., DOLCE+DnS Ultra- 39 40 various domain ontologies. Space and time are lite (DUL) uses global property restrictions) that may 40 41 two modelling aspects shared between any do- lead to inferences in the importing domain ontology 41 42 main, and ontologies such as the OWL Time On- that are inconsistent in its domain of discourse. An- 42 43 tology [9] and Geonames are widely used across other example is the disjointness of a set of classes 43 44 domains. Other examples of mid-level ontolo- defined in an upper ontology that results in an unin- 44 45 gies are PROV-O [39], FOAF [6], ORG [56] and tended restriction on the use of the domain class that 45 46 SOSA/SSN [30] that define concepts generally is a subclass of such an upper level class. For exam- 46 47 enough so that their semantics can be further nar- ple, in the old SSN, the Sensor class was defined 47 48 rowed by a domain ontology. as a subclass of a DUL PhysicalObject. How- 48 49 3. Domain ontologies define concepts and relations ever, users of the SSN ontology who wanted to use 49 50 that belong to a specific domain. Each domain the Sensor class for computational methods, could 50 51 ontology typically models domain-specific def- not, because a dul:PhysicalObject is disjoint 51 2 A. Haller and A. Polleres / Are We Better Off With Just One Ontology on the Web? 1 with a dul:SocialObject (which most certainly In the following we identify a set of challenges 1 2 would include a computational algorithm). For this and that we have repeatedly encountered in ontology en- 2 3 other reasons [30], in the redesign of the SSN ontol- gineering consultancies with Government and indus- 3 4 ogy, the working group decided to remove the depen- try clients. These include some of the ontology evalua- 4 5 dency of the SSN ontology on the DOLCE Ultralite tion criteria above (some of which, e.g., clarity, consis- 5 6 ontology and make its alignment optional, i.e., provide tency, correctness, conciseness, are combined together 6 7 it in a separate ontology file that is not imported [30] into one category, ‘quality’), but also include other 7 8 (while at the same time relax its semantics by using challenges that are specific to the reuse of distributed 8 9 higher level ontology classes from DUL).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Do Wikidata and Wikipedia Have in Common? an Analysis of Their Use of External References
    What do Wikidata and Wikipedia Have in Common? An Analysis of their Use of External References Alessandro Piscopo Pavlos Vougiouklis Lucie-Aimée Kaffee University of Southampton University of Southampton University of Southampton United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Christopher Phethean Jonathon Hare Elena Simperl University of Southampton University of Southampton University of Southampton United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT one hundred thousand. These users have gathered facts about Wikidata is a community-driven knowledge graph, strongly around 24 million entities and are able, at least theoretically, linked to Wikipedia. However, the connection between the to further expand the coverage of the knowledge graph and two projects has been sporadically explored. We investigated continuously keep it updated and correct. This is an advantage the relationship between the two projects in terms of the in- compared to a project like DBpedia, where data is periodically formation they contain by looking at their external references. extracted from Wikipedia and must first be modified on the Our findings show that while only a small number of sources is online encyclopedia in order to be corrected. directly reused across Wikidata and Wikipedia, references of- Another strength is that all the data in Wikidata can be openly ten point to the same domain. Furthermore, Wikidata appears reused and shared without requiring any attribution, as it is to use less Anglo-American-centred sources. These results released under a CC0 licence1.
    [Show full text]
  • Validating RDF Data Using Shapes
    83 Validating RDF data using Shapes a Jose Emilio Labra Gayo ​ ​ a University​ of Oviedo, Spain Abstract RDF forms the keystone of the Semantic Web as it enables a simple and powerful knowledge representation graph based data model that can also facilitate integration between heterogeneous sources of information. RDF based applications are usually accompanied with SPARQL stores which enable to efficiently manage and query RDF data. In spite of its well known benefits, the adoption of RDF in practice by web programmers is still lacking and SPARQL stores are usually deployed without proper documentation and quality assurance. However, the producers of RDF data usually know the implicit schema of the data they are generating, but they don't do it traditionally. In the last years, two technologies have been developed to describe and validate RDF content using the term shape: Shape Expressions (ShEx) and Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL). We will present a motivation for their appearance and compare them, as well as some applications and tools that have been developed. Keywords RDF, ShEx, SHACL, Validating, Data quality, Semantic web 1. Introduction In the tutorial we will present an overview of both RDF is a flexible knowledge and describe some challenges and future work [4] representation language based of graphs which has been successfully adopted in semantic web 2. Acknowledgements applications. In this tutorial we will describe two languages that have recently been proposed for This work has been partially funded by the RDF validation: Shape Expressions (ShEx) and Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL).ShEx was Competitiveness, project: TIN2017-88877-R proposed as a concise and intuitive language for describing RDF data in 2014 [1].
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Top-Level Ontologies to Inform the Ontological Choices for a Foundation Data Model
    A survey of Top-Level Ontologies To inform the ontological choices for a Foundation Data Model Version 1 Contents 1 Introduction and Purpose 3 F.13 FrameNet 92 2 Approach and contents 4 F.14 GFO – General Formal Ontology 94 2.1 Collect candidate top-level ontologies 4 F.15 gist 95 2.2 Develop assessment framework 4 F.16 HQDM – High Quality Data Models 97 2.3 Assessment of candidate top-level ontologies F.17 IDEAS – International Defence Enterprise against the framework 5 Architecture Specification 99 2.4 Terminological note 5 F.18 IEC 62541 100 3 Assessment framework – development basis 6 F.19 IEC 63088 100 3.1 General ontological requirements 6 F.20 ISO 12006-3 101 3.2 Overarching ontological architecture F.21 ISO 15926-2 102 framework 8 F.22 KKO: KBpedia Knowledge Ontology 103 4 Ontological commitment overview 11 F.23 KR Ontology – Knowledge Representation 4.1 General choices 11 Ontology 105 4.2 Formal structure – horizontal and vertical 14 F.24 MarineTLO: A Top-Level 4.3 Universal commitments 33 Ontology for the Marine Domain 106 5 Assessment Framework Results 37 F. 25 MIMOSA CCOM – (Common Conceptual 5.1 General choices 37 Object Model) 108 5.2 Formal structure: vertical aspects 38 F.26 OWL – Web Ontology Language 110 5.3 Formal structure: horizontal aspects 42 F.27 ProtOn – PROTo ONtology 111 5.4 Universal commitments 44 F.28 Schema.org 112 6 Summary 46 F.29 SENSUS 113 Appendix A F.30 SKOS 113 Pathway requirements for a Foundation Data F.31 SUMO 115 Model 48 F.32 TMRM/TMDM – Topic Map Reference/Data Appendix B Models 116 ISO IEC 21838-1:2019
    [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]
  • Wikipedia Knowledge Graph with Deepdive
    The Workshops of the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media Wiki: Technical Report WS-16-17 Wikipedia Knowledge Graph with DeepDive Thomas Palomares Youssef Ahres [email protected] [email protected] Juhana Kangaspunta Christopher Re´ [email protected] [email protected] Abstract This paper is organized as follows: first, we review the related work and give a general overview of DeepDive. Sec- Despite the tremendous amount of information on Wikipedia, ond, starting from the data preprocessing, we detail the gen- only a very small amount is structured. Most of the informa- eral methodology used. Then, we detail two applications tion is embedded in unstructured text and extracting it is a non trivial challenge. In this paper, we propose a full pipeline that follow this pipeline along with their specific challenges built on top of DeepDive to successfully extract meaningful and solutions. Finally, we report the results of these applica- relations from the Wikipedia text corpus. We evaluated the tions and discuss the next steps to continue populating Wiki- system by extracting company-founders and family relations data and improve the current system to extract more relations from the text. As a result, we extracted more than 140,000 with a high precision. distinct relations with an average precision above 90%. Background & Related Work Introduction Until recently, populating the large knowledge bases relied on direct contributions from human volunteers as well With the perpetual growth of web usage, the amount as integration of existing repositories such as Wikipedia of unstructured data grows exponentially. Extract- info boxes. These methods are limited by the available ing facts and assertions to store them in a struc- structured data and by human power.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Graphs on the Web – an Overview Arxiv:2003.00719V3 [Cs
    January 2020 Knowledge Graphs on the Web – an Overview Nicolas HEIST, Sven HERTLING, Daniel RINGLER, and Heiko PAULHEIM Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim, Germany Abstract. Knowledge Graphs are an emerging form of knowledge representation. While Google coined the term Knowledge Graph first and promoted it as a means to improve their search results, they are used in many applications today. In a knowl- edge graph, entities in the real world and/or a business domain (e.g., people, places, or events) are represented as nodes, which are connected by edges representing the relations between those entities. While companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Facebook have their own, non-public knowledge graphs, there is also a larger body of publicly available knowledge graphs, such as DBpedia or Wikidata. In this chap- ter, we provide an overview and comparison of those publicly available knowledge graphs, and give insights into their contents, size, coverage, and overlap. Keywords. Knowledge Graph, Linked Data, Semantic Web, Profiling 1. Introduction Knowledge Graphs are increasingly used as means to represent knowledge. Due to their versatile means of representation, they can be used to integrate different heterogeneous data sources, both within as well as across organizations. [8,9] Besides such domain-specific knowledge graphs which are typically developed for specific domains and/or use cases, there are also public, cross-domain knowledge graphs encoding common knowledge, such as DBpedia, Wikidata, or YAGO. [33] Such knowl- edge graphs may be used, e.g., for automatically enriching data with background knowl- arXiv:2003.00719v3 [cs.AI] 12 Mar 2020 edge to be used in knowledge-intensive downstream applications.
    [Show full text]
  • The Opencitations Data Model
    The OpenCitations Data Model Marilena Daquino1;2[0000−0002−1113−7550], Silvio Peroni1;2[0000−0003−0530−4305], David Shotton2;3[0000−0001−5506−523X], Giovanni Colavizza4[0000−0002−9806−084X], Behnam Ghavimi5[0000−0002−4627−5371], Anne Lauscher6[0000−0001−8590−9827], Philipp Mayr5[0000−0002−6656−1658], Matteo Romanello7[0000−0002−7406−6286], and Philipp Zumstein8[0000−0002−6485−9434]? 1 Digital Humanities Advanced research Centre (/DH.arc), Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna fmarilena.daquino2,[email protected] 2 Research Centre for Open Scholarly Metadata, Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna 3 Oxford e-Research Centre, University of Oxford [email protected] 4 Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam [email protected] 5 Department of Knowledge Technologies for the Social Sciences, GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences [email protected], [email protected] 6 Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim [email protected] 7 cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne [email protected] 8 Mannheim University Library, University of Mannheim [email protected] Abstract. A variety of schemas and ontologies are currently used for the machine-readable description of bibliographic entities and citations. This diversity, and the reuse of the same ontology terms with differ- ent nuances, generates inconsistencies in data. Adoption of a single data model would facilitate data integration tasks regardless of the data sup- plier or context application. In this paper we present the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM), a generic data model for describing bibliographic entities and citations, developed using Semantic Web technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Shape Expressions (Shex) to Share RDF Data Models and to Guide Curation with Rigorous Validation B Katherine Thornton1( ), Harold Solbrig2, Gregory S
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Oviedo Using Shape Expressions (ShEx) to Share RDF Data Models and to Guide Curation with Rigorous Validation B Katherine Thornton1( ), Harold Solbrig2, Gregory S. Stupp3, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo4, Daniel Mietchen5, Eric Prud’hommeaux6, and Andra Waagmeester7 1 Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA [email protected] 2 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA [email protected] 3 The Scripps Research Institute, San Diego, CA, USA [email protected] 4 University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain [email protected] 5 Data Science Institute, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA [email protected] 6 World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA [email protected] 7 Micelio, Antwerpen, Belgium [email protected] Abstract. We discuss Shape Expressions (ShEx), a concise, formal, modeling and validation language for RDF structures. For instance, a Shape Expression could prescribe that subjects in a given RDF graph that fall into the shape “Paper” are expected to have a section called “Abstract”, and any ShEx implementation can confirm whether that is indeed the case for all such subjects within a given graph or subgraph. There are currently five actively maintained ShEx implementations. We discuss how we use the JavaScript, Scala and Python implementa- tions in RDF data validation workflows in distinct, applied contexts. We present examples of how ShEx can be used to model and validate data from two different sources, the domain-specific Fast Healthcare Interop- erability Resources (FHIR) and the domain-generic Wikidata knowledge base, which is the linked database built and maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation as a sister project to Wikipedia.
    [Show full text]
  • Chaudron: Extending Dbpedia with Measurement Julien Subercaze
    Chaudron: Extending DBpedia with measurement Julien Subercaze To cite this version: Julien Subercaze. Chaudron: Extending DBpedia with measurement. 14th European Semantic Web Conference, Eva Blomqvist, Diana Maynard, Aldo Gangemi, May 2017, Portoroz, Slovenia. hal- 01477214 HAL Id: hal-01477214 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01477214 Submitted on 27 Feb 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Chaudron: Extending DBpedia with measurement Julien Subercaze1 Univ Lyon, UJM-Saint-Etienne, CNRS Laboratoire Hubert Curien UMR 5516, F-42023, SAINT-ETIENNE, France [email protected] Abstract. Wikipedia is the largest collaborative encyclopedia and is used as the source for DBpedia, a central dataset of the LOD cloud. Wikipedia contains numerous numerical measures on the entities it describes, as per the general character of the data it encompasses. The DBpedia In- formation Extraction Framework transforms semi-structured data from Wikipedia into structured RDF. However this extraction framework of- fers a limited support to handle measurement in Wikipedia. In this paper, we describe the automated process that enables the creation of the Chaudron dataset. We propose an alternative extraction to the tra- ditional mapping creation from Wikipedia dump, by also using the ren- dered HTML to avoid the template transclusion issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Shape Designer for Shex and SHACL Constraints Iovka Boneva, Jérémie Dusart, Daniel Fernández Alvarez, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
    Shape Designer for ShEx and SHACL Constraints Iovka Boneva, Jérémie Dusart, Daniel Fernández Alvarez, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo To cite this version: Iovka Boneva, Jérémie Dusart, Daniel Fernández Alvarez, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo. Shape Designer for ShEx and SHACL Constraints. ISWC 2019 - 18th International Semantic Web Conference, Oct 2019, Auckland, New Zealand. 2019. hal-02268667 HAL Id: hal-02268667 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02268667 Submitted on 30 Sep 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Shape Designer for ShEx and SHACL Constraints∗ Iovka Boneva1, J´er´emieDusart2, Daniel Fern´andez Alvarez´ 3, and Jose Emilio Labra Gayo3 1 Univ. Lille, CNRS, Centrale Lille, Inria, UMR 9189 - CRIStAL - Centre de Recherche en Informatique Signal et Automatique de Lille, F-59000 Lille, France 2 Inria, France 3 University of Oviedo, Spain Abstract. We present Shape Designer, a graphical tool for building SHACL or ShEx constraints for an existing RDF dataset. Shape Designer allows to automatically extract complex constraints that are satisfied by the data. Its integrated shape editor and validator allow expert users to combine and modify these constraints in order to build an arbitrarily complex ShEx or SHACL schema.
    [Show full text]
  • The Zebrafish Anatomy and Stage Ontologies: Representing the Anatomy and Development of Danio Rerio
    Van Slyke et al. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 2014, 5:12 http://www.jbiomedsem.com/content/5/1/12 JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL SEMANTICS RESEARCH Open Access The zebrafish anatomy and stage ontologies: representing the anatomy and development of Danio rerio Ceri E Van Slyke1*†, Yvonne M Bradford1*†, Monte Westerfield1,2 and Melissa A Haendel3 Abstract Background: The Zebrafish Anatomy Ontology (ZFA) is an OBO Foundry ontology that is used in conjunction with the Zebrafish Stage Ontology (ZFS) to describe the gross and cellular anatomy and development of the zebrafish, Danio rerio, from single cell zygote to adult. The zebrafish model organism database (ZFIN) uses the ZFA and ZFS to annotate phenotype and gene expression data from the primary literature and from contributed data sets. Results: The ZFA models anatomy and development with a subclass hierarchy, a partonomy, and a developmental hierarchy and with relationships to the ZFS that define the stages during which each anatomical entity exists. The ZFA and ZFS are developed utilizing OBO Foundry principles to ensure orthogonality, accessibility, and interoperability. The ZFA has 2860 classes representing a diversity of anatomical structures from different anatomical systems and from different stages of development. Conclusions: The ZFA describes zebrafish anatomy and development semantically for the purposes of annotating gene expression and anatomical phenotypes. The ontology and the data have been used by other resources to perform cross-species queries of gene expression and phenotype data, providing insights into genetic relationships, morphological evolution, and models of human disease. Background function, development, and evolution. ZFIN, the zebrafish Zebrafish (Danio rerio) share many anatomical and physio- model organism database [10] manually curates these dis- logical characteristics with other vertebrates, including parate data obtained from the literature or by direct data humans, and have emerged as a premiere organism to submission.
    [Show full text]
  • AI/ML Finding a Doing Machine
    Digital Readiness: AI/ML Finding a doing machine Gregg Vesonder Stevens Institute of Technology http://vesonder.com Three Talks • Digital Readiness: AI/ML, The thinking system quest. – Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) have had a fascinating evolution from 1950 to the present. This talk sketches the main themes of AI and machine learning, tracing the evolution of the field since its beginning in the 1950s and explaining some of its main concepts. These eras are characterized as “from knowledge is power” to “data is king”. • Digital Readiness: AI/ML, Finding a doing machine. – In the last decade Machine Learning had a remarkable success record. We will review reasons for that success, review the technology, examine areas of need and explore what happened to the rest of AI, GOFAI (Good Old Fashion AI). • Digital Readiness: AI/ML, Common Sense prevails? – Will there be another AI Winter? We will explore some clues to where the current AI/ML may reunite with GOFAI (Good Old Fashioned AI) and hopefully expand the utility of both. This will include extrapolating on the necessary melding of AI with engineering, particularly systems engineering. Roadmap • Systems – Watson – CYC – NELL – Alexa, Siri, Google Home • Technologies – Semantic web – GPUs and CUDA – Back office (Hadoop) – ML Bias • Last week’s questions Winter is Coming? • First Summer: Irrational Exuberance (1948 – 1966) • First Winter (1967 – 1977) • Second Summer: Knowledge is Power (1978 – 1987) • Second Winter (1988 – 2011) • Third Summer (2012 – ?) • Why there might not be a third winter! Henry Kautz – Engelmore Lecture SYSTEMS Winter 2 Systems • Knowledge is power theme • Influence of the web, try to represent all knowledge – Creating a general ontology organizing everything in the world into a hierarchy of categories – Successful deep ontologies: Gene Ontology and CML Chemical Markup Language • Indeed extreme knowledge – CYC and Open CYC – IBM’s Watson Upper ontology of the world Russell and Norvig figure 12.1 Properties of a subject area and how they are related Ferrucci, D., et.al.
    [Show full text]