DOCSLIB.ORG

Impact Analysis in Description Logic Ontologies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impact Analysis in Description Logic Ontologies IMPACT ANALYSIS IN DESCRIPTION LOGIC ONTOLOGIES A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences 2014 By Jo~aoRafael Landeiro de Sousa Gon¸calves School of Computer Science Contents Abstract 10 Declaration 11 Copyright 12 Acknowledgements 13 1 Introduction 14 1.1 Desiderata for Impact Analysis................... 15 1.2 State of the Art............................ 17 1.3 Goals and Contributions....................... 18 1.4 Published Work............................ 20 2 Preliminaries 21 2.1 Description Logics.......................... 21 2.1.1 Syntax and Semantics.................... 22 2.1.2 Standard Reasoning Services................. 23 2.1.3 Non-Standard Reasoning Services.............. 25 2.1.4 Structural Notions...................... 26 2.2 OWL: The Web Ontology Language................. 28 2.3 Experimental Setup.......................... 30 2.3.1 Infrastructure......................... 30 2.3.2 Ontology Corpora....................... 31 3 Impact Analysis 33 3.1 Impact in OWL............................ 33 3.2 NCIt Case Study........................... 34 3.2.1 Methods and Materials.................... 35 3.2.2 Results............................. 36 3.2.2.1 Parsing Times................... 36 3.2.2.2 Asserted Axioms.................. 36 3.2.2.3 Inferred Axioms.................. 38 3.2.2.4 Reasoner Performance............... 41 3.3 Conclusions.............................. 42 4 Related Work 44 4.1 Diffing Techniques.......................... 44 4.1.1 Syntactic........................... 45 4.1.2 Semantic............................ 46 4.2 Reasoner Performance........................ 48 4.3 Discussion............................... 50 5 Axiom-Centric Impact Analysis 51 5.1 Motivation............................... 51 5.2 Overview................................ 53 5.3 Specification.............................. 55 5.3.1 Axiom Categorisation.................... 55 5.3.1.1 Ineffectual Change Categorisation......... 56 5.3.1.2 Effectual Change Categorisation......... 60 5.3.2 Example Walkthrough.................... 63 5.4 Implementation............................ 66 5.4.1 Algorithms.......................... 66 5.4.2 Preliminary Evaluation.................... 67 5.5 Empirical Evaluation......................... 71 5.5.1 Case Study.......................... 72 5.5.1.1 Coarse-Grained Change Analysis......... 72 5.5.1.2 Ineffectual Changes................. 73 5.5.1.3 Effectual Changes................. 75 5.5.1.4 Discussion...................... 77 5.5.2 NCIt Axiom Diff Walkthrough................ 78 5.6 Conclusions.............................. 83 6 Term-Centric Impact Analysis 85 6.1 Motivation............................... 85 6.2 Specification.............................. 87 6.2.1 Characterising Concept Impact............... 88 6.2.2 Diff Functions......................... 90 6.2.2.1 CEX-Based Functions............... 92 6.2.3 Example Walkthrough.................... 94 6.3 Implementation............................ 96 6.3.1 Algorithms.......................... 97 6.3.2 Preliminary Evaluation.................... 99 6.4 Empirical Evaluation......................... 100 6.4.1 Case Study.......................... 100 6.4.1.1 Diff Function Comparison............. 101 6.4.1.2 Splitting Direct and Indirect Changes...... 103 6.4.1.3 Change Log Analysis................ 103 6.4.2 NCIt Concept Diff Walkthrough............... 106 6.5 Conclusions.............................. 108 7 Term and Axiom Change Alignment 111 7.1 Motivation............................... 111 7.2 Specification.............................. 112 7.2.1 Aligning Changes....................... 112 7.2.2 Example Walkthrough.................... 113 7.3 Implementation............................ 115 7.3.1 Algorithms.......................... 115 7.3.2 ecco: A Diff Tool for OWL 2 Ontologies.......... 116 7.4 Tool Walkthrough........................... 119 7.5 Conclusions.............................. 122 8 Performance Heterogeneity and Homogeneity 125 8.1 Motivation............................... 125 8.2 Specification.............................. 127 8.3 Implementation............................ 128 8.4 Empirical Evaluation......................... 130 8.4.1 Materials and Methods.................... 130 8.4.2 Results............................. 131 8.5 Conclusions.............................. 136 9 Performance Hot Spots 140 9.1 Motivation............................... 140 9.2 Specification.............................. 142 9.2.1 Finding Hot Spots...................... 142 9.2.2 Reasoning with Hot Spots.................. 143 9.2.2.1 Approximation Techniques............. 143 9.2.2.2 Compilation Techniques.............. 144 9.3 Implementation............................ 145 9.4 Empirical Evaluation......................... 146 9.4.1 Finding Hot Spots...................... 147 9.4.1.1 Hot Spot Analysis................. 148 9.4.1.2 Comparison with Pellint.............. 150 9.4.2 Hot Spot Based Reasoning.................. 152 9.4.2.1 Approximations................... 152 9.4.2.2 Compilations.................... 153 9.5 Conclusions.............................. 154 10 Conclusions 157 10.1 Contributions and Significance.................... 157 10.2 Research Impact and Future Directions............... 160 Bibliography 163 Word Count: 39,304 List of Tables 2.1 Concept constructors for the ALC DL................ 22 5.1 Compound change categories..................... 54 5.2 Effectual change categories...................... 55 5.3 Example ontologies O1 and O2.................... 63 5.4 Categorisation of removals in diff(O1; O2).............. 64 5.5 Categorisation of additions in diff(O1; O2).............. 65 5.6 Operation times per comparison throughout the NCIt (in seconds). 70 5.7 Coarse-grained changes throughout the NCIt............ 73 5.8 Ineffectual removals of diff(Oi, Oi+1), for 1 ≤ i ≤ 112........ 74 5.9 Ineffectual additions of diff(Oi, Oi+1), for 1 ≤ i ≤ 112....... 75 5.10 Effectual removals of diff(Oi, Oi+1), for 1 ≤ i ≤ 112......... 76 5.11 Effectual additions of diff(Oi, Oi+1), for 1 ≤ i ≤ 112........ 76 5.12 Effectual additions in diff(O32, O33)................. 78 5.13 Ineffectual additions in diff(O32, O33)................ 78 5.14 Effectual removals in diff(O32, O33).................. 79 5.15 Ineffectual removals in diff(O32, O33)................. 79 5.16 Mapping of term names in the NCIt to abbreviations........ 80 6.1 Example ontologies O1 and O2.................... 88 6.2 Affected concepts (specialised, generalised and total) between O1 and O2 according to the mentioned diff notions........... 92 6.3 Breakdown of concept impact in At-AT(O1; O2)Σ.......... 94 6.4 Breakdown of concept impact in Sub-AT(O1; O2)Σ......... 95 6.5 Breakdown of concept impact in Gr-AT(O1; O2)Σ.......... 96 6.6 Number of concepts processed per minute by each diff function Φ. 100 6.7 Number of affected atomic concepts found by each diff function for Σ := Σu, and their respective coverage w.r.t. Gr-AT(Oi; Oi+1)Σ.. 102 L 6.8 Number of directly affected concepts (1) in AT(O1; O2)Σ (denoted R \L"), (2) in AT(O1; O2)Σ (denoted \R"), (3) in the union of those two sets (denoted \Total"), and (4) that do not appear in the NCIt change logs (denoted \Missed"), found by AtDiff(O1; O2)Σ and SubDiff(O1; O2)Σ for Σ := Σu.................. 105 6.9 Number of affected atomic concepts, AT(Oi; Oi+1)Σ, found by each diff function (in addition to Un-AT := fCex1-AT [ Cex2-AT [ Sub-ATg) for Σ := Σu within the NCIt change logs......... 106 6.10 Affected concepts (specialised, generalised and total) between O1 and O2 according to the mentioned diff notions........... 107 6.11 Number of changes in At-AT(O1; O2)Σ according to impact.... 107 6.12 Number of changes in Sub-AT(O1; O2)Σ according to impact.... 108 7.1 Example ontologies O1 and O2.................... 113 7.2 Affected concepts in At-AT(O1; O2)Σ with corresponding witness axioms and justifications........................ 114 7.3 Additional affected concept in Sub-AT(O1; O2)Σ with correspond- ing witness axiom and justification.................. 114 8.1 Basic metrics and classification times (in seconds) of selected Bio- Portal ontologies. Ontologies marked with ∗ are in the OWL 2 EL profile.................................. 131 9.1 Comparison of hot spots found via SAT-guided (white rows) and random (grey rows) concept selection approach. CPU times in seconds................................. 148 9.2 Expressivity of each original ontology (O), its various hot spots (Mi, for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3) and corresponding remainders (O n Mi).... 149 9.3 Number of GCIs contained in each ontology, its hot spots, and their corresponding remainders. The \average reduction" represents the percentage of GCIs removed from O into O n Mi, for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3.. 150 9.4 Ontology/reasoner combinations for which Pellint found lints... 151 9.5 Reasoning times and degree of completeness of the devised approx- imations, and tr-Ap(O). The degree of completeness is denoted \compl."................................ 153 9.6 Compilation results for the devised compilation techniques (time in seconds, where unit is not shown)................. 154 List of Figures 3.1 Axiom growth of the NCIt, where annotation axioms dominate (x-axis: NCIt version, y-axis: number of axioms).......... 37 3.2 Breakdown of logical axioms occurring in the NCIt (x-axis: NCIt version, y-axis: number of axioms). Note that in Figure 3.2a role axioms are grouped together, and then broken down in Figure 3.2b. 38 3.3 Entailment growth of NCIt: asserted and inferred entailment counts
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]
  • A Logical Framework for Modularity of Ontologies∗
    A Logical Framework for Modularity of Ontologies∗ Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Yevgeny Kazakov and Ulrike Sattler The University of Manchester School of Computer Science Manchester, M13 9PL, UK {bcg, horrocks, ykazakov, sattler }@cs.man.ac.uk Abstract ontology itself by possibly reusing the meaning of external symbols. Hence by merging an ontology with external on- Modularity is a key requirement for collaborative tologies we import the meaning of its external symbols to de- ontology engineering and for distributed ontology fine the meaning of its local symbols. reuse on the Web. Modern ontology languages, To make this idea work, we need to impose certain con- such as OWL, are logic-based, and thus a useful straints on the usage of the external signature: in particular, notion of modularity needs to take the semantics of merging ontologies should be “safe” in the sense that they ontologies and their implications into account. We do not produce unexpected results such as new inconsisten- propose a logic-based notion of modularity that al- cies or subsumptions between imported symbols. To achieve lows the modeler to specify the external signature this kind of safety, we use the notion of conservative exten- of their ontology, whose symbols are assumed to sions to define modularity of ontologies, and then prove that be defined in some other ontology. We define two a property of some ontologies, called locality, can be used restrictions on the usage of the external signature, to achieve modularity. More precisely, we define two no- a syntactic and a slightly less restrictive, seman- tions of locality for SHIQ TBoxes: (i) a tractable syntac- tic one, each of which is decidable and guarantees tic one which can be used to provide guidance in ontology a certain kind of “black-box” behavior, which en- editing tools, and (ii) a more general semantic one which can ables the controlled merging of ontologies.
    [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]
  • Deciding Semantic Matching of Stateless Services∗
    Deciding Semantic Matching of Stateless Services∗ Duncan Hull†, Evgeny Zolin†, Andrey Bovykin‡, Ian Horrocks†, Ulrike Sattler†, and Robert Stevens† School of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, † ‡ University of Manchester, UK University of Liverpool, UK Abstract specifying automated reasoning algorithms for such stateful service descriptions is basically impossible in the presence We present a novel approach to describe and reason about stateless information processing services. It can of any expressive ontology (Baader et al. 2005). Stateless- be seen as an extension of standard descriptions which ness implies that we do not need to formulate pre- and post- makes explicit the relationship between inputs and out- conditions since our services do not change the world. puts and takes into account OWL ontologies to fix the The question we are interested in here is how to help the meaning of the terms used in a service description. This biologist to find a service he or she is looking for, i.e., a allows us to define a notion of matching between ser- service that works with inputs and outputs the biologist can vices which yields high precision and recall for service provide/accept, and that provides the required functionality. location. We explain why matching is decidable, and The growing number of publicly available biomedical web provide biomedical example services to illustrate the utility of our approach. services, 3000 as of February 2006, required better match- ing techniques to locate services. Thus, we are concerned with the question of how to describe a service request Q Introduction and service advertisements Si such that the notion of a ser- Understanding the data generated from genome sequenc- vice S matching the request Q can be defined in a “useful” ing projects like the Human Genome Project is recognised way.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Ontology-Based Methods for Analyzing Life Science Data
    Habilitation a` Diriger des Recherches pr´esent´ee par Olivier Dameron Ontology-based methods for analyzing life science data Soutenue publiquement le 11 janvier 2016 devant le jury compos´ede Anita Burgun Professeur, Universit´eRen´eDescartes Paris Examinatrice Marie-Dominique Devignes Charg´eede recherches CNRS, LORIA Nancy Examinatrice Michel Dumontier Associate professor, Stanford University USA Rapporteur Christine Froidevaux Professeur, Universit´eParis Sud Rapporteure Fabien Gandon Directeur de recherches, Inria Sophia-Antipolis Rapporteur Anne Siegel Directrice de recherches CNRS, IRISA Rennes Examinatrice Alexandre Termier Professeur, Universit´ede Rennes 1 Examinateur 2 Contents 1 Introduction 9 1.1 Context ......................................... 10 1.2 Challenges . 11 1.3 Summary of the contributions . 14 1.4 Organization of the manuscript . 18 2 Reasoning based on hierarchies 21 2.1 Principle......................................... 21 2.1.1 RDF for describing data . 21 2.1.2 RDFS for describing types . 24 2.1.3 RDFS entailments . 26 2.1.4 Typical uses of RDFS entailments in life science . 26 2.1.5 Synthesis . 30 2.2 Case study: integrating diseases and pathways . 31 2.2.1 Context . 31 2.2.2 Objective . 32 2.2.3 Linking pathways and diseases using GO, KO and SNOMED-CT . 32 2.2.4 Querying associated diseases and pathways . 33 2.3 Methodology: Web services composition . 39 2.3.1 Context . 39 2.3.2 Objective . 40 2.3.3 Semantic compatibility of services parameters . 40 2.3.4 Algorithm for pairing services parameters . 40 2.4 Application: ontology-based query expansion with GO2PUB . 43 2.4.1 Context . 43 2.4.2 Objective .
    [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]
  • Proceedings of the 11Th International Workshop on Ontology
    Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2016) Pavel Shvaiko, Jérôme Euzenat, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Michelle Cheatham, Oktie Hassanzadeh, Ryutaro Ichise To cite this version: Pavel Shvaiko, Jérôme Euzenat, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Michelle Cheatham, Oktie Hassanzadeh, et al.. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2016). Ontology matching workshop, Kobe, Japan. No commercial editor., pp.1-252, 2016. hal-01421835 HAL Id: hal-01421835 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01421835 Submitted on 15 Jul 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. Ontology Matching OM-2016 Proceedings of the ISWC Workshop Introduction Ontology matching1 is a key interoperability enabler for the semantic web, as well as a useful tactic in some classical data integration tasks dealing with the semantic hetero- geneity problem. It takes ontologies as input and determines as output an alignment, that is, a set of correspondences between the semantically related entities of those on- tologies. These correspondences can be used for various tasks, such as ontology merg- ing, data translation, query answering or navigation on the web of data. Thus, matching ontologies enables the knowledge and data expressed in the matched ontologies to in- teroperate.
    [Show full text]