Temporally qualified continuants for BFO 2 OWL A bottom-up view

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SOTIRIS BATSAKIS EURIPIDES G.M. PETRAKIS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CRETE INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS LABORATORY Imposing Restrictions Over Temporal Properties in.
Advertisements

1 ISWC-2003 Sanibel Island, FL IMG, University of Manchester Jeff Z. Pan 1 and Ian Horrocks 1,2 {pan | 1 Information Management.
OWL - DL. DL System A knowledge base (KB) comprises two components, the TBox and the ABox The TBox introduces the terminology, i.e., the vocabulary of.
Chronos: A Tool for Handling Temporal Ontologies in Protégé
1 Institute of Medical Biometry und Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany 2 AVERBIS GmbH, Freiburg, Germany 3 Paediatric Hematology.
April 15, 2004SPIE1 Association in Level 2 Fusion Mieczyslaw M. Kokar Christopher J. Matheus Jerzy A. Letkowski Kenneth Baclawski Paul Kogut.
Temporally qualified continuants for BFO 2 OWL A bottom-up view Stefan Schulz, Janna Hastings, Fabian Neuhaus May 20, 2013 (updated)
Temporally qualified continuants for BFO 2 OWL A bottom-up view Stefan Schulz, Janna Hastings, Fabian Neuhaus Freiburg, 10 Oct 2013.
Temporally qualified continuants for BFO 2 OWL A bottom-up view Stefan Schulz, Janna Hastings July 10, 2013.
+ OWL for annotators David Osumi-Sutherland. + What is OWL? Web Ontology Language Can express everything in OBO and more. Certified web standard Fast.
Schulz S, Boeker M – BioTopLite – An Upper Level Ontology for the Life Sciences – ODLS 2013 BioTopLite : An Upper Level Ontology for the Life Sciences.
Mapping OBO to OWL 1.1 Christine Golbreich & Ian Horrocks.
Temporally qualified continuants for BFO 2 OWL A bottom-up view Stefan Schulz, Janna Hastings, Fabian Neuhaus July 10, 2013.
Amarnath Gupta Univ. of California San Diego. An Abstract Question There is no concrete answer …but …
An Extensible Approach for Modeling Ontologies in RDF(S) Steffen Staab, Michael Erdmann, Alexander Mädche, & Stefan Decker Research Group Knowledge Management.
BFO 2.0 Proposal Barry Smith 7/28/2011.
Reasoning the FMA Ontologies with TrOWL Jeff Z. Pan, Yuan Ren, Nophadol Jekjantuk, and Jhonatan Garcia University of Aberdeen, UK ORE2013.
The Foundational Model of Anatomy and its Ontological Commitment(s) Stefan Schulz University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany FMA in OWL meeting November.
8/11/2011 Web Ontology Language (OWL) Máster Universitario en Inteligencia Artificial Mikel Egaña Aranguren 3205 Facultad de Informática Universidad Politécnica.
OWL and SDD Dave Thau University of Kansas
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. Topics Introduction to OWL Usage of OWL Problems with OWL 1 Solutions from OWL 2.
OWL 2 in use. OWL 2 OWL 2 is a knowledge representation language, designed to formulate, exchange and reason with knowledge about a domain of interest.
Temporally qualified continuants for BFO 2 OWL A bottom-up view Stefan Schulz, Janna Hastings, Fabian Neuhaus 25 Oct 2013.
SWAP-07 Ontology Engineering with OntoClean Chris Welty IBM Watson Research Center.
OilEd An Introduction to OilEd Sean Bechhofer. Topics we will discuss Basic OilEd use –Defining Classes, Properties and Individuals in an Ontology –This.
Introduction to BFO 2 OWL Implementation
Cell Ontology Meeting, Jackson Labs May 2010 David Osumi-Sutherland.
Ontology Engineering Lab #5 – September 30, 2013.
+ From OBO to OWL and back again – a tutorial David Osumi-Sutherland, Virtual Fly Brain/FlyBase Chris Mungall – GO/LBL.
Of 38 lecture 6: rdf – axiomatic semantics and query.
1 Dr Alexiei Dingli Introduction to Web Science Modelling Knowledge.
Entity-Relationship Modeling. 2 Entity Type u Entity type –Group of objects with same properties, identified by enterprise as having an independent existence.
TRANSITION FROM BFO 1.1 TO BFO 2.0 (OWL FORMAT) Jie Zheng Department of Genetics University of Pennsylvania May 13 th, 2013.
Higgs bosons, mars missions, and unicorn delusions: How to deal with terms of dubious reference in scientific ontologies Stefan Schulz a,b Mathias Brochhausen.
Modeling Life Science Knowledge with OWL 1.1 Michel Dumontier & Natalia Villanueva-Rosales Department of Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, School of.
Basic Formal Ontology Barry Smith August 26, 2013.
An Ontological Analysis of Reference in Health Record Statements Stefan SCHULZ Catalina MARTÍNEZ-COSTA Daniel KARLSSON Ronald CORNET Mathias BROCHHAUSEN.
Taking IDEAS Forward in the MOD
Logical Database Design and the Rational Model
n-ary relations OWL modeling problem when n≥3
Integrating SysML with OWL (or other logic based formalisms)
Formal ontologies vs. triple based KR gap or convergence?
Outline Motivation: data mining Ontologies and all-some relationships
Can SNOMED CT be harmonized with an upper-level ontology?
CIMI Semantics Roundup
Ontology authoring and assessment
September 8, 2015 | Basel, Switzerland
Relational Database Design by Dr. S. Sridhar, Ph. D
How to be a Good Developer
Sec 3.5: IMPLICIT DIFFERENTIATION
Permanent Generic Relatedness
Ontology.
Logical architecture refinement
Обзор Windows Azure Connect
ro.owl and shortcut relations
Harmonizing SNOMED CT with BioTopLite
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
MA/CSSE 474 More Math Review Theory of Computation
Section 10.1 Groups.
Chapter 3 RDF and RDFS Semantics
Ontology.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Ontologies and Databases
Database Processing: David M. Kroenke’s Chapter Five:
Test-Driven Ontology Development in Protégé
Cellular Automata What could be the simplest systems capable of wide-ranging or even universal computation? Could it be simpler than a simple cell?
Entity Relationship (ER) Modeling
ODLS 2016 Workshop on Ontologies and Data in Life Sciences, Sep 29-30, Halle (Saale), Germany Ontological interpretation of biomedical database annotations.
Section 9.1 Groups.
BFO meets critics Workshop organised by Barry Smith
Presentation transcript:

Temporally qualified continuants for BFO 2 OWL A bottom-up view Stefan Schulz, Janna Hastings, Fabian Neuhaus May 14, 2013

Львів, Lviv, L’viv, Lwów, לעמבערג Lemberg Львів Lviv L’viv, Lwów Lemberg

Relations between continuants Binary relations between occurrents non-ambiguous: partOf (Battle_of_Stalingrad, Second_World_War) Binary relations between continuants ambiguous: partOf (Lviv, Poland) Ternary relations between continuants non-ambiguous: partOf³ (Lviv, Austria, 1900) partOf³ (Lviv, Poland, 1925) partOf³ (Lviv, URSS, 1950) partOf³ (Lviv, Ukraine, 2000)

Problem: only binary relations in OWL Instantiation: Lviv rdf:type City Ukraine rdf:type Country Relations Lviv partOf URSS Lviv partOf Austria Assertion that URSS and Austria don't overlap: Inconsistency 

Class level axioms How to interpret City subClassOf partOf some Country ? Temporary relatedness: every city is part of some country at least at some time "a"t1 $ t2: inst³ (a, A, t1) Ù inst³ (a, A, t2) ® $b: (inst³ (b, B, t2) Ù rel³ (a, b, t1)) Permanent generic relatedness: at all times, every city is part of some country "a"t: inst³ (a, A, t)® $b: inst³ (b, B, t) Ù rel³ (a, b, t) Permanent specific relatedness: at all times, every city is part of the same country "a"t1: [inst³ (a, A, t) ® $b: (inst³ (b, B, t) Ù rel³ (a, b, t) "t: (inst³ (a, A, t) ® (rel³ (a, b, t) Ù inst³ (b, B, t))))]

Possible solutions Use binary relations and interpret them as permanent generically related (as most of DL community has done for decades): may be acceptable as long no non-rigid classes and no instances are used (?) Reify ternary relations: Overly complicated, user-unfriendly and difficult to get transitivity into it Use temporalized relations (as in BFO 2 OWL Graz version): works only for temporary relatedness and permanent specific relatedness, but not for permanent generic relatedness. Four-dimensionalism (?): represent histories instead of objects Use temporally qualified continuants. See following slides

Temporally qualified continuants Temporally qualified continuants (TQCs) are continuants which were referred to a some time TQCs have no ontological commitment Technical "façon de parler", no instance of universal Examples: Lviv@1913 Ukraine@1Feb1995 myLeftThumb@14May2013

TQC: additional entities Classes: TQC: continuants referred to in a temporal context Relations: hasTime: relates a temporally qualified continuant to the temporal region at which a temporally relevant assertion is made hasCont: Relates a temporally qualified continuants to continuant (function); inverse hasTQC Axioms: certain relations require domains or ranges to be TQCs, e.g. partOf optional relation chains if temporalized relations required: hasTQC o partOf subpropertyOf hasPartAtSomeTime

Examples, Instance level partOf³ (Lviv, Austria, 1900) partOf³ (Lviv, Poland, 1925) instanceOf³ (Lviv, Settlement, 1100) instanceOf³ (Lviv, City, 1925) partOf (Lviv@1900, Austria@1900) hasTime (Lviv@1900, 1900) hasCont (Lviv@1900, Lviv) hasTime (Austria@1900, 1900) hasCont (Austria@1900, Austria) partOf (Lviv@1925, Poland@1925) hasTime (Lviv@1925,1925) hasCont (Lviv@1925, Lviv) hasTime (Poland@1925,1925) hasCont (Poland@1925, Poland) Lviv@1100 rdf:Type Settlement hasTime (Lviv@1100, 1100) hasCont (Lviv@1100, Lviv) Lviv@1925 rdf:Type City hasTime (Lviv@1925, 1925) hasCont (Lviv@1925, Lviv)

Examples, Class level "Each city is always part of some country" "a, t: inst³ (x, City, t)® $b: inst³ (b, Country, t) Ù part of³ (x, y, t) "Each medieval city has had a city gate at some time" "a, t1 $ t2: inst³ (x, MCity, t1) Ù inst³ (x, MCity, t2) ® $b: (inst (y, CGate, t2) Ù hasPart³ (x, y, t1)) City subClassOf partOf some Country partOf Domain TQC partOf Range TQC City and Country are classified as TQC MCity subClassOf hasTQC some (hasPart some CGate) CGate are classified as TQC

Examples City subClassOf partOf some Country Country subClassOf partOf some Continent City subClassOf subClassOf partOf some Continent CityGate subClassOf hasTQC some (partOf some City) CityGateDoor subClassOf partOf some CityGate Does not entail that CityGateDoor is part of a city CellNucleolus subClassOf partOf some CellNucleus CellNucleus subClassOf partOf some Cell CellNucleolus subClassOf partOf some Cell Apple subClassOf hasTQC some (partOf some AppleTree) AppleSeed subClassOf hasTQC some (partOf some Apple) Does not entail that part Apple seeds are parts of apple trees Permanent generic relatedness Temporary relatedness Permanent generic relatedness Permanent generic relatedness Permanent generic relatedness Temporary relatedness Temporary relatedness

Consistency of A-boxes r0: partOf³ (Lviv, Austria, 1900) One ternary relation rel (a, b, t) is translated into a set of five binary relations. r1: partOf (Lviv@1900, Austria@1900) r2: hasTime (Lviv@1900, 1900) r3: hasCont (Lviv@1900, Lviv) r4: hasTime (Austria@1900, 1900) r5: hasCont (Austria@1900, Austria) r1: rel (a @ t, b @ t) r2: hasTime (a @ t, t) r3: hasCont (a @ t, a) r4: hasTime (b @ t , t) r5: hasCont (b @ t, b) OWL Rule for consistency checking: TemporallyQualifiedContinuant(?x), TemporallyQualifiedContinuant(?y), hasTime (?x,?t1), hasTime(?y,?t2), topObjectProperty(?x,?y) - > equal(?t1,?t2)