Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Web Ontology Language (OWL) Feroz Farazi.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ontologies and Databases Ian Horrocks Information Systems Group Oxford University Computing Laboratory.
Advertisements

CH-4 Ontologies, Querying and Data Integration. Introduction to RDF(S) RDF stands for Resource Description Framework. RDF is a standard for describing.
Chronos: A Tool for Handling Temporal Ontologies in Protégé
An Introduction to RDF(S) and a Quick Tour of OWL
April 15, 2004SPIE1 Association in Level 2 Fusion Mieczyslaw M. Kokar Christopher J. Matheus Jerzy A. Letkowski Kenneth Baclawski Paul Kogut.
Presented by Amr Ali AL-Hossary (M.B.,B.Ch)
Of 27 lecture 7: owl - introduction. of 27 ece 627, winter ‘132 OWL a glimpse OWL – Web Ontology Language describes classes, properties and relations.
OWL TUTORIAL APT CSA 3003 OWL ANNOTATOR Charlie Abela CSAI Department.
Chapter 8: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes, Agents – Munindar P. Singh and Michael N. Huhns, Wiley, 2005.
1 An Introduction To The Semantic Web. 2 Information Access on the Web Find an mp3 of a song that was on the Billboard Top Ten that features a cowbell.
Chapter 8: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes, Agents – Munindar P. Singh and Michael N. Huhns, Wiley, 2005.
Chapter 4 Web Ontology Language: OWL
Cornell CS Semantic Web Ontologies & Data Models CS 502 – Carl Lagoze – Cornell University Acknowledgements: Eric Miller Dieter Fensel.
GloServ: Global Service Discovery Architecture Knarig Arabshian and Henning Schulzrinne IRT internal talk April 26, 2005.
From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The Making of a Web Ontology Language
ANHAI DOAN ALON HALEVY ZACHARY IVES Chapter 12: Ontologies and Knowledge Representation PRINCIPLES OF DATA INTEGRATION.
Semantic Web Ontologies (continued) Expressing, Querying, Building CS 431 – April 6, 2005 Carl Lagoze – Cornell University.
A Really Brief Crash Course in Semantic Web Technologies Rocky Dunlap Spencer Rugaber Georgia Tech.
Semantic Web Technologies Lecture # 2 Faculty of Computer Science, IBA.
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Some material adapted from presentations by Ian Horrocks and by Feroz Farazi.
13 Dec. 2006CmpE 583 Fall 2006 OWL Lite- Property Char’s. 1 OWL Lite: Ch. 13- Property Characteristics Atilla ELÇİ.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Resource Description Framework (RDF) Feroz Farazi.
An Introduction to Description Logics. What Are Description Logics? A family of logic based Knowledge Representation formalisms –Descendants of semantic.
1 MASWS Multi-Agent Semantic Web Systems: OWL Stephen Potter, CISA, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Okech Odhiambo Faculty of Information Technology Strathmore University
8/11/2011 Web Ontology Language (OWL) Máster Universitario en Inteligencia Artificial Mikel Egaña Aranguren 3205 Facultad de Informática Universidad Politécnica.
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Some material adapted from presentations by Ian Horrocks and by Feroz Farazi.
1 Representing Data with XML September 27, 2005 Shawn Henry with slides from Neal Arthorne.
OWL and SDD Dave Thau University of Kansas
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. Topics Introduction to OWL Usage of OWL Problems with OWL 1 Solutions from OWL 2.
Building an Ontology of Semantic Web Techniques Utilizing RDF Schema and OWL 2.0 in Protégé 4.0 Presented by: Naveed Javed Nimat Umar Syed.
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.
Chapter 9. 9 RDFS (RDF Schema) RDFS Part of the Ontological Primitive layer Adds features to RDF Provides standard vocabulary for describing concepts.
The Knowledge Presentation Language. Web Ontology Language (OWL)  Web Ontology Language (OWL) extends RDF and RDFS languages by adding several other.
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: New Features and Rationale Feroz Farazi
Michael Eckert1CS590SW: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Web Ontology Language (OWL) CS590SW: Semantic Web (Winter Quarter 2003) Presentation: Michael Eckert.
Metadata. Generally speaking, metadata are data and information that describe and model data and information For example, a database schema is the metadata.
Ontology & OWL Semantic Web - Fall 2005 Computer Engineering Department Sharif University of Technology.
Advanced topics in software engineering (Semantic web)
Artificial Intelligence 2004 Ontology
Semantic Web Ontologies CS 431 – Carl Lagoze – Cornell University Acknowledgements: Alun Preece.
Organization of the Lab Three meetings:  today: general introduction, first steps in Protégé OWL  November 19: second part of tutorial  December 3:
Extensible Ontological Modeling Framework for Subject Mediation L. A. Kalinichenko, N. A. Skvortsov Institute for Problems of Informatics, RAS
Ontology Engineering Lab #5 – September 30, 2013.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Web Ontology Language (OWL) -- Exercises Feroz Farazi.
OWL & Protege Introduction Dongfang Xu Ph.D student, School of Information, University of Arizona Sept 10, 2015.
OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information.
Practical RDF Chapter 12. Ontologies: RDF Business Models Shelley Powers, O’Reilly SNU IDB Lab. Taikyoung Kim.
ONTOLOGY ENGINEERING Lab #2 – September 8,
CS621 : Artificial Intelligence Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay Lecture 12 RDF, OWL, Minimax.
Modeling Security-Relevant Data Semantics Xue Ying Chen Department of Computer Science.
Web Ontology Language (OWL). OWL The W3C Web Ontology Language (OWL) is a Semantic Web language designed to represent rich and complex knowledge about.
OWL W3C WORKING GROUP F2F MEETING M. Vacura. OWL 2  OWL 2 extends the OWL 1.0 with a small but useful set of features that have been requested by users,
Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist Dean Allemang Jim Hendler SNU IDB laboratory.
Ccs.  Ontologies are used to capture knowledge about some domain of interest. ◦ An ontology describes the concepts in the domain and also the relationships.
Chapter Describing Individuals OWL Individuals ▫Ontological Primitive Layer  Mostly described with RDF ▫Instances of user-defined ontological.
OWL (Ontology Web Language and Applications) Maw-Sheng Horng Department of Mathematics and Information Education National Taipei University of Education.
Vincenzo Maltese, Fausto Giunchiglia University of Trento
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Semantic Web Foundations
Ontology.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Ontology.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Ontologies and Databases
Presentation transcript:

Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Web Ontology Language (OWL) Feroz Farazi

OWL  Web Ontology Language designed to be used when the document content is necessary to be processed by applications instead of making it understandable only by humans [OWL Overview]  It can be used to represent ontology  Vocabulary terms and the relationships between them  Concepts and relations between them  Provides more facilities than RDF and RDF Schema  In the representation of semantics  In performing reasoning tasks

OWL Sublanguages  There are three sublanguages of OWL  OWL Lite: trades expressivity for efficiency  OWL DL: a balance between expressivity and computational completeness  OWL Full: trades computational completeness for expressivity  OWL Lite supports  Encoding simple classification hierarchy (e.g., taxonomy and thesaurus)  Assigning cardinality constraints 0 or 1  OWL DL supports  More expressive than OWL Lite while guarantees conclusions and decidability  Using all OWL constructs, some of them with certain restrictions  The restriction of not making a class an instance of another class

OWL Sublanguages  OWL DL is named so because of its connection with description logics, which form the formal basis of OWL  OWL Full  an extension of RDF with maximum expressiveness, e.g., a class can be represented also as an individual  For these sublanguages the following statements can be made:  Each OWL Lite representation belongs to OWL DL  Each OWL DL representation belongs to OWL Full  Each valid OWL Lite conclusion is also valid in OWL DL  Each valid OWL DL conclusion is also valid in OWL Full

OWL Lite  In OWL Lite  users are allowed to use a subset of the OWL, RDF and RDFS vocabulary  to define a class, one must use the OWL construct owl:Class  OWL constructs, namely: complementOf, disjointWith, hasValue, oneOf and unionOf are not allowed  Some OWL Constructs are allowed to use but their use is limited  all three cardinality constructs – cardinality, maxCardinality and minCardinality, can only have 0 or 1 in their value fields  Moreover, equivalentClass and intersectionOf cannot be used in a triple if the subject or object represents an anonymous class

OWL DL  In OWL DL  Each individual must be an extension of a class  Even if an individual cannot be classified under any user defined class, it must be classified under the general owl:Thing class  Individuals can not be used as properties, and vice versa  Moreover, properties can not be used as classes, and vice versa  It is allowed to use the intersectionOf construct with any number of classes and of any non negative integer in the cardinality restrictions value fields  The computational complexity is the same as the corresponding Description Logic

Properties  Inverse  Given that a property P is inverse of another property Q, P owl:inverseOf Q, and two individuals x and y are connected using P as follows: x P y. We can infer that y Q x.  For example, the property hasChild can be an inverse property of hasParent  Symmetric  Given that a property P is symmetric, P rdf:type owl:symmetricProperty, two individuals x and y are connected using P as follows: x P y. We can infer that y P x.  For example, the property isMarriedTo is symmetric  Transitive property is used with owl:TransitiveProperty

Properties  Equivalent Property  In RDFS, x rdfs:subPropertyOf y y rdfs:subPropertyOf x  In OWL, x owl:equivalentProperty y  For example, buy and purchase can be equivalent properties  Functional Property  A functional property can have only one value attached to it for any individual  Given that a property P is functional, P rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty, the individuals x, y and z are connected using P as follows: x P y and x P z. We can infer that y owl:sameAs z.  For example, the property hasMother is functional

Properties  Inverse Functional Property  An inverse functional property can have only one individual as a subject attached to it for any value  Given that a property P is inverse functional, P rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, the individuals x, y and z are connected using P as follows: x P y and z P y. We can infer that x owl:sameAs z.  For example, the property motherOf is inverse functional  Used  Especially in settings where data come from multiple sources  In entity matching on the Semantic Web

OWL 2: – Extends OWL 1 – Inherits OWL 1 language features The new features of OWL 2 based on: – Real applications – User experience – Tool developer experience OWL 2

Features and Rationale Syntactic sugar New constructs for properties Extended datatypes Punning Extended annotations Some innovations Minor features

Features and Rationale Syntactic sugar – Makes some patterns easier to write – Does not change Expressiveness Semantics Complexity – Can help implementations For more efficient processing

Features and Rationale Syntactic sugar: – DisjointUnion – DisjointClasses – NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion – NegativeDataPropertyAssertion DisjointUnion Union of a set of classes All the classes are pairwise disjoint

Syntactic sugar Need for disjointUnion construct – A :CarDoor is exclusively either a :FrontDoor, a :RearDoor or a:TrunkDoor and not more than one of them A disjointUnion example –

Syntactic sugar DisjointClasses – A set of classes – All the classes are pairwise disjoint Need for DisjointClasses – Nothing can be both A LeftLung and A RightLung

Syntactic sugar NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion – Two individuals – A property does not hold between them Example, Patient “John” does not live in “Povo” NegativeDataPropertyAssertion – An individual – A literal – A property does not hold between them Example, “John” is not “5” years old.

New constructs for properties Self restriction Qualified cardinality restriction Object properties Disjoint properties Property chain keys

Self restriction Classes of objects that are related to themselves by a given property For example, the class of processes that regulate themselves It is also called local reflexivity An example: Auto-regulating processes regulate themselves

Qualified cardinality restrictions Qualifies the instances to be counted Restrain the class or data range of the instances to be counted For example, – Persons that have exactly three children who are girls – Each individual has at most one SSN

Qualified cardinality restrictions ObjectMinCardinality ObjectMaxCardinality ObjectExactCardinality DataMinCardinality DataMaxCardinality DataExactCardinality

Object properties ReflexiveObjectProperty – Globally reflexive – Everything is part of itself IrreflexiveObjectProperty – Nothing can be a proper part of itself AsymmetricObjectProperty – If x is proper part of y, then the opposite does not hold

Disjoint propertis DisjointObjectProperties – Deals with object properties – Pairwise disjointness can be asserted – E.g., connectedTo and contiguousWith DisjointDataProperties – Deals with data properties – Pairwise disjointness can be asserted – E.g., startTime and endTime of a surgery

Property chain inclusion Properties can be defined as a composition of other properties If disease A is locatedIn body part B and B is part of body part C then A is locatedIn C SubObjectPropertyOf ( ObjectPropertyChain( locatedIn partOf) locatedIn)

Keys Individuals can be identified uniquely Identification can be done using – A data property – An object property or – A set of properties HasKey( :RegisteredPatient :hasWaitingListN ) ClassAssertion( :RegisteredPatient :ThisPatient ) DataPropertyAssertion( :hasWaitingListN :ThisPatient " " ) HasKey( :Transplantation :donorId :recipientId :ofOrgan )

Features and Rationale Syntactic sugar New constructs for properties Extended datatypes Punning Extended annotations Some innovations Minor features

Extended datatypes Extra datatypes – For example, owl:real and owl:rational Datatype restrictions – Range of datatypes – For example, adult has an age >= 18 – DatatypeRestriction(xsd:integer minInclusive 18) Datatype definitions – New datatypes – DatatypeDefinition( :adultAge DatatypeRestriction(xsd:integer minInclusive 18))

Extended datatypes Data range combinations – Intersection of DataIntersectionOf( xsd:nonNegativeInteger xsd:nonPositiveInteger ) – Union of DataUnionOf( xsd:string xsd:integer ) – Complement of data range DataComplementOf( xsd:positiveInteger )

Punning Punning: “What's black and white and red all over?” Classes and individuals can have the same name thanks to punning – E.g., Eagle as a class and as an individual Properties and individuals can have the same name – E.g., is_located_in as a property and as an individual of Deprecated_Properties class

Punning Classes and object properties also can have the same name But classes and datatype properties can not have the same name Also datatype properties and object properties can not have the same name

Features and Rationale Extended Annotations – Axioms can be annotated – For example, SubClassOf( Annotation( rdfs:comment "Middle lobes of lungs are necessarily right lobes since left lungs do not have middle lobe.") :MiddleLobe :RightLobe ) Innovations – Top and Bottom properties – IRI: Internationalized Resource Identifier

Features and Rationale Inverse object properties: – some object property can be inverse of another property – For example, partOf and hasPart – ObjectInverseOf( :partOf ): this expression represents the inverse property of :part of – This makes writing ontologies easier by avoiding the need to name an inverse

Profiles Profiles are sublanguages of OWL 2 Profiles considered – Useful computational properties, e.g., reasoning complexity – Implementation possibilities, e.g., using RDBs There are three profiles – OWL 2 EL – OWL 2 QL – OWL 2 RL

OWL 2 EL The EL acronym reflects the profile’s basis in the EL family of description logics This logic is also called small description logic (DL) EL This logic allows for conjunction and existential restrictions It does not allow disjunction and universal restrictions It can capture the expressive power used by many large-scale ontologies, e.g., SNOMED CT

OWL 2 QL The QL acronym reflects its relation to the standard relational Query Language It does not allow existential and universal restrictions to a class expression or a data range These restrictions – enable a tight integration with RDBMSs, – reasoners can be implemented on top of standard relational databases Can answer complex queries (in particular, unions of conjunctive queries) over the instance level (ABox) of the DL knowledge base

OWL 2 RL The RL acronym reflects its relation to the Rule Languages OWL 2 RL is desgined to accommodate – OWL 2 applications that can trade the full expressivity of the language for efficiency – RDF(S) applications that need some added expressivity from OWL 2 Existential quantification to a class, union and disjoint union to class expressions are not allowed These restrictions – allow OWL 2 RL to be implemented using rule-based technologies such as rule extended DBMSs

Profiles Profile selection depends on – Expressivenss required by the application – Priority given to reasoning on classes or data – Size of the datasets

References  OWL Overview (2004). W3C Recommendation.  OWL 2 New Features and Rationale (2009). W3C Recommendation.  F. Giunchiglia, F. Farazi, L. Tanca, and R. D. Virgilio. The semantic web languages. In Semantic Web Information management, a model based perspective. Roberto de Virgilio, Fausto Giunchiglia, Letizia Tanca (Eds.), Springer,  D. Allemang and J. Hendler. Semantic web for the working ontologist: modeling in RDF, RDFS and OWL. Morgan Kaufmann Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL, 2008.