OWL Briefing Frank van Harmelen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Semantic Web What? Why? How? So far? Next? Frank van Harmelen AI Department Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Creative Commons License: allowed.
Advertisements

Ontologies and Databases Ian Horrocks Information Systems Group Oxford University Computing Laboratory.
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
RDF and XML tutorial. 2 Talk Overview Semantic Web XML RDF DAML + OIL ( Time permitting)
CS570 Artificial Intelligence Semantic Web & Ontology 2
SIG2: Ontology Language Standards WebOnt Briefing Ian Horrocks University of Manchester, UK.
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.
1 Ontology Language Comparisons doug foxvog 16 September 2004.
Chapter 8: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes, Agents – Munindar P. Singh and Michael N. Huhns, Wiley, 2005.
1 Semantic Web Technologies: The foundation for future enterprise systems Okech Odhiambo Knowledge Systems Research Group Strathmore University.
RDF Briefing Frank van Harmelen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
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.
Ontology and Ontology-Based Applications C. Farkas Some of the slides were obtained from presentations of Ian Horrocks.
The Semantic Web – WEEK 5: RDF Schema + Ontologies The “Layer Cake” Model – [From Rector & Horrocks Semantic Web cuurse]
COMP 6703 eScience Project Semantic Web for Museums Student : Lei Junran Client/Technical Supervisor : Tom Worthington Academic Supervisor : Peter Strazdins.
The Semantic Web: New-style data-integration (and how it works for life-scientists too!) Frank van Harmelen AI Department Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
The Semantic Web Week 12 Term 1 Recap Lee McCluskey, room 2/07 Department of Computing And Mathematical Sciences Module Website:
From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The Making of a Web Ontology Language
OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D. L. McGuinness, P. F. Patel-Schneider Presenter: Cristina.
A Really Brief Crash Course in Semantic Web Technologies Rocky Dunlap Spencer Rugaber Georgia Tech.
Nancy Ide Vassar College USA Resource Definition Framework A Tutorial EUROLAN 2003 July 28 - August 8 Bucharest - Romania.
Aidministrator nederland b.v. Adding formal semantics to the Web Jeen Broekstra, Michel Klein, Stefan Decker, Dieter Fensel,
Applying Semantics in SOA – OWL, WSDL-S. 指導教授:吳秀陽 報告人:陳建博 學號:
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
© Copyright 2008 STI INNSBRUCK OWL: The Web Ontology Language Semantic Web Lecture Lecture VII – xx 2009 Dieter.
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
Dept. Computer Science, Korea Univ. Intelligent Information System Lab. 1 Sohn Jong-Soo Intelligent Information System lab. Department of Computer Science.
RDF and OWL Developing Semantic Web Services by H. Peter Alesso and Craig F. Smith CMPT 455/826 - Week 6, Day Sept-Dec 2009 – w6d21.
ΤΜΗΜΑ ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΚΗΣ, ΑΠΘ ΜΕΤΑΠΤΥΧΙΑΚΟ ΠΡΟΓΡΑΜΜΑ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ Κατεύθυνση Πληροφοριακών Συστημάτων - 1ο Εξάμηνο Σημασιολογικός Ιστός lpis.csd.auth.gr/mtpx/sw/index.htm.
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.
OIL ontology inference and interchange. On-To-Knowledge2 Topics for this presentation OIL as a common core language (4) aspects of OIL (5) OIL on the.
Michael Eckert1CS590SW: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Web Ontology Language (OWL) CS590SW: Semantic Web (Winter Quarter 2003) Presentation: Michael Eckert.
Ontology & OWL Semantic Web - Fall 2005 Computer Engineering Department Sharif University of Technology.
Umi Laili Yuhana December, Context Aware Group - Intelligent Agent Laboratory Computer Science and Information Engineering National Taiwan University.
Semantic Web - an introduction By Daniel Wu (danielwujr)
Advanced topics in software engineering (Semantic web)
RQL: RDF Query language Jianguo Lu University of Windsor The following slides are from Grigoris Antoniou, Frank van Harmelen, “A Semantic Web Primer”
1 Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute Centre for Intelligent Systems and their Applications Stuart Aitken Artificial Intelligence Applications.
Artificial Intelligence 2004 Ontology
DAML+OIL: an Ontology Language for the Semantic Web.
Semantic Web Ontologies CS 431 – Carl Lagoze – Cornell University Acknowledgements: Alun Preece.
OilEd An Introduction to OilEd Sean Bechhofer. Topics we will discuss Basic OilEd use –Defining Classes, Properties and Individuals in an Ontology –This.
Organization of the Lab Three meetings:  today: general introduction, first steps in Protégé OWL  November 19: second part of tutorial  December 3:
OWL & Protege Introduction Dongfang Xu Ph.D student, School of Information, University of Arizona Sept 10, 2015.
The Semantic Web Riccardo Rosati Dottorato in Ingegneria Informatica Sapienza Università di Roma a.a. 2006/07.
Representing Data with XML February 26, 2004 Neal Arthorne.
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.
CS621 : Artificial Intelligence Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay Lecture 12 RDF, OWL, Minimax.
The Semantic Web and Ontology. The Semantic Web WWW: –syntactic transmission of information –only processible by human – no semantic conservation of the.
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 Web Ontology Language Summary IHan HSIAO (Sharon)
Ccs.  Ontologies are used to capture knowledge about some domain of interest. ◦ An ontology describes the concepts in the domain and also the relationships.
Ontology 101 PHIN Ontology Workshop August Ontology 101 Agenda What is (an) Ontology? What do we mean when we use the word? The main types of Ontologies.
OWL (Ontology Web Language and Applications) Maw-Sheng Horng Department of Mathematics and Information Education National Taipei University of Education.
Building Trustworthy Semantic Webs
Ontology.
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Ontology.
Ontologies and Databases
Presentation transcript:

OWL Briefing Frank van Harmelen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Shared content-vocabularies: Ontologies Formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualisation Abstract model of some domain Consensual knowledge concepts, properties, relations, functions machine processable

What’s inside an ontology? Classes + class-hierarchy instances slots/values inheritance (multiple? defaults?) restrictions on slots (type, cardinality) properties of slots (symm., trans., …) relations between classes (disjoint, covers) reasoning tasks: classification, subsumption

Stack of languages

XML: Surface syntax, no semantics XML Schema: Describes structure of XML documents RDF: Datamodel for “relations” between “things” RDF Schema: RDF Vocabulary Definition Language OWL: A more expressive Vocabulary Definition Language

Bluffer’s guide to RDF (1) Object ->Attribute-> Value triples objects are web-resources Value is again an Object: triples can be linked data-model = graph pers05 ISBN... Author-of pers05 ISBN... Author-of MIT ISBN... Publ- by Author-of Publ- by

Bluffer’s guide to RDF (2) Every identifier is a URL = world-wide unique naming! Has XML syntax Any statement can be an object graphs can be nested pers05 ISBN... Author-of NYT claims ISBN...

What does RDF Schema add? Defines vocabulary for RDF Organizes this vocabulary in a typed hierarchy Class, subClassOf, type Property, subPropertyOf domain, range Person SupervisorStudent subClassOf Marta type supervises domain range Frank type supervises

Things RDF(S) can’t do (in)equality enumeration boolean algebra Union, complement number restrictions Single-valued/multi-valued Optional/required values inverse, symmetric, transitive …

Use Cases for ontologies (from OWL requirements doc.) Web portal  ontology-based Multi-media collections  annotating, searching Corporate Website  knowledge management Documentation  engineering & design Agents & Services Ubiquitous computing  interoperability

Design Goals for OWL Shareable Changing over time Interoperability between ontologies Inconsisteny detection (requires a logic) Balancing expressivity and complexity Ease of use Compatible with existing standards Internationalisation

Requirements for OWL Ontologies are objects on the Web with their own meta-data, versioning, etc Ontologies are extendable They contain classes, properties, data-types, range/domain, individuals Equality (for classes, for individuals) Classes as instances Cardinality constraints XML syntax

Objectives for OWL + layered language + complex datatypes + digitial signatures ± decidability ± local unique names + layered language + complex datatypes + digitial signatures ± decidability ± local unique names – default values – closed world option – property chaining – arithmetic – string operations – partial imports – view definitions – procedural attachment – default values – closed world option – property chaining – arithmetic – string operations – partial imports – view definitions – procedural attachment

Layered language OWL Lite:  Classification hierarchy  Simple constraints OWL DL:  Maximal expressiveness  While maintaining tractability  Standard formalisation OWL Full:  Very high expressiveness  Loosing tractability  Non-standard formalisation  All syntactic freedom of RDF (self-modifying) Syntactic layering Semantic layering Syntactic layering Semantic layering Full DL Lite

Language Layers Full DL Lite OWL Full  Allow meta-classes etc OWL DL  Negation  Disjunction  Full Cardinality  Enumerated types OWL Light  (sub)classes, individuals  (sub)properties, domain, range  conjunction  (in)equality  cardinality 0/1  datatypes  inverse, transitive, symmetric  hasValue  someValuesFrom  allValuesFrom RDF Schema

Language Layers: Full No restriction on use of vocabulary (as long as legal RDF) Classes as instances (and much more) RDF style model theory Reasoning using FOL engines via axiomatisation Semantics should correspond with OWL DL for suitably restricted KBs Full

Language Layers: DL DL Use of OWL vocabulary restricted Can’t be used to do “nasty things” (I.e., modify OWL) No classes as instances Defined by abstract syntax Standard FOL model theory (definitive) Direct correspondence with FOL Reasoning via DL engines Reasoning for full language via FOL engines No need for axiomatisation (unlike full) Would need built in datatypes for performance

Language Layers: Lite No explicit negation or union Restricted cardinality (0/1) No nominals (oneOf) Semantics as in DL Reasoning via DL engines (+datatypes) E.g., FaCT, RACER, Cerebra Lite

OWL: constructors + XML Schema datatypes: int, string, real, etc

OWL: Axioms

Different syntaxes RDF Official exchange syntax Hard for humans UML Large user base Masahiro Hori, IBM Japan XML Not the RDF syntax Better for humans Masahiro Hori, IBM Japan “Abstract” syntax Human readable/writeable

Things OWL doesn’t do – default values – closed world option – property chaining – arithmetic – string operations – partial imports – view definitions – procedural attachment – default values – closed world option – property chaining – arithmetic – string operations – partial imports – view definitions – procedural attachment

Illustrating OWL in its abstract syntax

Class(professor partial) Class(associateProfessor partial academicStaffMember) DisjointClasses(associateProfessor assistantProfessor) DisjointClasses(professor associateProfessor) Class(faculty complete academicStaffMember) Class(professor partial) Class(associateProfessor partial academicStaffMember) DisjointClasses(associateProfessor assistantProfessor) DisjointClasses(professor associateProfessor) Class(faculty complete academicStaffMember)

DatatypeProperty(age range(xsd:nonNegativeInteger)) ObjectProperty(lecturesIn) ObjectProperty(isTaughtBy domain(course) range(academicStaffMember)) SubPropertyOf(isTaughtBy involves) ObjectProperty(teaches inverseOf(isTaughtBy) domain(academicStaffMember) range(course)) EquivalentProperties(lecturesIn teaches) ObjectProperty(hasSameGradeAs Transitive Symmetric domain(student) range(student)) DatatypeProperty(age range(xsd:nonNegativeInteger)) ObjectProperty(lecturesIn) ObjectProperty(isTaughtBy domain(course) range(academicStaffMember)) SubPropertyOf(isTaughtBy involves) ObjectProperty(teaches inverseOf(isTaughtBy) domain(academicStaffMember) range(course)) EquivalentProperties(lecturesIn teaches) ObjectProperty(hasSameGradeAs Transitive Symmetric domain(student) range(student))

Individual( type(lecturer)) Individual( type(academicStaffMember) value(age "39"^^&xsd;integer)) ObjectProperty(isTaughtBy Functional) Individual(CIT1111 type(course) value(isTaughtBy ) value(isTaughtBy )) DifferentIndividuals( ) DifferentIndividuals( ) Individual( type(lecturer)) Individual( type(academicStaffMember) value(age "39"^^&xsd;integer)) ObjectProperty(isTaughtBy Functional) Individual(CIT1111 type(course) value(isTaughtBy ) value(isTaughtBy )) DifferentIndividuals( ) DifferentIndividuals( )

Class(firstYearCourse partial restriction(isTaughtBy allValuesFrom (Professor))) Class(mathCourse partial restriction(isTaughtBy hasValue (949352))) Class(academicStaffMember partial restriction(teaches someValuesFrom (undergraduateCourse))) Class(course partial restriction(isTaughtBy minCardinality(1))) Class(department partial restriction(hasMember minCardinality(10)) restriction(hasMember maxCardinality(30))) Class(firstYearCourse partial restriction(isTaughtBy allValuesFrom (Professor))) Class(mathCourse partial restriction(isTaughtBy hasValue (949352))) Class(academicStaffMember partial restriction(teaches someValuesFrom (undergraduateCourse))) Class(course partial restriction(isTaughtBy minCardinality(1))) Class(department partial restriction(hasMember minCardinality(10)) restriction(hasMember maxCardinality(30)))

Class(course partial complementOf(staffMember)) Class(peopleAtUni complete unionOf(staffMember student)) Class(facultyInCS complete intersectionOf(faculty restriction(belongsTo hasValue (CSDepartment)))) Class(adminStaff complete intersectionOf(staffMember complementOf(unionOf(faculty techSupportStaff)))) Class(course partial complementOf(staffMember)) Class(peopleAtUni complete unionOf(staffMember student)) Class(facultyInCS complete intersectionOf(faculty restriction(belongsTo hasValue (CSDepartment)))) Class(adminStaff complete intersectionOf(staffMember complementOf(unionOf(faculty techSupportStaff))))

EnumeratedClass(weekdays Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday) EnumeratedClass(weekdays Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday)