Introduction to Description Logic and Ontology Languages Jidi (Judy) Zhao May 23, 2015 CS6999 Presentation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hybrid Logics and Ontology Languages
Advertisements

Charting the Potential of Description Logic for the Generation of Referring Expression SELLC, Guangzhou, Dec Yuan Ren, Kees van Deemter and Jeff.
Description Logic Based Ontology Languages Ian Horrocks Information Systems Group Oxford University Computing Laboratory.
Query Answering based on Standard and Extended Modal Logic Evgeny Zolin The University of Manchester
CS848: Topics in Databases: Foundations of Query Optimization Topics covered  Introduction to description logic: Single column QL  The ALC family of.
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning using Description Logic Presenter Shamima Mithun.
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.
An Introduction to Description Logics
1 A Description Logic with Concrete Domains CS848 presentation Presenter: Yongjuan Zou.
Of 27 lecture 7: owl - introduction. of 27 ece 627, winter ‘132 OWL a glimpse OWL – Web Ontology Language describes classes, properties and relations.
Fuzzy DL, Fuzzy SWRL, Fuzzy Carin (report from visit to Athens) M.Vacura VŠE Praha (used materials by G.Stoilos, NTU Athens)
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester A Tableaux Decision Procedure for SHOIQ Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler University.
OWL: A Description Logic Based Ontology Language Ian Horrocks Information Management Group School of Computer Science University of Manchester.
Ontology and Ontology-Based Applications C. Farkas Some of the slides were obtained from presentations of Ian Horrocks.
Description Logics. Outline Knowledge Representation Knowledge Representation Ontology Language Ontology Language Description Logics Description Logics.
Semantic Web The Story So Far Ian Horrocks Oxford University Computing Laboratory.
DL systems DL and the Web Ilie Savga
Part 6: Description Logics. Languages for Ontologies In early days of Artificial Intelligence, ontologies were represented resorting to non-logic-based.
Basics of Reasoning in Description Logics
Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point? Oscar Corcho Mariano Fernandez-Lopez Asuncion Gomez-Perez Presenter:
FiRE Fuzzy Reasoning Engine Nikolaos Simou National Technical University of Athens.
DLs and Ontology Languages. ’s OWL (like OIL & DAML+OIL) based on a DL –OWL DL effectively a “Web-friendly” syntax for SHOIN i.e., ALC extended with transitive.
Description Logics Franz Baader, Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler Presented By Jahan Ara Arju Muhammad Nazmus Sakib CSCE
An Introduction to Description Logics. What Are Description Logics? A family of logic based Knowledge Representation formalisms –Descendants of semantic.
Tableau Algorithm.
Computing & Information Sciences Kansas State University Wednesday, 08 Oct 2008CIS 530 / 730: Artificial Intelligence Lecture 17 of 42 Wednesday, 08 October.
CSE-291: Ontologies in Data & Process Integration Department of Computer Science & Engineering University of California, San Diego CSE-291: Ontologies.
Notes on DL Reasoning Shawn Bowers April, 2004.
Ming Fang 6/12/2009. Outlines  Classical logics  Introduction to DL  Syntax of DL  Semantics of DL  KR in DL  Reasoning in DL  Applications.
Query Answering Based on the Modal Correspondence Theory Evgeny Zolin University of Manchester Manchester, UK
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation ClassL (part 3): Reasoning with an ABox 1.
Presented by:- Somya Gupta( ) Akshat Malu ( ) Swapnil Ghuge ( ) Franz Baader, Ian Horrocks, and Ulrike Sattler.
Topics in artificial intelligence 1/1 Dr hab. inż. Joanna Józefowska, prof. PP Reasoning and search techniques.
An Introduction to Description Logics (chapter 2 of DLHB)
Semantic web course – Computer Engineering Department – Sharif Univ. of Technology – Fall Description Logics: Logic foundation of Semantic Web Semantic.
Advanced topics in software engineering (Semantic web)
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Description Logics (ALC)
More on Description Logic(s) Frederick Maier. Note Added 10/27/03 So, there are a few errors that will be obvious to some: So, there are a few errors.
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:
1 Comparison and Combination of the Expressive Power of Description Logics and Logic Programs Jidi (Judy) Zhao December 7, 2015.
DL Overview Second Pass Ming Fang 06/19/2009. Outlines  Description Languages  Knowledge Representation in DL  Logical Inference in DL.
4-Nov-05 CS6795 Semantic Web Techniques 1 Description Logic – 2.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation ClassL (Propositional Description Logic with Individuals) 1.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation ClassL (part 2): Reasoning with a TBox 1.
Description Logics Dr. Alexandra I. Cristea. Description Logics Description Logics allow formal concept definitions that can be reasoned about to be expressed.
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Knowledge Repn. & Reasoning Lec #11+13: Frame Systems and Description Logics UIUC CS 498: Section EA Professor: Eyal Amir Fall Semester 2004.
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning University "Politehnica" of Bucharest Department of Computer Science Fall 2011 Adina Magda Florea
Of 29 lecture 15: description logic - introduction.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Description Logics: family of languages.
Ontology Technology applied to Catalogues Paul Kopp.
Knowledge Representation and Inference Dr Nicholas Gibbins 32/3019.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Description Logics.
OWL (Ontology Web Language and Applications) Maw-Sheng Horng Department of Mathematics and Information Education National Taipei University of Education.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Description Logics.
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Description Logics.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Description logics (book, page 456)
A Tutorial Summary of Description Logic and Hybrid Rules
CIS Monthly Seminar – Software Engineering and Knowledge Management IS Enterprise Modeling Ontologies Presenter : Dr. S. Vasanthapriyan Senior Lecturer.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Presentation transcript:

Introduction to Description Logic and Ontology Languages Jidi (Judy) Zhao May 23, 2015 CS6999 Presentation

Talk Outline Introduction to Ontologies Introduction to Description Logic (DL) Reasoning in DL Introduction to Ontology Languages: OWL Extensions of DL and Research Challenges 2

3 What is an ontology? Many definitions have been given: from Philosophy: “a systematic explanation of being” Neches gives some guidelines: “…defines the basic terms and relations including the vocabulary of a topic area as well as the rules for combining terms and relations to define extensions to the vocabulary.” Gruber, the most quoted: “…an explicit specification of a conceptualization” An ontology defines the concepts used to describe and represent an area of knowledge, as well as relations among them.

Types of Ontologies Top-level Ontologies The Standard Upper Ontology (SUO): 4

Types of Ontologies Top-level Ontologies The Standard Upper Ontology (SUO): WordNet: Sowa’s top-level ontology Cyc’s upper ontology Domain Ontologies E-commerce Medicine Engineering Enterprise Chemistry …. 5 Thing Living Nonliving

6 Methodologies for Ontology Engineering Building domain ontologies from huge ontologies (SENSUS, Cyc, AKT,…) OTK (On-To-Knowledge) Methodology Univ. of Karlsruhe Methontology Univ. Politecnica de Madrid

7 Methontology: A Methodology for Building Ontologies Methontology Ontology Development Process Life Cycle (Fernández-López et al., 1997;1999)

8 Tools for Ontology Engineering OilEd from University of Manchester Ontolingua from KSL (Stanford University) OntoSaurus from ISI (USA) OntoEdit from Karlsrhue Univ. Protégé from SMI (Stanford University) WebOnto from KMI (Open University) WebODE from UPM KAON from AIFB and FZI at the University of Karlsruhe

Talk Outline Introduction to Ontologies Introduction to Description Logic (DL) Reasoning in DL Introduction to Ontology Languages: OWL Extensions of DL and Research Challenges 9

Description Logic  Brachman and Levesque [1984] “ there is a tradeoff between the expressiveness of a representation language and the difficulty of reasoning over the representations built using that language ”.  The more expressive the language, the harder the reasoning.  Description Logics  overcome the ambiguities of early semantic networks and frames  first realized in the system KL-One [Brachman and Schmolze, 1985]  Well-studied and decidable (most DL languages)  Tight coupling between theory and practice

Architecture of a DL System  from DL HandbookDL Handbook

DL Basics Concepts (unary predicates/formulae with one free variable) E.g., Person, Female Roles (binary predicates/formulae with two free variables) E.g., hasChild Individuals (constants) E.g., Mary, John Constructors Union t, Intersection u Exists restriction 9 : 9 hasChild.Doctor Value restriction 8 : 8 hasChild.Doctor Complement /negation : : : Mother Number restriction ≥ n, ≤n Inverse role (-): isChildOf ≡ hasChild – transitive role (+): hasSister Role hierarchy : hasDaughter v hasChild Axioms Subsumption v : Mother v Parent Assertion: Mary: Mother, Mary hasChild John 12

What does 8 R.C and 9 R.C mean? hasPet AFido AFluffy BTabby CRover CFlip Dog Fido Rover Flip Cat Fluffy Tabby  A DogLover is someone whose pets are all dogs, in this case {C} DogLover = 8 hasPet.Dog {p | 8 a, (p, a) 2 hasPet ! a 2 Dog} Also writen more simply as {p | hasPet(p, a) ! Dog(a) }  A DogLiker is someone who owns a dog, in this case {A, C} DogLiker = 9 hasPet.Dog {p | hasPet(p, a) Æ Dog(a) } This slide is from Dr. Bruce Spencer ’ s slides (2007).

The DL Family Smallest propositionally closed DL is ALC Concepts constructed using boolean operators t, u, : plus restricted quantifiers 9, 8 Only atomic roles E.g., Person u 8 hasChild.(Doctor t 9 hasChild.Doctor) 14

The DL Family (cont.) S often used for ALC extended with transitive roles ( R + ) Additional letters indicate other extensions, e.g.: H for role hierarchy O for nominals (e.g., {Mary, John}) I for inverse roles N for number restrictions Q for qualified number restrictions (e.g., ≥ 2 hasChild.Doctor) R for limited complex role inclusion axioms, role disjointness ALC + transitive role ( R + )+role hierarchy ( H ) + O + I + Q = SHOIQ 15

DL Semantics Semantics given by standard FO model theory The vocabulary is the set of names (consist of concepts and roles ) we use in our model of (part of) the world {Daisy, Cow, Animal, Person, Car, drives, …} An interpretation I is a tuple (  I, I )  I is the domain (a set) I is a mapping that maps: Names of objects (individuals/constants) to elements of  I Names of unary predicates (classes/concepts) to subsets of  I Names of binary predicates (properties/roles) to subsets of  I ×  I 16

DL Semantics (adapted from Horrocks 2006) Interpretation domain  I Interpretation function I Individuals i I 2  I Mary John Concepts C I µ  I Teacher Student Car Roles R I µ  I ×  I hasChild owns (Teacher u Student) 17

A Knowledge Base (KB) = a Tbox + an Abox A TBox (terminology) is a set of inclusion axioms and equivalence axioms the vocabulary of an application domain e.g.: { Mother v Person, GrandMother ≡ Person u 9 hasChild.Parent } An ABox (Assertion) is a set of assertions about individuals about named individuals in terms of this vocabulary e.g.: {Mary: Mother, Anita hasChild Mary} DL Knowledge Bases 18

Talk Outline Introduction to Ontologies Introduction to Description Logic (DL) Reasoning in DL Introduction to Ontology Languages: OWL Extensions of DL and Research Challenges 19

Tableau Reasoning (1) Key reasoning tasks Satisfiability: asat( A ), whether the assertions in a KB have a model Instance checking: C(a)? Concept satisfiability: C? Retrieval: retrieve a set of individuals that instantiate C Subsumption: B v A ? A subsumes B if every individual of concept B is also of concept A. Equivalence: A≡B?, B v A ? And A v B? Reasoning tasks reducible to KB (un)satisfiability: asat( A ) Instance checking: instance(a, C, A ), : asat ( A [ {a: : C}) Concept satisfiability: sat(C), asat( A [ {a:C}) Concept subsumption: C v D w.r.t. KB A, A [ { : D u C} is not satisfiable, : asat( A [ {a: : D u C}) Retrieval: check each individual in the Abox, reducible to instance checking DL systems typically use tableau algorithms to decide the satisfiability (consistency) of KB 20

CS6795 Semantic Web Techniques21 Tableau Reasoning (2) Tableau algorithms work by trying to construct a concrete example (model) consistent with KB. A KB A is satisfiable iff a fully expanded clash-free graph is constructed. Tableau reasoning contains a set of completion rules operating on constraint sets or tableau Clash: a clash is an obvious contradiction, e.g., A(x), : A(x) Proof procedure: start from assertions about individuals (ABox axioms) unfold the TBox so that atomic concepts only appear on the right side of axioms transform all concepts into negation normal form (i.e. negation only occurs in front of atomic concept names): : (C u D) ! : C t : D : 9 R.C ! 8 R. : C apply completion rules in arbitrary order as long as possible stops when a clash is found terminates if no completion rule is applicable A KB is satisfiable iff a clash-free tableau can be derived

completion rules Tableau Reasoning (3) 22

23 Tableau Reasoning (5): Concept Subsumption KB: Reasoning task: mother v woman ? Exercise: Is the concept : woman u mother satisfiable?

Tableau Reasoning (4): asat( A ) E.g., KB: { HappyParent≡Person u ∀ hasChild.(Doctor t 9 hasChild.Doctor), John:HappyParent, John hasChild Mary, Mary: : Doctor, Wendy hasChild Mary, Wendy marriedTo John} from Harrock, 2006 Person ∀ hasChild.(Doctor t ∃ hasChild.Doctor) 24

Tableau Reasoning (6) Some completion rules are nondeterministic (e.g., 9, ≤ ). Blocking Strategies are often needed to ensure termination. E.g., KB: {Person v 9 hasParent.Person, John:Person} 25

Tableau Reasoning (7) In general, (representation of) model consists of: Named individuals forming arbitrary directed graph Trees of anonymous individuals rooted in named individuals 26

Similar tableaux expansions can be designed for more expressive DL languages. A tableau algorithm has to meet three requirements: Soundness: if a complete and clash-free graph is found by the algorithm, we can construct a model. Completeness: Given a model, the algorithm can always find an complete and clash-free graph Termination: the algorithm can terminate in finite steps with specific result. Tableau Reasoning (8)

Software for DL Reasoning Pellet KAON2 CEL 28

Efficiency of Tableau Reasoning I can’t find an efficient algorithm, but neither can all these famous people. NP-Complete Cartoons,

Talk Outline Introduction to Ontologies Introduction to Description Logic (DL) Reasoning in DL Introduction to Ontology Languages: OWL Extensions of DL and Research Challenges 30

Traditional Ontology Languages Ontolingua and KIF LOOM OKBC F-logic Ontology Markup Languages SHOE RDF and RDF Schema OIL DAML+OIL OWL Ontology Languages 31

Semantic Web led to requirement for a “ web ontology language ” set up Web-Ontology (WebOnt) Working Group WebOnt developed OWL language OWL based on earlier languages OIL and DAML+OIL OWL now a W3C recommendation OIL, DAML+OIL and OWL based on Description Logic The Web Ontology Language OWL 32

OWL Three species of OWL OWL full is the union of OWL syntax and RDF OWL DL restricted to FOL fragment (is equivalent to SHOIN (D n ) DL) OWL Lite is an “easier to implement” subset of OWL DL OWL DL Benefits from many years of DL research Well defined semantics Formal properties well understood (complexity, decidability) Known reasoning algorithms Implemented systems (highly optimised) Adapted from ENC 2004 Tutorial by Peter F. Patel-Schneider 33

OWL RDF/XML Exchange Syntax E.g., Person u ∀ hasChild.(Doctor t ∃ hasChild.Doctor): 34

Class/Concept Constructors 35

Ontology Axioms OWL ontology equivalent to DL KB (Tbox + Abox) 36

Talk Outline Introduction to Ontologies Introduction to Description Logic (DL) Reasoning in DL Introduction to Ontology Languages: OWL Extensions of DL and Research Challenges 37

38 Extensions of DL Combinations of DL and Logic Programs (LP) Uncertainty extension of DL Concrete domain constraints Modal, epistemic, and temporal operators Open world vs. close world …..

39 Venn Diagram of DL, LP, and FOC

40 Motivation(1) DL cannot represent “more than one free variable at a time”. (1) A rule involving multiple variables. E.g., Man(?X) ∧ Woman(?Y) ! PotentialFriendshipBetween(?X,?Y). (2) Chaining to derive values of Properties. E.g., Father(?X,?Y) ∧ Father(?Y,?Z) ! Grandfather(?X,?Z). (not allowed in SHOIN ) Work(?X, ?Y) ∧ Live(?X, ?Z) ∧ Loc(?Y,?W) ∧ Loc(?Z,?W) ! HomeWorker(?X).

Motivation(2) Horn Logic cannot represent a (1) disjunction or (2) existential in the head. (1) State a subclass of a complex class expression which is a disjunction. E.g., (Human u Adult) v (Man t Woman) (2) State a subclass of a complex class expression which is an existential. E.g., Radio v 9 hasPart.Tuner 41

42 Different approaches 1.Approaches reducing description logics to logic programs A.DLP B.OWL 2 RL 2.Homogeneous approaches A.OWL Rules B.SWRL 3.Hybrid approaches accessing description logic through queries in logic programs A.AL-Log

Uncertainty extension of DL Handling uncertain knowledge is becoming a critical research direction for the (Semantic) Web. knowledge on the Web is often uncertain and imprecise. E.g., many concepts needed in business domain ontology modeling lack well-defined boundaries or, precisely defined criteria of relationship between concepts Domain modeling and Ontology reasoning Quantify degree of an individual belonging to a class Quantify degree of subsumption between a class and its subclasses Concept mapping between ontologies Quantify degree of alignment between classes of two ontologies 43

44 URW3 Situation Report: uncertainty ontology  URW3 44

Probability, Possibility and Fuzzy logic Probabilistic Description Logic: Statistical information e.g. John is a student with the probability 0.6 and a teacher with the probability 0.4 Fuzzy Description Logic: Express vagueness and imprecision e.g. John is tall with the degree of truth 0.9 Possibilistic Description Logic: Particular rankings and preferences e.g. John prefers an ice cream to a beer 45

Research Challenges Syntax and Semantics Decidability Reasoning algorithms for possible extensions Soundness and completeness Complexity/efficiency Effective methods for reasoning under uncertainty 46

Questions?