1 Foundations of the Semantic Web: Ontology Engineering Building Ontologies 1 Alan Rector & colleagues.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
KR-2002 Panel/Debate Are Upper-Level Ontologies worth the effort? Chris Welty, IBM Research.
Advertisements

Brief History of Knowledge Representation, Description Logics and OWL OpenGALEN BioHealth Informatics Group © University of Manchester.
An Overview of Ontologies and their Practical Applications Gianluca Correndo
Chapter 6: Modeling and Representation Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes, Agents – Munindar P. Singh and Michael N. Huhns, Wiley, 2005.
CS570 Artificial Intelligence Semantic Web & Ontology 2
IPY and Semantics Siri Jodha S. Khalsa Paul Cooper Peter Pulsifer Paul Overduin Eugeny Vyazilov Heather lane.
So What Does it All Mean? Geospatial Semantics and Ontologies Dr Kristin Stock.
Of 27 lecture 7: owl - introduction. of 27 ece 627, winter ‘132 OWL a glimpse OWL – Web Ontology Language describes classes, properties and relations.
Using the Semantic Web to Construct an Ontology- Based Repository for Software Patterns Scott Henninger Computer Science and Engineering University of.
Who am I Gianluca Correndo PhD student (end of PhD) Work in the group of medical informatics (Paolo Terenziani) PhD thesis on contextualization techniques.
Chapter 8: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes, Agents – Munindar P. Singh and Michael N. Huhns, Wiley, 2005.
The Semantic Web Week 13 Module Website: Lecture: Knowledge Acquisition / Engineering Practical: Getting to know.
COMP 6703 eScience Project Semantic Web for Museums Student : Lei Junran Client/Technical Supervisor : Tom Worthington Academic Supervisor : Peter Strazdins.
The Semantic Web Week 1 Module Content + Assessment Lee McCluskey, room 2/07 Department of Computing And Mathematical Sciences Module.
The Semantic Web Week 12 Term 1 Recap Lee McCluskey, room 2/07 Department of Computing And Mathematical Sciences Module Website:
Biological Ontologies Neocles Leontis April 20, 2005.
From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The Making of a Web Ontology Language
Foundations This chapter lays down the fundamental ideas and choices on which our approach is based. First, it identifies the needs of architects in the.
OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D. L. McGuinness, P. F. Patel-Schneider Presenter: Cristina.
Semantic Web Technologies Lecture # 2 Faculty of Computer Science, IBA.
Basic Concepts The Unified Modeling Language (UML) SYSC System Analysis and Design.
FRE 2672 Urban Ontologies : the Towntology prototype towards case studies Chantal BERDIER (EDU), Catherine ROUSSEY (LIRIS)
Knowledge Representation Ontology are best delivered in some computable representation Variety of choices with different: –Expressiveness The range of.
1 Foundations of the Semantic Web: Ontology Engineering Building Ontologies 1 Alan Rector & colleagues.
Knowledge representation
Of 39 lecture 2: ontology - basics. of 39 ontology a branch of metaphysics relating to the nature and relations of being a particular theory about the.
BioHealth Informatics Group Advanced OWL Tutorial 2005 Ontology Engineering in OWL Alan Rector & Jeremy Rogers BioHealth Informatics Group.
School of Computing FACULTY OF ENGINEERING Developing a methodology for building small scale domain ontologies: HISO case study Ilaria Corda PhD student.
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.
Manchester Medical Informatics Group OpenGALEN 1 Linking Formal Ontologies: Scale, Granularity and Context Alan Rector Medical Informatics Group, University.
BioHealth Informatics Group Ontology Tutorial, © 2005 Univ. of Manchester1 Informal Modelling Robert Stevens.
Metadata. Generally speaking, metadata are data and information that describe and model data and information For example, a database schema is the metadata.
LOGIC AND ONTOLOGY Both logic and ontology are important areas of philosophy covering large, diverse, and active research projects. These two areas overlap.
1 Introduction to Software Engineering Lecture 1.
Semantic Web - an introduction By Daniel Wu (danielwujr)
Knowledge Representation of Statistic Domain For CBR Application Supervisor : Dr. Aslina Saad Dr. Mashitoh Hashim PM Dr. Nor Hasbiah Ubaidullah.
Semantics: A Many-Splendored Thing Amicalola Lodge 3-5 April 2002 Mike Uschold Mathematics and Computing Technology Boeing Phantom Works.
Using Several Ontologies for Describing Audio-Visual Documents: A Case Study in the Medical Domain Sunday 29 th of May, 2005 Antoine Isaac 1 & Raphaël.
EEL 5937 Ontologies EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lecture 5, Jan 23 th, 2003 Lotzi Bölöni.
Ontology-Based Computing Kenneth Baclawski Northeastern University and Jarg.
SKOS. Ontologies Metadata –Resources marked-up with descriptions of their content. No good unless everyone speaks the same language; Terminologies –Provide.
Artificial Intelligence 2004 Ontology
Organization of the Lab Three meetings:  today: general introduction, first steps in Protégé OWL  November 19: second part of tutorial  December 3:
2nd Sept 2004UK e-Science all hands meeting1 Designing User Interfaces to Minimise Common Errors in Ontology Development Alan Rector, Nick Drummond, Matthew.
Working with Ontologies Introduction to DOGMA and related research.
Knowledge Representation. Keywordsquick way for agents to locate potentially useful information Thesaurimore structured approach than keywords, arranging.
Presented by: Yuhana 12/17/2007 Context Aware Group - Intelligent Agent Laboratory Computer Science and Information Engineering National Taiwan University.
CS621 : Artificial Intelligence Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay Lecture 12 RDF, OWL, Minimax.
1 Foundations of the Semantic Web: Ontology Engineering Building Ontologies 1b Classes and Instances Concepts & Individuals Alan Rector & colleagues Special.
EEL 5937 Ontologies EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lotzi Bölöni.
Approach to building ontologies A high-level view Chris Wroe.
Copy right 2004 Adam Pease permission to copy granted so long as slides and this notice are not altered Ontology Overview Introduction.
Ontologies for Terminologies, Knowledge Representation & Software: Benefits & Gaps (“Don’t make the tea”) (Only a part of Knowledge Representation) Alan.
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST Project Review Meeting, 11 th March, WP2: Tools Raphael Volz Universität.
OWL Web Ontology Language Summary IHan HSIAO (Sharon)
Ontology Technology applied to Catalogues Paul Kopp.
The Semantic Web: It’s not just for searching anymore! Bhaskar V Lecturer/CSE KLN College of Engineering Information Retrieval Semantic Web isa.
Introduction to Software Engineering 1. Software Engineering Failures – Complexity – Change 2. What is Software Engineering? – Using engineering approaches.
16 April 2011 Alan, Edison, etc, Saturday.. Knowledge, Planning and Robotics 1.Knowledge 2.Types of knowledge 3.Representation of knowledge 4.Planning.
Ontologies COMP6028 Semantic Web Technologies Dr Nicholas Gibbins
Semantic Web. P2 Introduction Information management facilities not keeping pace with the capacity of our information storage. –Information Overload –haphazardly.
Knowledge Representation Part I Ontology Jan Pettersen Nytun Knowledge Representation Part I, JPN, UiA1.
OWL (Ontology Web Language and Applications) Maw-Sheng Horng Department of Mathematics and Information Education National Taipei University of Education.
The Semantic Web By: Maulik Parikh.
COMP6215 Semantic Web Technologies
Object-Oriented Software Engineering Using UML, Patterns, and Java,
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Lecture #11: Ontology Engineering Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
CIS Monthly Seminar – Software Engineering and Knowledge Management IS Enterprise Modeling Ontologies Presenter : Dr. S. Vasanthapriyan Senior Lecturer.
Presentation transcript:

1 Foundations of the Semantic Web: Ontology Engineering Building Ontologies 1 Alan Rector & colleagues

2 Goals for this module: for you Be able to implement an ontology representation in OWL-DL –Be able to elicit a conceptualisation –Be able to formulate an ontology representation –Be able to implement the ontology representation in OWL-DL Or be able to say you can’t To understand the limits of OWL-DL ontologies –Be able to test the resulting ontology implementation –Be ready to apply ontology representations in any of several use cases In one week, we can’t build the applications… …but to build an ontology is only a means to building applications –Without applications ontologies are pointless

3 Goals for this Module: For us Still experimental – we need your feedback Feedback On tools – we treat this as a User Centred Design experiment Please be patient The good news is they are getting better On the course Did the content work for you? What other content would you like? Balance of labs and lecture Content of labs For the Semantic Web Best Practice Working Group New ideas

4 Mechanics - reminder Assessment –30% lab –30% Mini project –40% Exam All labs to be handed in by number electronically – see lab handout Deadline – 2 weeks after end of course

5 Ontologies and Ontology Representations “Ontology” – a word borrowed from philosophy –But we are necessarily building logical systems “Physical symbol systems” –Simon, H. A. (1969, 1981). The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press “Concepts” and “Ontologies”/ “conceptualisations” in their original sense are psychosocial phenomena –We don’t really understand them “Concept representations” and “Ontology representations” are engineering artefacts –At best approximations of our real concepts and conceptualisations (ontologies) And we don’t even quite understand what we are approximating

6 Ontologies and Ontology Representations (cont) Most of the time we will just say “concept” and “ontology” but whenever anybody starts getting religious, remember… –It is only a representation! We are doing engineering, not philosophy – although philosophy is an important guide There is no one way! –But there are consequences to different ways and there are wrong ways –and better or worse ways for a given purposes –The test of an engineering artefact is whether it is fit for purpose Ontology representations are engineering artefacts

7 What Is An Ontology? Ontology (Socrates & Aristotle BC) The study of being Word borrowed by computing for the explicit description of the conceptualisation of a domain: –concepts –properties and attributes of concepts –constraints on properties and attributes –Individuals (often, but not always) An ontology defines –a common vocabulary –a shared understanding

8 Measure the world…quantitative models (not ontologies) Quantitative –Numerical data: 2mm, 2.4V, between 4 and 5 feet –Unambiguous tokens –Main problem is accuracy at initial capture –Numerical analysis (e.g. statistics) well understood Examples: –How big is this breast lump? –What is the average age of patients with cancer ? –How much time elapsed between original referral and first appointment at the hospital ?

9 describe the our understanding of the world - ontologies Qualitative –Descriptive data Cold, colder, blueish, not pink, drunk –Ambiguous tokens What’s wrong with being drunk ? –Ask a glass of water. –Accuracy poorly defined –Automated analysis or aggregation is a new science Examples –Which animals are dangerous ? –What is their coat like? –What do animals eat ?

10 Light and Heavy expressivity Lightweight –Concepts, atomic types –Is-a hierarchy –Relationships between concepts Heavyweight –Metaclasses –Type constraints on relations –Cardinality constraints –Taxonomy of relations –Reified statements –Axioms –Semantic entailments –Expressiveness –Inference systems A matter of rigour and representational expressivity

11 So what is an ontology? Catalog/ ID Thesauri Terms/ glossary Informal Is-a Formal Is-a Formal instance Frames (properties) General Logical constraints Value restrictions Disjointness, Inverse, partof Gene Ontology Mouse Anatomy EcoCyc PharmGKB TAMBIS Arom [Deborah McGuinness, Stanford]

12 A semantic continuum [Mike Uschold, Boeing Corp] Shared human consensus Text descriptions Semantics hardwired; used at runtime Semantics processed and used at runtime Pump: “a device for moving a gas or liquid from one place or container to another” (pump has (superclasses (…)) ImplicitInformal (explicit) Formal (for humans) Formal (for machines) Further to the right means: Less ambiguity More likely to have correct functionality Better inter-operation Less hardwiring More robust to change More difficult

13 EcoCyc

14 A simple ontology: Animals Living Thing Grass Animal Plant Tree Body Part Arm Leg Person Cow Carnivore Herbivore eats has part

15 Logic-based Ontologies: Conceptual Lego: A BioInformatics View “ SNPolymorphism of CFTRGene causing Defect in MembraneTransport of ChlorideIon causing Increase in Viscosity of Mucus in CysticFibrosis …” “Hand which is anatomically normal”

16 Bridging Scales and context with Ontologies Genes Species Protein Function Disease Protein coded by gene in species Function of Protein coded by gene in species Disease caused by abnormality in Function of Protein coded by gene in species Gene in Species

17 Encrustation + involves: MitralValve Thing + feature: pathological Structure + feature: pathological + involves: Heart Logic Based Ontologies: A crash course Thing Structure HeartMitralValveEncrustation MitralValve * ALWAYS partOf: Heart Encrustation * ALWAYS feature: pathological Feature pathological red + (feature: pathological) red + partOf: Heart red + partOf: Heart PrimitivesDescriptionsDefinitionsReasoningValidating

18 Why Develop an Ontology? To share common understanding of the structure of descriptive information –among people –among software agents –between people and software To enable reuse of domain knowledge –to avoid “re-inventing the wheel” –to introduce standards to allow interoperability

19 Why build an ontology Interworking and information sharing –Providing a well organised controlled vocabulary Indexing complex information –“Knowledge is fractal” Ontologies are fractal –Self similar structure at every level of granularity (detail) Combat combinatorial explosions –The exploding bicycle “Conceptual Lego” –A “dictionary and grammar” instead of a “phrasebook”

20 Ontology Examples Taxonomies on the Web –Yahoo! categories Catalogs for on-line shopping –Amazon.com product catalog Dublin Core and other standards for the Web Domain independent examples –Ontoclean –Sumo

21 Upper Ontologies Ontology Schemas –High level abstractions to constrain construction e.g. There are “Objects” & “Processes” –Highly controversial Sumo, Dolce, Onions, GALEN, SBU,… –Needed when you work with many people together –NOT in this tutorial – a different tutorial

22 Domain Ontologies Concepts specific to a field –Diseases, animals, food, art work, languages, … –The place to start Understand ontologies from the bottom up –Or middle out Levels –Top domain ontologies – the starting points for the field Living Things, Geographic Region, Geographic_feature –Domain ontologies – the concepts in the field Cat, Country, Mountain –Instances – the things in the world Felix the cat, Japan, Mt Fuji

23 An Ontology should be just the Beginning Ontologies Software agents Problem- solving methods Domain- independent applications Domain- independent applications Databases Declare structure Knowledge bases Knowledge bases Provide domain description The “Semantic Web”

24 Ontology Technology “Ontology” covers a range of things –Controlled vocabularies – e.g. MeSH Linguistic structures – e.g. WordNet –Hierarchies (with bells and whistles) – e.g. Gene Ontology –Frame representations – e.g. FMA –Description logic formalisms – Snomed-CT, GALEN, OWL- DL based ontologies –Philosophically inspired e.g. Ontoclean and SUMO

25 OWL The Web Ontology Language W3C standard Collision of DAML (frames) and Oil (DLs in Frame clothing) Three ‘flavours’ –OWL-Lite –simple but limited –OWL-DL – complex but deliverable (real soon now) –OWL-Full – fully expressive but serious logical/computational problems Russel Paradox etc etc –All layered (awkwardly) on RDF Schema Still work in progress – see Semantic Web Best Practices & Deployment Working Group (SWBP)

26 Description Logics What the logicians made of Frames –Greater expressivity and semantic precision Compositional definitions –“Conceptual Lego” – define new concepts from old To allow automatic classification & consistency checking –The mathematics of classification is tricky Some seriously counter-intuitive results –The basics are simple – devil in the detail

27 Description Logics Underneath: –computationally tractable subsets of first order logic Describes relations between Concepts/Classes –Individuals secondary DL Ontologies are NOT databases!

28 Description Logics: A brief history Informal Semantic Networks and Frames (pre 1980) –Wood: What’s in a Link; Brachman What IS-A is and IS-A isn’t. First Formalisation (1980) –Bobrow KRL, Brachman: KL-ONE All useful systems are intractable (1983) –Brachman & Levesque: A fundamental tradeoff Hybrid systems: T-Box and A-Box All tractable systems are useless ( ) –Doyle and Patel: Two dogmas of Knowledge Representation

29 A brief history of KR ‘Maverick’ incomplete/intractable logic systems ( ) –GRAIL, LOOM, Cyc, Apelon, …, Practical knowledge management systems based on frames –Protégé The German School: Description Logics ( ) –Complete decidable algorithms using tableaux methods ( ) –Detailed catalogue of complexity of family – “alphabet soup of systems” Optimised systems for practical cases (1996-) Emergence of the Semantic Web –Development of DAML (frames), OIL (DLs)  DAML+OIL  OWL Development of Protégé-OWL A dynamic field – constant new developments & possibilities

30 And beware Ontologies are not databases! Ontologies are (mostly) about the classes – –Can be used to represent database aspects of schemas What must be true of any database consistent with the schema –The Terminology What must be true of any concept consistent with the ontology –The “T-Box” – for “terminology box” Limited functionality for individuals (‘instances’) –Primarily to help define classes The class of John’s shirts, The class of cities in Japan –To describe individuals use –A database –Triple representation (RDF or Topic Maps) –An instance store Perhaps with an ontology as the schema –Open world instead of closed world Individuals in ontologies (The “A-Box”) poorly understood and very high computational complexity

31 Approach Design patterns –Analogous to Java design patterns Standard ways to do things –Someday they will be supported by tools, but today you have to do it yourself –Being codified by Semantic Web Best Practice Working Group Elephant traps –Common errors & misconceptions Especially those that seem to work at first Foundations of knowledge representation –200 to 2000 years of experience & mistakes you need not repeat Common dilemmas & tradeoffs –Things for which we don’t have a perfect answer

32 Protégé OWL: New tools for ontologies Transatlantic collaboration Implement robust OWL environment within PROTÉGÉ framework –Version 4-A1pha - complete rewrite –You will be guinea pigs - and we will have human facts folk seeing what problems you have –New ideas for debugging, visualisation, ontology management, etc.

33 Protégé-OWL & CO-ODE Joint work: Stanford & U Manchester + Southampton & Epistemics –Please give us feedback on tools – mailing lists & forums at: protege.stanford.edu Don’t beat your head against a brick wall! –Look to see if others have had the same problem; If not… –ASK! We are all learning.

34 OWL-DL & Classification Not all of OWL-DL can yet be implemented –We will deal mostly with what can be classified using Racer or FaCT++ –Not all of the things that are implemented scale successfully All classifiers are worst-case exponential (or worse) FaCT++ –Classifier being developed here Dmitry Tsarkov/Ian Horrocks Pellet –Classifier from originally MindSwap (U Maryland) but now herewww.mindswap.org Bijan Parsia Best integrated with Protégé at the moment. We will try to provide warnings of things which cannot be classified or do not scale –But you may discover new things on your own

35 Example Ontologies for this Module Pizzas –For the mechanics of OWL and Protégé/OWL Simple – no ontological problems, just mechanics Animals for best practice examples and ontology building –The example for you to work from Also for examples of parts and wholes The University and courses –Your job is to build an ontology for the University by analogy to the examples with some specific help Leads on to major ontological issues Simple Upper Ontology –To put it together Mostly about the University

36 Building Ontologies Basic Concepts and Mechanics

37 Why it’s hard (1) Clash of intuitions –Subject Matter Experts motivated by custom & practice Prototypes & Generalities –Logicians motivated by logic & computational tractability Definitions and Universals Transparency & predictability vs Rigour & Completeness Neophytes (you?) caught in the muddled middle

38 Why it’s hard (2) Conflation of Models –Meaning: Correctness of Classification & retrieval –Indexing:Task of discovery, search, or finding –Use: Task of data entry, decision support, … –Acquisition: Task of capturing knowledge Assuring quality & managing change –Quality assurance: Criteria for whether it is ‘correct’ –Evolution Coping with change –Regression testingControlling changes & maintaining Quality

39 Why its hard (3) Confusion of terminology and usage –Religious wars over words and assumptions The intersection of –Linguistics –Cognitive science –Software engineering –Philosophy –Human Factors A jumble of syntaxes

40 Vocabulary “Class”  “Concept”  “Category”  “Type” “Instance”  “Individual” “Entity”  “object”, Class or individual “Property”  “Slot”  “Relation”  “Relationtype”  “Attribute”  Semantic link type”  “Role” –but be careful about “role” Means “property” in DL-speak Means “role played” in most ontologies –E.g. “doctor_role”, “student role” …

41 Syntaxes Three official syntaxes + Protégé-OWL syntax –Abstract syntax---Specific to OWL –N OWL & RDF -used in all SWBP documents –XML/RDF very verbose, not for human consumption –“German DL”-----very concise, symbolic –First order logic -- complete but more powerful than DL –Manchester Syntax----- Intuitive keywords and infix notation This tutorial uses simplified abstract syntax –someValuesFrom  some  –allValuesFrom  only  –intersectionOf  AND ⊓ –unionOf  OR ⊔ –complementOf  NOT¬ –completedefinitionnecessary & sufficient –partialdescriptionnecessary Protégé/OWL can generate all syntaxes except German

42 Why its hard (4) Clash with vocabulary and practice of related software disciplines Most OO analysis produces a set of templates –E.g. a Java Class is a template for a Java object Nothing is permitted until there is a place for it in the template OWL is a way of specifying constraints –The criteria for being a member of a class Everything is permitted until ruled out by a constraint

43 Clash with intuitions of related fields Object Oriented Programming –Java,a C++, Smalltalk, etc. But OO programming is not knowledge representation Object Oriented Design (Databases ) –But data models are not ontologies either Although UML is often a good starting point –Additional a-logical issues »Difference between attributes and relations »Issues of life cycle and handling of aggregation »Notion of an instance »Implicitly “closed world” Frame based systems, Semantic Nets,… Traditional AI –Where it all started but real differences RDF(S), Topic Maps and other node-and-arc symbolisms –“What’s in a link?” –The battles in standards committees continue

44 Summary of Approach Steps in developing an Ontology (1) 1.Establish the purpose –Without purpose, no scope, requirements, evaluation, 2.Informal/Semiformal knowledge elicitation –Collect the terms –Organise terms informally –Paraphrase and clarify terms to produce informal concept definitions –Diagram informally 3.Refine requirements & tests

45 Summary of Approach Steps in implementing an Ontology (2) 4.Implementation –Develop normalised schema and skeleton –Implement prototype recording the intention as a paraphrase Keep track of what you meant to do so you can compare with what happens –Implementing logic-based ontologies is programming –Scale up a bit Check performance –Populate Possibly with help of text mining and language technology 5.Evaluate & quality assure –Against –Include tests for evolution and change management –Design regression tests and “probews” 6.Monitor use and evolve –Process not product!

46 If this were three modules… 1.Knowledge elicitation and analysis –A quick overview 2.Implementation –A solid introduction 3.Evolution, ontology alignment, and management –Left for another module But a major motivation for the methods taught in this module –Normalisation and documentation of intentions

47 Plan of Labs Lab 1 – the mechanics of OWL in Protégé Owl –The pizza example Lab 2 – Ontology building the life cycle –A more realistic example –Start building the University example On the pattern of the lecture example of animals Lab 3 –Problems and tricks of the trade –DL problems (IH) Lab 4 –More on patterns and parts and whole Lab 5 –Upper ontologies and clarification of the mini project

48 More Reasons To make domain assumptions explicit –easier to change domain assumptions (consider a genetics knowledge base) –easier to understand and update legacy data To separate domain knowledge from the operational knowledge –re-use domain and operational knowledge separately (e.g., configuration based on constraints) To manage the combinatorial explosion