Reconstructing Ontologies from Fragments Derek Sleeman, Sik Chun (Joey) Lam, Wamberto Vasconcelos 2 Oct 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ROWLBAC – Representing Role Based Access Control in OWL
Advertisements

Solving inconsistent ontologies with heuristics Joey Lam, Derek Sleeman, Wamberto Vasconcelos 23 Jan 2006.
Hash Tables CS 310 – Professor Roch Weiss Chapter 20 All figures marked with a chapter and section number are copyrighted © 2006 by Pearson Addison-Wesley.
The 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE2008) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
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
Chronos: A Tool for Handling Temporal Ontologies in Protégé
Ch2 Data Preprocessing part3 Dr. Bernard Chen Ph.D. University of Central Arkansas Fall 2009.
Ontological Logic Programming by Murat Sensoy, Geeth de Mel, Wamberto Vasconcelos and Timothy J. Norman Computing Science, University of Aberdeen, UK 1.
Evolution in OWL 2 QL & OWL 2 EL Ontologies Dmitriy Zheleznyakov 28 th of January, 2014, Oslo.
Based on “A Practical Introduction to Ontologies & OWL” © 2005, The University of Manchester A Practical Introduction to Ontologies & OWL Session 3: Additional.
Of 27 lecture 7: owl - introduction. of 27 ece 627, winter ‘132 OWL a glimpse OWL – Web Ontology Language describes classes, properties and relations.
CPSC 322, Lecture 5Slide 1 Uninformed Search Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 5 (Textbook Chpt 3.4) January, 14, 2009.
UMBC an Honors University in Maryland 1 Uncertainty in Ontology Mapping: Uncertainty in Ontology Mapping: A Bayesian Perspective Yun Peng, Zhongli Ding,
Basics of Knowledge Management ICOM5047 – Design Project in Computer Engineering ECE Department J. Fernando Vega Riveros, Ph.D.
Protégé Classes, Properties and Instances Susana R. de Novoa UNIK4710.
An Approach to Evaluate Data Trustworthiness Based on Data Provenance Department of Computer Science Purdue University.
USC Graduate Student DayColumbia, SCMarch 2006 Presented by: Jingshan Huang Computer Science & Engineering Department University of South Carolina PhD.
Ameet N Chitnis, Abir Qasem and Jeff Heflin 11 November 2007.
The Semantic Web – WEEK 11: Description Logic + OWL Featuring..MAD COWS.
Visual Web Information Extraction With Lixto Robert Baumgartner Sergio Flesca Georg Gottlob.
24/1/20081 Architecture of multiple databases integration.
Research Problems in Semantic Web Search Varish Mulwad ____________________________ 1.
PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment Natalya F. Noy and Mark A. Musen.
Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park 1 Sharath Srinivas - CMSC 818Z, Spring 2007 Semantic Web and Knowledge Representation.
Major Tasks in Data Preprocessing(Ref Chap 3) By Prof. Muhammad Amir Alam.
1 Consistency Checking of Semantic Web Ontologies Kenneth Baclawski, Northeastern U. & VIS Mieczyslaw M. Kokar, Northeastern U. & VIS Richard Waldinger,
Managing Large RDF Graphs (Infinite Graph) Vaibhav Khadilkar Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Dallas FEARLESS engineering.
In The Name Of God. Jhaleh Narimisaei By Guide: Dr. Shadgar Implementation of Web Ontology and Semantic Application for Electronic Journal Citation System.
An Introduction to Description Logics. What Are Description Logics? A family of logic based Knowledge Representation formalisms –Descendants of semantic.
Protege OWL Plugin Short Tutorial. OWL Usage The world wide web is a natural application area of ontologies, because ontologies could be used to describe.
Pat Hayes Thomas C Eskridge Raul Saavedra Thomas ReichherzerMala Mehrotra Dmitri Bobrovnikoff Collaborative Knowledge Capture In Ontologies.
UOS 1 Ontology Based Personalized Search Zhang Tao The University of Seoul.
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.
Querying Structured Text in an XML Database By Xuemei Luo.
Segmentation support in Slicer Csaba Pinter Laboratory for Percutaneous Surgery, Queen’s University, Canada.
ISURF -An Interoperability Service Utility for Collaborative Supply Chain Planning across Multiple Domains Prof. Dr. Asuman Dogac METU-SRDC Turkey METU.
Network Ontology Ramesh Subbaraman Soumya Sen UPENN, TCOM 799.
CoFM: An Environment for Collaborative Feature Modeling Li Yi Institute of Software, School of EECS, Peking University Key Laboratory of High Confidence.
Ontology Evolution and Regression Analysis Insights into Ontology Regression Testing Maria Copeland Rafael Goncalvez Robert Stevens Bijan Parsia Uli Sattler.
BioHealth Informatics Group A Practical Introduction to Ontologies & OWL Session 2: Defined Classes and Additional Modelling Constructs in OWL Nick Drummond.
An Introduction to Description Logics (chapter 2 of DLHB)
Coastal Atlas Interoperability - Ontologies (Advanced topics that we did not get to in detail) Luis Bermudez Stephanie Watson Marine Metadata Interoperability.
Based on “A Practical Introduction to Ontologies & OWL” © 2005, The University of Manchester A Practical Introduction to Ontologies & OWL Session 2: Defined.
OilEd An Introduction to OilEd Sean Bechhofer. Topics we will discuss Basic OilEd use –Defining Classes, Properties and Individuals in an Ontology –This.
© University of Manchester Simplifying OWL Learning lessons from Anaesthesia Nick Drummond BioHealth Informatics Group.
Extensible Ontological Modeling Framework for Subject Mediation L. A. Kalinichenko, N. A. Skvortsov Institute for Problems of Informatics, RAS
Ontology Engineering Lab #3 – September 16, 2013.
The Semantic Web Riccardo Rosati Dottorato in Ingegneria Informatica Sapienza Università di Roma a.a. 2006/07.
ONTOLOGY ENGINEERING Lab #3 – September 15,
A Bayesian Perspective to Semantic Web – Uncertainty modeling in OWL Jyotishman Pathak 04/28/2005.
Description Logics Dr. Alexandra I. Cristea. Description Logics Description Logics allow formal concept definitions that can be reasoned about to be expressed.
1 Reasoning with Infinite stable models Piero A. Bonatti presented by Axel Polleres (IJCAI 2001,
Chapter Eight Expanding Our Horizons Ku-Yaw Chang Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering.
1 Ontology Evolution within Ontology Editors Presentation at EKAW, Sigüenza, October 2002 L. Stojanovic, B. Motik FZI Research Center for Information Technologies.
BioHealth Informatics Group Copyright © 2005, The University of Manchester1 A Practical Introduction to Ontologies & OWL Additional Exercises: Common Errors.
Of 29 lecture 15: description logic - introduction.
Semantic Interoperability in GIS N. L. Sarda Suman Somavarapu.
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST WP4: Ontology Engineering Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Michel Klein Vrije Universiteit.
1 Letting the classifier check your intuitions Existentials, Universals, & other logical variants Some, Only, Not, And, Or, etc. Lab exercise - 3b Alan.
Studio modeling basics
Building Trustworthy Semantic Webs
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Lab exercise - 3a Alan Rector & colleagues
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
OWL and Inference: Practical examples Sean Bechhofer
Session 1: Primitive Classes Nick Drummond
Test-Driven Ontology Development in Protégé
Ontology Editors.
University of Manchester
Presentation transcript:

Reconstructing Ontologies from Fragments Derek Sleeman, Sik Chun (Joey) Lam, Wamberto Vasconcelos 2 Oct 2005

Overview Motivations Overview of Architecture (In)consistency Issues Experimental Plan Future Work

Motivations Reusing Ontologies Existing ontologies often cannot be read by ontology editors because they are deemed to be inconsistent: E.g., contain errors such as circularity Integrating Ontologies How to integrate / merge two or more standalone ontologies

Current ontology editors Results of IMPORTING an ontology containing a circularity error SWOOPProtégé-OWLOilEdWebODE Detected StatusA, B and C are displayed as equivalence Displays infinite loops between A, B and C Displays an error messages; importing is aborted Same as OilEd A is-a B C

Overview of Architecture (1) Subsumption relationship heuristics Possible is-a relationships in fragments Reasoner O1O1 O2O2 OnOn … O1O1 O2O2 Ontology fragments Use heuristics to choose 2 ontology fragments O2O2 O 2 O 1 O1O1

Overview of Architecture (2) Consistent? Yes No O2O2 O 2 O 1 O1O1 O2O2 O 2 O 1 O1O1 the least bad sub-ontology the best sub-ontology O 1 O 2 O 1 O 2 Removal Inconsistency Heuristics O 1 O 2

Experimental Plan Run experiments where knowledge engineers are asked to reconstruct an ontology from fragments, and remove resulting inconsistencies Three aspects of ontologies will be focused on: Topological Properties Structure of concepts Removal of inconsistencies

Experiment (Topological properties) The topological properties are important when searching for the best concept to integrate with. The average length of paths (deep or shallow hierarchies). The average number of siblings (broad or compact hierarchies)

Experiment (Structure of Concepts) A range of strategies for comparing two nodes for a concept/sub-concept relationship Features of Concepts (in RDFS) Quantification Restrictions (in OWL) Cardinality Restrictions (in OWL) Conjunction, Disjunction, Negation (in OWL)

Compatible concepts/sub-concepts Node A can be added to node B as a sub-concept if it is more specific (so additional features can be introduced). {Also node A needs to be similar to its planned siblings.} Suppose Node B is {publication-number integer; Volume integer; has-parts B5} Compatible sub-concepts would be: {publication-number 2005; Volume integer; has-parts B5} {publication-number integer; Volume 999; has-parts B5} {publication-number 2005; Volume 999; has-parts B5; has-author: Simon} Incompatible sub-concepts would be: {publication-number 2005A; Volume integer; has-parts B5} {publication-number integer; Volume integer; has-parts B6}

Compatible concepts/sub-concepts Additional comments In general there will be a number of places where nodes (& fragments) could be placed Are there efficient strategies for finding these? If a user is insistent that a node must be a sub- concept, despite apparent inconsistencies then this probably means that the specifications of either, or perhaps both, the nodes are wrong & need revision.

Experiment (Removal of inconsistencies) Inconsistencies occur when fragments are integrated; we plan to use a reasoner to detect these inconsistencies. In this experiment, inconsistent concept(s) in the ontology are highlighted, & the subject is asked how to resolve the inconsistency cardinality restrictions quantification restrictions NB Manchesters studies on explanations of inconsistencies in ontologies

Removal inconsistencies (1) Cardinality Restrictions In the following case, Male and Female are disjoint, and HappyParent is inconsistent, the subject is asked how to resolve this inconsistency. Parent OneChildParent Tired Parent MaleFemale HappyParent Human hasChild 5 1 1

Removal inconsistencies (2) Quantification Restrictions In the following case, Cow is Vegetarian which does not eat part of Animal, but its subclass Mad_Cow eats part of Animal. The subject is asked how to deal with this Vegetarian Cow Mad_Cow Animal Sheep eats part_of eats Brain

Future Work: an Extension Here we plan to handle multiple fragments Example: Ordering of integration now becomes an issue (Needs a more sophisticated algorithm & heuristics.) O1O1 O2O2 O3O3 is-a O1O1 O2O2 O3O3

Comments / Questions?

(In)Consistency Issues Applying heuristics to select fragments to integrate: All are consistent Choose the best option Some are consistent; some are inconsistent Choose the best option All are inconsistent Choose the least bad option O2O2 O 2 O 1 O1O1 the least bad sub-ontology O 1 O 2 O2O2 O 1 O1O1 the best sub-ontology O 1 O 2