Ontology & OWL Semantic Web - Fall 2005 Computer Engineering Department Sharif University of Technology.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ontology-Based Computing Kenneth Baclawski Northeastern University and Jarg.
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
CS570 Artificial Intelligence Semantic Web & Ontology 2
Computer Engineering Department Sharif University of Technology
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.
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.
Xiang Zhang Feb 25 th, 2011 RDF, RDFS, OWL and the Semantic Web.
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.
COMP 6703 eScience Project Semantic Web for Museums Student : Lei Junran Client/Technical Supervisor : Tom Worthington Academic Supervisor : Peter Strazdins.
From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The Making of a Web Ontology Language
Semantic Web Technologies Lecture # 2 Faculty of Computer Science, IBA.
Aidministrator nederland b.v. Adding formal semantics to the Web Jeen Broekstra, Michel Klein, Stefan Decker, Dieter Fensel,
Knowledge Representation Ontology are best delivered in some computable representation Variety of choices with different: –Expressiveness The range of.
Chapter 6 Understanding Each Other CSE 431 – Intelligent Agents.
OWL: Web Ontology Language
1 MASWS Multi-Agent Semantic Web Systems: OWL Stephen Potter, CISA, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
The Semantic Web Service Shuying Wang Outline Semantic Web vision Core technologies XML, RDF, Ontology, Agent… Web services DAML-S.
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.
OWL and SDD Dave Thau University of Kansas
OWL Capturing Semantic Information using a Standard Web Ontology Language Aditya Kalyanpur Jennifer Jay Banerjee James Hendler Presented By Rami Al-Ghanmi.
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.
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.
SQL Databases are a Moving Target Juan F. Sequeda – Syed Hamid Tirmizi –
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.
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.
Semantic Web محمد احمدی نیا 2 Of 73 Outline  Why Semantic Web?  What is Semantic Web?  Semantic Web Main Technologies  XML 
Semantic Web - an introduction By Daniel Wu (danielwujr)
Advanced topics in software engineering (Semantic web)
Semantic web course – Computer Engineering Department – Sharif Univ. of Technology – Fall Knowledge Representation Semantic Web - Fall 2005 Computer.
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.
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.
OilEd An Introduction to OilEd Sean Bechhofer. Topics we will discuss Basic OilEd use –Defining Classes, Properties and Individuals in an Ontology –This.
OIL and DAML+OIL: Ontology Languages for the Semantic Web Sungshin Lim TOWARDS THE SEMANTIC WEB: Ontology-driven Knowledge.
Organization of the Lab Three meetings:  today: general introduction, first steps in Protégé OWL  November 19: second part of tutorial  December 3:
Metadata Common Vocabulary a journey from a glossary to an ontology of statistical metadata, and back Sérgio Bacelar
Of 33 lecture 1: introduction. of 33 the semantic web vision today’s web (1) web content – for human consumption (no structural information) people search.
The Semantic Web Riccardo Rosati Dottorato in Ingegneria Informatica Sapienza Università di Roma a.a. 2006/07.
Practical RDF Chapter 12. Ontologies: RDF Business Models Shelley Powers, O’Reilly SNU IDB Lab. Taikyoung Kim.
DS - Spring 2006 Ontology & Pervasive Computing 1 ONTOLOGY & PERVASIVE COMPUTING Elham Paikari Distributed Systems – Spring 2006 Computer Engineering Department.
CS621 : Artificial Intelligence Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay Lecture 12 RDF, OWL, Minimax.
The Semantic Web. What is the Semantic Web? The Semantic Web is an extension of the current Web in which information is given well-defined meaning, enabling.
A Portrait of the Semantic Web in Action Jeff Heflin and James Hendler IEEE Intelligent Systems December 6, 2010 Hyewon Lim.
W3C’s (world wide web consortium) Semantic Web: - RDF and metadata markup efforts to represent data in a machine understandable form. DARPA started 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)
Enable Semantic Interoperability for Decision Support and Risk Management Presented by Dr. David Li Key Contributors: Dr. Ruixin Yang and Dr. John Qu.
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.
Building Trustworthy Semantic Webs
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Semantic Web - Ontologies
Ontologies.
Semantic Web Lecture Notes Prepared by Jagdish S. Gangolly
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:

Ontology & OWL Semantic Web - Fall 2005 Computer Engineering Department Sharif University of Technology

Outline  Introduction & Definitions  Ontology Languages  OWL

Where does it come from?  ontology n. 1692; lat. phil. onto- “being” + -logia “study of”  Philosophy The study of what is, what has to be true for something to exist, the kinds of things that can exist  AI and computer science Co-opted the term. Something exists if it can be represented, described, defined (in a formal, hence, machine-interpretable way).

Ontologies

Ontologies (contd.)  Ontologies are about vocabularies and their meanings, with explicit, expressive, and well- defined semantics, possibly machine- interpretable.  “Ontology is a formal specification of a conceptualization.” Gruber, 1993  Main elements of an ontology: Concepts Relationships  Hierarchical  Logical Properties Instances (individuals)

A Definition  Informal Terms  from a specific domain  uniquely defined, usually via natural language definitions May contain additional semantics in the form of informal relations machine-processing is difficult Examples  Controlled vocabulary  Glossary  Thesaurus

A Definition  Formal Domain-specific vocabulary Well-defined semantic structure  Classes/concepts/types  E.g., a class { Publication } represents all publications  E.g., a class { Publication } can have subclasses { Newspaper }, { Journal }  Instances/individuals/objects  E.g., the newspaper Le Monde is an instance of the class { Newspaper }  Properties/roles/slots  Data  E.g., the class { Publication } and its subclasses { Newspaper }, { Journal } have a data property { numberOfPages }  Object  E.g., the class { Publication } and its subclasses { Newspaper }, { Journal } have an object property { publishes } Is machine-processable

Ontologies in the Semantic Web  Provide shared data structures to exchange information between agents  Can be explicitly used as annotations in web sites  Can be used for knowledge-based services using other web resources  Can help to structure knowledge to build domain models (for other purposes)

Meaning is in Connections W i n e i s m a d e f r o m G r a p e Wine is made from Grape

For machines...      XML document     We are defining the structure of document by XML The meaning of the document is not defined. Machines cannot understand it. but now the meaning of the structure is not defined.

    Ontology gives the meaning... Document Ontology Natural Language

Why develop ontologies?  To share knowledge E.g., using an ontology for integrating terminologies  To reuse domain knowledge E.g., geography ontology  To make domain assumptions explicit Facilitate knowledge management Enable new users to learn about the domain  To distinguish domain knowledge from operational knowledge e.g., biblio metadata

What they are good for  Informal Controlled vocabulary  Beginnings of interoperability Upper-level structures for extending further  E.g., AGRIS/CARIS categorization Browsing support  E.g., IRS information search Search  Limited query expansion disambiguation  e.g., “Jordan” as a name of Basket-ball player and name of a country

What they are good for  Formal Search  Concept-based query  User uses own words, language  Related terms  Intelligent query expansion: “fishing vessels in China” expands to “fishing vessels in Asia” Consistency checking  e.g., “Goods” has a property called “price” that has a value restriction of number Interoperability support  Terms defined in expressive ontologies allow for mapping precisely how one term relates to another

Ontology Languages  Graphical notations Semantic networks Topic maps UML RDF  Logic based Description Logics (e.g., OIL, DAML+OIL, OWL) Rules (e.g., RuleML, LP/Prolog) First Order Logic

Ontology Languages RDF(S) (Resource Description Framework (Schema)) OIL (Ontology Interchange Language) DAML+OIL (DARPA Agent Markup Language + OIL) OWL (Ontology Web Language) XOL (XML-based Ontology Exchange Language) SHOE (Simple HTML Ontology Extension) OML (Ontology Markup Language)

 Many languages use object oriented model: Objects/Instances/Individuals  Elements of the domain of discourse  Equivalent to constants in FOL Types/Classes/Concepts  Sets of objects sharing certain characteristics  Equivalent to unary predicates in FOL and Concepts in DL Relations/Properties/Roles  Sets of pairs (tuples) of objects  Equivalent to binary predicates in FOL and Roles in DL Object oriented model

OWL (Ontology Web Language)  OWL is now a W3C Recommendation  The purpose of OWL is identical to RDFS i.e. to provide an XML vocabulary to define classes, properties and their relationships. RDFS enables us to express very rudimentary relationships and has limited inferencing capability. OWL enables us to express much richer relationships, thus yielding a much enhanced inferencing capability.  The benefit of OWL is that it facilitates a much greater degree of inference than you get with RDF Schema.

Origins of OWL RDF DAML+OIL DARPA Agent Markup Language A W3C Recommendation OIL OWL All influenced by RDF Ontology Inference Layer EU/NSF Joint Ad hoc Committee DAML OWL Lite OWL DL OWL Full

OWL  OWL and RDF Schema enable rich machine-processable semantics XML/DTD/XML Schemas RDF Schema OWL Semantics Syntax RDFS OWL

Why Build on RDF  Provides basic ontological primitives Classes and relations (properties) Class (and property) hierarchy  Can exploit existing RDF infrastructure  Provides mechanism for using ontologies RDF triples assert facts about resources Use vocabulary from DAML+OIL ontologies

OWL Design Goals  Shared ontologies  Ontology evolution  Ontology interoperability  Inconsistency detection  Expressivity vs. scalability  Ease of use  Compatibility with other standards  Internationalization

Full: Very expressive, no computation guarantees DL (Description Logic): Maximum expressiveness, computationally complete Lite: Simple classification hierarchy with simple constraints. Versions of OWL  Depending on the intended usage, OWL provides three increasingly expressive sublanguages OWL Full OWL DL OWL Lite

Comparison of versions  Full:  We get the full power of the OWL language.  It is very difficult to build a tool for this version.  The user of a fully-compliant tool may not get a quick and complete answer.  DL/Lite:  Tools can be built more quickly and easily  Users can expect responses from such tools to come quicker and be more complete.  We don't have access to the full power of the language.

Describing classes in OWL OWL vs. RDFS OWL allows greater expressiveness  Abstraction mechanism to group resources with similar characteristics  Much more powerful in describing constraints on relations between classes  Property transitivity, equivalence, symmetry, etc.  … Extensive support for reasoning

OWL Ontologies  What’s inside an OWL ontology Classes + class-hierarchy Properties (Slots) / values Relations between classes (inheritance, disjoints, equivalents) Restrictions on properties (type, cardinality) Characteristics of properties (transitive, …) Annotations Individuals  Reasoning tasks: classification, consistency checking

Classes  What is a Class? e.g., person, pet, old a collection of individuals (object, things,... ) a way of describing part of the world an object in the world (OWL Full)

owl:Class  Sub class of Class in RDF  Better to forget about classes of classes  Top-most class: owl:Thing

Individuals  Two equivalent declarations: 1.

Properties  What is a Property? e.g., has_father, has_pet, service_number a collection of relationships between individuals (and data) a way of describing a kind of relationship between individuals an object in the world (OWL Full)

OWL Properties Object Properties Ana  owns  Cuba Is range a literal / typed value ? then ERROR Data type Properties Ana  age  25  XML Schema data types supported DB people happy

Defining Properties  ObjectProperty  DatatypeProperty  rdfs:subPropertyOf  rdfs:domain  rdfs:range 

Describing classes in OWL Complex Classes Union of classes (owl:unionOf)  OR (A  B) Union of classes (owl:intersectionOf)  AND (A  B) Complement (owl:complementOf)  NOT Enumeration (owl:oneOf) Disjoint Classes (owl:disjointWith)

Describing classes in OWL Property Restrictions Defining a Class by restricting its possible instances via their property values OWL distinguishes between the following two:  Value constraint  Cardinality constraint

Describing classes in OWL Restrictions on Property Classes Properties:  allValuesFrom: rdfs:Class (lite/DL owl:Class)  hasValue: specific Individual  someValuesFrom: rdfs:Class (lite/DL owl:Class)  minCardinality: xsd:nonNegativeInteger (in lite {0,1})  maxCardinality: xsd:nonNegativeInteger (in lite {0,1})

What’s in OWL, but not in RDF  Ability to be distributed across many systems  Scalable to Web needs  Compatible with Web standards for: accessibility, and Internationalization  Open and extensible

Describing properties in OWL OWL vs. RDFS  RDF Schema provides some of predefined properties: rdfs:range used to indicate the range of values for a property. rdfs:domain used to associate a property with a class. rdfs:subPropertyOf used to specialize a property. …  OWL provides additional predefined properties: owl:cardinality (indicate cardinality) owl:hasValue (at least one of the specified property values) …  OWL provides additional property classes, which allow reasoning and inferencing: owl:FunctionalProperty owl:TransitiveProperty …

Describing properties in OWL OWL Property Classes rdf:Property owl:ObjectProperty owl:DatatypePropertyowl:FunctionalProperty owl:InverseFunctionalProperty owl:SymmetricProperty owl:TransitiveProperty  An ObjectProperty relates one Resource to another Resource.  A DatatypeProperty relates one Resource to a Literal - an XML Schema data type.

Transitivity of properties X  p 1  Y Y  p 1  Z implies X  p 1  Z  Transitivity existed already in RDF “subClassOf”, and ???  e.g. located_in, part_of

Symmetric properties X  p 1  Y implies X  p 1  Y  e.g., =

Functional Properties X  p 1  Y X  p 1  Z imply Z is the same as Y (they describe the same) What if Y, Z where explicitly defined as “different” ?

Inverse Functional Properties Y  p 1  A Z  p 1  A imply Z is the same as Y (they describe the same) What if Y, Z where explicitly defined as “different” ?

OWL distributed “equivalent class” “equivalent Property” Guitar Guitarra Internationalization standards ?

Complex Classes Male Students Married Female Professors Married Female Students Divorced Female Human Student Married Professor  Minority Students example

Disjoint Classes  Married disjoint with: Divorced Widowed Single  Are “Divorced” and “Single” disjoint ? Married Widowed Divorced Single

OWL Cardinality  min Cardinality  max Cardinality  “Cardinality” When min = max  has Value belongs to the class if it has the value

An Example OWL ontology

References   Chapter 8 of the book

The End