Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Applications of ClassL: Lightweight Ontologies.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Schema Matching and Query Rewriting in Ontology-based Data Integration Zdeňka Linková ICS AS CR Advisor: Július Štuller.
Advertisements

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.
Lukas Blunschi Claudio Jossen Donald Kossmann Magdalini Mori Kurt Stockinger.
S-Match: an Algorithm and an Implementation of Semantic Matching Pavel Shvaiko 1 st European Semantic Web Symposium, 11 May 2004, Crete, Greece paper with.
Research topics Semantic Web - Spring 2007 Computer Engineering Department Sharif University of Technology.
Ontology Notes are from:
CMPT 354, Simon Fraser University, Fall 2008, Martin Ester 52 Database Systems I Relational Algebra.
The Semantic Web – WEEK 5: RDF Schema + Ontologies The “Layer Cake” Model – [From Rector & Horrocks Semantic Web cuurse]
TOSS: An Extension of TAX with Ontologies and Similarity Queries Edward Hung, Yu Deng, V.S. Subrahmanian Department of Computer Science University of Maryland,
Description Logics. Outline Knowledge Representation Knowledge Representation Ontology Language Ontology Language Description Logics Description Logics.
Representation of Web Data in a Web Warehouse Ragini A.S. & Shipra Dutta November 20 th, 2001.
Semantic Web Technologies Lecture # 2 Faculty of Computer Science, IBA.
Partners Using NLP Techniques for Meaning Negotiation Bernardo Magnini, Luciano Serafini and Manuela Speranza ITC-irst, via Sommarive 18, I Trento-Povo,
Knowledge Mediation in the WWW based on Labelled DAGs with Attached Constraints Jutta Eusterbrock WebTechnology GmbH.
OMAP: An Implemented Framework for Automatically Aligning OWL Ontologies SWAP, December, 2005 Raphaël Troncy, Umberto Straccia ISTI-CNR
Developing facets in UDC for online retrieval Claudio Gnoli (University of Pavia) Aida Slavic (UDC Consortium) 8th NKOS Workshop, Corfu, 1 Oct 2009.
Web Explanations for Semantic Heterogeneity Discovery Pavel Shvaiko 2 nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 1 June 2005, Crete, Greece work in collaboration.
RDF (Resource Description Framework) Why?. XML XML is a metalanguage that allows users to define markup XML separates content and structure from formatting.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Semantic Matching.
Ontology Alignment/Matching Prafulla Palwe. Agenda ► Introduction  Being serious about the semantic web  Living with heterogeneity  Heterogeneity problem.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Semantic Matching.
BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE IN ONTOLOGY MATCHING Pavel Shvaiko joint work with Fausto Giunchiglia and Mikalai Yatskevich INFINT 2007 Bertinoro Workshop on Information.
An Introduction to Description Logics. What Are Description Logics? A family of logic based Knowledge Representation formalisms –Descendants of semantic.
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.
INF 384 C, Spring 2009 Ontologies Knowledge representation to support computer reasoning.
Ming Fang 6/12/2009. Outlines  Classical logics  Introduction to DL  Syntax of DL  Semantics of DL  KR in DL  Reasoning in DL  Applications.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Lightweight Ontologies.
Semantic Matching Fausto Giunchiglia work in collaboration with Pavel Shvaiko The Italian-Israeli Forum on Computer Science, Haifa, June 17-18, 2003.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Application of (Ground) ClassL.
ISURF -An Interoperability Service Utility for Collaborative Supply Chain Planning across Multiple Domains Prof. Dr. Asuman Dogac METU-SRDC Turkey METU.
Metadata. Generally speaking, metadata are data and information that describe and model data and information For example, a database schema is the metadata.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation ClassL (part 3): Reasoning with an ABox 1.
A Classification of Schema-based Matching Approaches Pavel Shvaiko Meaning Coordination and Negotiation Workshop, ISWC 8 th November 2004, Hiroshima, Japan.
Semantic web course – Computer Engineering Department – Sharif Univ. of Technology – Fall Knowledge Representation Semantic Web - Fall 2005 Computer.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Element Level Semantic Matching Pavel Shvaiko Meaning Coordination and Negotiation Workshop, ISWC 8 th November 2004, Hiroshima, Japan Paper by Fausto.
Metadata Common Vocabulary a journey from a glossary to an ontology of statistical metadata, and back Sérgio Bacelar
Issues in Ontology-based Information integration By Zhan Cui, Dean Jones and Paul O’Brien.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation ClassL (Propositional Description Logic with Individuals) 1.
Knowledge Representation. Keywordsquick way for agents to locate potentially useful information Thesaurimore structured approach than keywords, arranging.
Working with XML. Markup Languages Text-based languages based on SGML Text-based languages based on SGML SGML = Standard Generalized Markup Language SGML.
Enable Semantic Interoperability for Decision Support and Risk Management Presented by Dr. David Li Key Contributors: Dr. Ruixin Yang and Dr. John Qu.
Presented by Kyumars Sheykh Esmaili Description Logics for Data Bases (DLHB,Chapter 16) Semantic Web Seminar.
Of 29 lecture 15: description logic - introduction.
Semantic Interoperability in GIS N. L. Sarda Suman Somavarapu.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Description Logics: family of languages.
Ontology Technology applied to Catalogues Paul Kopp.
Distributed Instance Retrieval over Heterogeneous Ontologies Andrei Tamilin (1,2) & Luciano Serafini (1) (1) ITC-IRST (2) DIT - University of Trento Trento,
Of 24 lecture 11: ontology – mediation, merging & aligning.
Ontologies COMP6028 Semantic Web Technologies Dr Nicholas Gibbins
1 Representing and Reasoning on XML Documents: A Description Logic Approach D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, M. Lenzerini Presented by Daisy Yutao Guo University.
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
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Element Level Semantic Matching
Ontology.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Information Retrieval
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
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Information Networks: State of the Art
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
CIS Monthly Seminar – Software Engineering and Knowledge Management IS Enterprise Modeling Ontologies Presenter : Dr. S. Vasanthapriyan Senior Lecturer.
Presentation transcript:

Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Applications of ClassL: Lightweight Ontologies

Outline  Ontologies  Descriptive and classification ontologies  Real world and classification semantics  Lightweight Ontologies  Converting classifications into Lightweight Ontologies  Applications on Lightweight Ontologies  Document Classification  Query-answering  Semantic Matching 2

Ontologies  Ontologies are explicit specifications of conceptualizations [Gruber, 1993]  They are often thought of as directed graphs whose nodes represent concepts and whose edges represent relations between concepts 3 Animal BirdHeadMammal PredatorHerbivore GoatTiger Chicken Cat Is-a Eats Is-a Part-of Is-a Eats Body Part-of ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Concepts and Relations between them  CONCEPT: it represents a set of objects or individuals  EXTENSION: the set above is called the concept extension or the concept interpretation  Concepts are often lexically defined, i.e. they have natural language names which are used to describe the concept extensions (e.g. Animal, Lion, Rome), often with an additional description (gloss)  RELATION: a link from the source concept to the target concept  The backbone structure of an ontology graph is a taxonomy in which the relations are ‘is-a’, ‘part-of’ and ‘instance-of’, whereas the remaining structure of the graph supplies auxiliary information about the modeled domain and may include relations like ‘located-in’, ‘eats’, ‘ant’, etc. They are respectively called hierarchical (BT/NT) and associative (RT) relations in Library Science. 4 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Ontology as a graph: a mathematical definition 5  An ontology is an ordered pair O =  V is the set of vertices describing the concepts  E is the set of edges describing relations Animal BirdHeadMammal PredatorHerbivore GoatTiger Chicken Cat Is-a Eats Is-a Part-of Is-a Eats Body Part-of ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Tree-like Ontologies  Take the ontology in the previous slide and remove those auxiliary relations…  … we get a tree-like ontology consisting of its backbone structure with ‘is-a’ and ‘part-of’ relations (*), that is an informal lightweight ontology. (*) Notice that in some cases we can obtain more complex structures like DAGs or even with cycles 6 Animal BirdHeadMammal PredatorHerbivore GoatTiger Chicken Cat Is-a Part-of Is-a Body Part-of ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

o Classification ontologies They are used to classify things, such as books, documents, web pages, etc.; the purpose is to provide domain specific terminology and organize individuals accordingly. Such ontologies usually take the form of classifications with (BT\NT\RT) or without explicit relations. o Descriptive ontologies They are used to describe a piece of world, such as the Gene ontology, Industry ontology, etc.; the purpose is to offer an unambiguous description of the world. Relations are typically explicit (e.g. is-a) and can be of any kind. Classification vs. Descriptive Ontologies ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

o Classification ontologies are in classification semantics In classification ontologies, the extension of each concept (label of a node) is the set of documents about the entities or individual objects described by the label of the concept. For example, the extension of the concept animal is “the set of documents about animals” of any kind. o Descriptive ontologies are in real world semantics In descriptive ontologies, concepts represent real world entities. For example, the extension of the concept animal is the set of real world animals, which can be connected via relations of the proper kind. Classification vs. Real World semantics ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Classification ontologies ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Descriptive ontologies ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Why ‘Lightweight’ Ontologies?  The majority of existing ontologies are ‘simple’ taxonomies or classifications, i.e., hierarchically organized categories used to classify resources.  Ontologies with arbitrary relations do exist, but no intuitive and efficient reasoning techniques support such ontologies in general. … so we need ‘lightweight’ ontologies. 11 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Lightweight Ontologies  A (formal) lightweight ontology is a triple O = where:  N is a finite set of nodes,  E is a set of edges on N, such that is a rooted tree,  C is a finite set of concepts expressed in a formal language F, such that for any node n i ∈ N, there is one and only one concept c i ∈ C, and, if n i is the parent node for n j, then c j ⊑ c i. NOTE: lightweight ontologies are in classification semantics 12 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Converting tree-like structures into LOs  For a descriptive ontology, the backbone taxonomy of ‘is-a’ and ‘instance-of’ is intuitively coincident with the subsumption (‘ ⊑ ’) relation in LOs. NOTE: ‘part-of’ relations correspond to subsumption only if transitive. For instance the following chain cannot be translated: handle part-of door part-of school part-of school system  For a classification ontology, the extension of each node is the set of documents (books, websites, etc.) that should be classified under the node. Therefore, the links has to be interpreted as ‘subset’ relations and can be transformed directly into subsumption in the target LOs. 13 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Descriptive and classification ontologies Animal Vertebrate Mammal A B D Invertebrate C E Bird is-a (a) World Europe France A B D Asia C E Italy part-of F Rome part-of (b)  (a) and (b) are two descriptive ontologies. The corresponding classification ontologies are obtained by substituting all the relations with ‘subset’.  (a) and (b) can be converted into lightweight ontologies by substituting the relations into subsumptions. However, the semantics changes from real world to classification semantics. ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES 14

Populated (Lightweight) Ontologies  In Information Retrieval, the term classification is seen as the process of arranging a set of objects (e.g., documents) into a set of categories or classes.  A classification ontology is said populated if a set of objects has been classified under ‘proper’ nodes.  Thus a populated (lightweight) ontology includes (explicit or implicit) ‘instance-of’ relations 15 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Example of a Populated Ontology 16 ⊑⊑ Head Body Animal BirdMammal PredatorHerbivore GoatTiger Chicken Cat ⊑⊑ ⊑⊑⊑ ⊑ ⊑⊑ ‘Chicken Soup’ ‘How to Raise Chicken’ ‘Tom and Jerry’‘ Instance-of ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Lightweight Ontologies in ClassL: TBox  Subsumption terminologies. Recall: ‘… C is a finite set of concepts expressed in a formal language F, such that for any node n i ∈ N, there is one and only one concept c i ∈ C, and, if n i is the parent node for n j,then c j ⊑ c i.’ 1. Bird ⊑ Animal 2. Mammal ⊑ Animal 3. Chicken ⊑ Bird 4. Cat ⊑ Predator 5. … NOTE: a tree-like ontology can be transformed into a lightweight ontology, but not vice versa. This is because we loose information during the translation. 17 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Populated LOs in ClassL: TBox + ABox  ‘instance-of’ links are encoded into ‘concept assertions’: 1. Chicken(ChickenSoup) 2. Cat(TomAndJerry) 3. …  Instances are the elements of the domain, namely the documents classified in the categories. 18 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Classifications are:  Easy to use for humans  Pervasive (Google, Yahoo, Amazon, our PC directories, folders, address book, etc.).  Largely used in commercial applications (Google, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, BBC, CNN, libraries, etc.).  Have been studied for very long time (e.g., Dewey Decimal Classification system - DDC, Library of Congress Classification system - LCC, etc.). 19 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Classification Example: Yahoo! Directory 20 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Classification Example: Folders 21 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Classification Example: E-Commerce Category 22 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Label Semantics  Natural language words are often ambiguous E.g. Java (an island, a beverage, a programming language)  When used with other words in a label, improper senses can be pruned E.g., “Java Language” – only the 3 rd sense of Java is preserved  We translate node labels into unambiguous propositions in ClassL in classification semantics  This can be done by using NLP (Natural Language Processing) techniques 23 Level 4 Subjects Computers and Internet … … … … … … … (1) (3) (5) (7) (8) Programming Java Language Java Beans ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Link semantics  Get-specific principle: Child nodes in a classification are always considered in the context of their parent nodes. As a consequence they specialize the meaning of the parent nodes.  Subsumption relation (a): the extension of the child node is a proper subset of the parent node. The meaning of node 2 is B.  General intersection relation (b): the extension of the child node is a subset of the parent node. The meaning of node 2 is C = A ⊓ B.  We generalize to (b). The meaning of the node is what we call the concept at node A B ? A B A B C (b)(a) ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Concept at node Wine and Cheese Italy Europe Austria Pictures In ClassL: C 4 = C europe ⊓ C pictures ⊓ C italy 25 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Document Classification  Document concept: each document d in a classification is assigned a proposition C d in ClassL, build from d in two steps: 1. keywords are retrieved from d by using standard text mining techniques. 2. keywords are converted into propositions by using the methodology discussed above to translate node labels.  Automatic classification: For any given document d and its concept C d we classify d in each node n i such that: 1. ⊨ C d ⊑ C i, 2. and there is no node n j (j ≠ i), for which ⊨ C j ⊑ C i and ⊨ C d ⊑ C j. In other words we always classify in the node with the most specific concept. 26 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Query-answering  Query-answering on a hierarchy of documents based on a query q as a set of keywords is defined in two steps: 1. The ClassL proposition C q is build from q by converting q’s keywords as said above. 2. The set of answers (retrieval set) to q is defined as a set of subsumption checking problems in ClassL: A q = {d ∈ document | T ⊨ C d ⊑ C q } 27 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

Semantic Matching: Why?  Most popular knowledge can be represented as graphs. The heterogeneity between knowledge graphs demands the exposition of relations, such as semantically equivalent.  Some popular situations that can be modeled as a matching problem are:  Concept matching in semantic networks.  Schema matching in distributed databases.  Ontology matching (ontology “alignment”) in the Semantic Web. ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES 28

The Matching Problem  Matching Problem: given two finite graphs, finds all nodes in the two graphs that syntactically or semantically correspond to each other.  Given two graph-like structures (e.g., classifications, XML and database schemas, ontologies), a matching operator produces a mapping between the nodes of the graphs.  Solution: A possible solution [Giunchiglia & Shvaiko, 2003], consists in the conversion of the two graphs in input into lightweight ontologies and then matching them semantically. 29 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES

A Matching Problem ? ? ? 30 ONTOLOGIES :: LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES :: CLASSIFICATIONS :: APPLICATIONS ON LIGHTWEIGHT ONTOLOGIES