Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Web Ontology Language (OWL) -- Exercises Feroz Farazi.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Knowledge Representation using First-Order Logic
Advertisements

Dr. Leo Obrst MITRE Information Semantics Information Discovery & Understanding Command & Control Center February 6, 2014February 6, 2014February 6, 2014.
1 ISWC-2003 Sanibel Island, FL IMG, University of Manchester Jeff Z. Pan 1 and Ian Horrocks 1,2 {pan | 1 Information Management.
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
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Web Ontology Language (OWL) Feroz Farazi.
1 Semantic Web Technologies: The foundation for future enterprise systems Okech Odhiambo Knowledge Systems Research Group Strathmore University.
Properties and Individuals in OWL: Reasoning About Family History Robert Stevens and Simon Jupp BioHealth Informatics Group University of Manchester
Chapter 8: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes, Agents – Munindar P. Singh and Michael N. Huhns, Wiley, 2005.
1 DCS861A-2007 Emerging IT II Rinaldo Di Giorgio Andres Nieto Chris Nwosisi Richard Washington March 17, 2007.
FiRE Fuzzy Reasoning Engine Nikolaos Simou National Technical University of Athens.
Figure 1–3 Family Tree for RDF Example (see Monday October, 10 link - Oracle Semantic Tutorial examples on 1-28 and 1-29)Oracle Semantic Tutorial examples.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Resource Description Framework (RDF) -- Exercises Feroz Farazi.
An Introduction to Description Logics. What Are Description Logics? A family of logic based Knowledge Representation formalisms –Descendants of semantic.
1 MASWS Multi-Agent Semantic Web Systems: OWL Stephen Potter, CISA, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Okech Odhiambo Faculty of Information Technology Strathmore University
8/11/2011 Web Ontology Language (OWL) Máster Universitario en Inteligencia Artificial Mikel Egaña Aranguren 3205 Facultad de Informática Universidad Politécnica.
OWL and SDD Dave Thau University of Kansas
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
The Semantic Web Web Science Systems Development Spring 2015.
1 st Workshop on Intelligent and Knowledge-oriented Technologies, , Bratislava Scripting the Semantic Web Marian Babik, Ladislav Hluchy Intelligent.
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. Topics Introduction to OWL Usage of OWL Problems with OWL 1 Solutions from OWL 2.
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.
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.
The Knowledge Presentation Language. Web Ontology Language (OWL)  Web Ontology Language (OWL) extends RDF and RDFS languages by adding several other.
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: New Features and Rationale Feroz Farazi
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation SPARQL -- Exercises Feroz Farazi.
Metadata. Generally speaking, metadata are data and information that describe and model data and information For example, a database schema is the metadata.
Chapter 3 RDF Schema. Introduction RDF has a very simple data model RDF Schema (RDFS) enriches the data model, adding vocabulary and associated semantics.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation ClassL (part 3): Reasoning with an ABox 1.
Expressing Knowledge CSC 244/444: Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence Henry Kautz.
Part I: Set Constructs. RDF Schema (RDFS) RDF does not provide mechanisms to define domain classes and properties RDFS is a vocabulary that provides many.
Coastal Atlas Interoperability - Ontologies (Advanced topics that we did not get to in detail) Luis Bermudez Stephanie Watson Marine Metadata Interoperability.
Deep integration of Python with Semantic Web technologies Marian Babik, Ladislav Hluchy Intelligent and Knowledge Technologies Group Institute of Informatics,
Chapter 3 RDF and RDFS Semantics. Introduction RDF has a very simple data model But it is quite liberal in what you can say Semantics can be given using.
Logic …. Disjoint Properties As for disjoint classes, two properties can be disjoint (owl : propertyDisjointWith) Property p and p’ are disjoint if no.
© O. Corcho, MC Suárez de Figueroa Baonza 1 OWL and SWRL Protégé 4: Building an OWL Ontology Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa, Oscar Corcho {mcsuarez,
Ontology Engineering Lab #5 – September 30, 2013.
Ontology Engineering Lab #3 – September 16, 2013.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation ClassL (part 2): Reasoning with a TBox 1.
Practical RDF Chapter 12. Ontologies: RDF Business Models Shelley Powers, O’Reilly SNU IDB Lab. Taikyoung Kim.
Of 38 lecture 6: rdf – axiomatic semantics and query.
CC L A W EB DE D ATOS P RIMAVERA 2015 Lecture 4: Web Ontology Language (I) Aidan Hogan
Description Logics Dr. Alexandra I. Cristea. Description Logics Description Logics allow formal concept definitions that can be reasoned about to be expressed.
Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist - RDFS-Plus TEAM C 현근수, 김영욱, 백상윤, 이용현.
Dr. Philip Cannata 1 RDF. Dr. Philip Cannata 2 10 Java (Object Oriented) ASP RDF (Horn Clause Deduction, Semantic Web) Relation Jython in Java This Course.
ONTOLOGY ENGINEERING Lab #4 - September 22, 2014.
Ontology Engineering Lab #4 - September 23, 2013.
Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist Dean Allemang Jim Hendler SNU IDB laboratory.
Semantic Interoperability in GIS N. L. Sarda Suman Somavarapu.
Ccs.  Ontologies are used to capture knowledge about some domain of interest. ◦ An ontology describes the concepts in the domain and also the relationships.
OWL (Ontology Web Language and Applications) Maw-Sheng Horng Department of Mathematics and Information Education National Taipei University of Education.
Vincenzo Maltese, Fausto Giunchiglia University of Trento
Rya Query Inference.
Knowledge Representation Part II Description Logic & Introduction to Protégé Jan Pettersen Nytun.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Using Rules with Ontologies in the Semantic Web
“This presentation is for informational purposes only and may not be incorporated into a contract or agreement.”
SPARQL Exercise Much of this exercise has been copied from: INF3580/INF4580 – MANDATORY EXERCISE 3
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Aidan Hogan CC La Web de Datos Primavera 2017 Lecture 4: Web Ontology Language (OWL) [I] Aidan Hogan
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
SPARQL Exercise Most of this exercise has been copied from: INF3580/INF4580 – MANDATORY EXERCISE 3
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
JOHN’S FAMILY.
Knowledge Representation Part VII Protégé / RDFS / OWL / ++
The kinship domain example from cs. manchester. ac
Presentation transcript:

Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Web Ontology Language (OWL) -- Exercises Feroz Farazi

Exercise 1  Suppose that a family consists of a father (John), a mother (Maria), two sisters (Sara and Jenifer) and two brothers (David and Robert). In an OWL representation we find that the two brothers and the two sisters are codified as follows: :David:hasFather:John :Sara:hasFather:John :John:spouseOf:Maria Later on another property :hasChild is codified. (i) What will be the output of the following SPARQL Query when a reasoner is activated? :John :hasChild ?y

(ii) Expand the OWL representation in a way that supports returning non-empty result of the following query and this expansion is independent of the entity-entity triples. :John :hasChild ?y (iii) Add also the following axioms to the dataset. :Jenifer:hasFather:John :Robert:hasFather:John What result the following query will return? :John :hasChild ?y (iv) How can we infer the spouse relation in the reverse direction? Exercise 1

Solution (i) The result of the query is empty. (ii) We can make the property :hasFather as an inverse property of :hasChild as follows: :hasFatherowl:inverseOf:hasChild Query Result: :David :Sara (iii) Query Result: :David :Sara :Jenifer :Robert (iv) We can make the relation :spouseOf its own inverse as follows: :spouseOfowl:inverseOf:spouseOf

 Within a family, relations such as :spouseOf :marriedTo :siblingOf are applicable in both directions (from subject to object, and vice versa) whereas the following do not hold always. :brotherOf :sisterOf i) Which property holds in the relations that are applicable in both directions? ii) How can we represent these relations in OWL? iii) In which basic category this property belongs? Exercise 2

i) Symmetric property holds in these relations ii) They can be represented as follows: :spouseOfrdf:typeowl:SymmetricProperty :marriedTordf:typeowl:SymmetricProperty :siblingOfrdf:typeowl:SymmetricProperty iii) The symmetric property is an object property. Moreover, the domain and range of the symmetric property are the same. Solution

 Consider that in the family of John and Maria, also John’s father (James) and mother (Jerry) live. Relations such as :hasAncestor and :hasDescendent can be applied between different levels. For example: :John:hasAncestor:James :Sara:hasAncestor:John :James:hasDescendent:John :John:hasDescendent:Sara i) Which property holds in the relations that are applicable in different levels of the hierarchy? ii) How can we represent these relations in OWL? iii) In which basic category this property belongs? iv) Show the results of the following queries: a) :James:hasDescendent?y b) :John :hasAncestor ?y Exercise 3

i) Transitive property holds in these relations ii) They can be represented as follows: :hasAncestor rdf:typeowl:TransitiveProperty :hasDescendent rdf:typeowl:TransitiveProperty iii) The transitive property is an object property. iv) a) Query Result :John :Sara b) Query Result: :James Solution

1. In RDFS we can represent that two classes :Test and :Experiment are equivalent. :Test rdfs:subClassOf :Experiment :Experiment rdfs:subClassOf :Test Convert this representation in OWL. 2. In RDFS we can represent that two properties :hasChild and :hasKid are equivalent. :hasChild rdfs:subPropertyOf :hasKid :hasKid rdfs:subPropertyOf :hasChild Convert this representation in OWL. 3. Is there any way to represent the fact that two entities (or individuals) :Italia and :Il_Bel_Paese are same. Exercise 4

1. OWL representation: :Testowl:equivalentClass:Experiment 2. OWL representation: :hasChild owl:equivalentProperty :hasKid 3. It can be represented in OWL as follows: :Italiaowl:sameAs:Il_Bel_Paese Solution

1. a) Which OWL property allows to have exactly one value for a particular individual? b) In a family tree, relations such as the following ones can be defined as functional. :hasFather :hasMother Represent them in OWL and demonstrate their use with necessary entity-entity axioms. 2. a) Which OWL property allows to have exactly one subject for a particular object? c) Demonstrate the use of this property in developing applications such as entity matching. Exercise 5

1. a) OWL Functional property has this feature. b) OWL representations of the properties :hasFather and :hasMother are as follows: :hasFather rdf:typeowl:FunctionalProperty :hasMother rdf:typeowl:FunctionalProperty Two entity-entity axioms are provided below: :John :hasFather:James :John :hasFather :Handler The objects :James and :Handler are the values of the same subject and property. We already have defined that :hasFather property is functional. Therefore, it can be concluded that :James and :Handler refer to the same person. Solution

2. a) OWL Inverse Functional property has this feature. b) Given that the property :SSN (social security number) is an Inverse Functional property and it is encoded as follows: :SSN rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty Two entity-entity axioms are provided below: mo:James :SSNN ps:Handler :SSNN The subjects :James and :Handler are attached to the same social security number, which cannot be shared by two different persons. Therefore, we can conclude that mo:James and ps:Handler are the same entity. Solution

Which OWL constructs support the encoding of the following statements? i) If x and y are brothers and y is son of z then x is son of z. ii) If y is brother of z and z is father of x, then y is uncle of x. iii) If disease x is located in body part y which is part of body part z, then x is located in z. Represent all the above statements in OWL. Also write explicitly which version of OWL supports the encoding of such statements. Exercise 6

SubPropertyOf and ObjectPropertyChain support the encoding of such statements. i) SubPropertyOf( ObjectPropertyChain( :brotherOf :sonOf) :sonOf) ii) SubPropertyOf( ObjectPropertyChain( :brotherOf :fatherOf) :uncleOf) iii) SubPropertyOf( ObjectPropertyChain( :locatedIn :part of) :locatedIn) Solution

1. Create the family tree ontology in Protégé (can be downloaded here: Encode inverse relation between entities. 3. Implement symmetric properties. 4. Implement functional properties. 5. Implement inverse functional properties. 6. Develop Pizza ontology according to the manual provided in the following link: otegeOWLTutorialP4_v1_3.pdf otegeOWLTutorialP4_v1_3.pdf Exercise 7 (Laboratory)