. Daniel Schober, Martin Boeker, University Medical Center Freiburg ‘Ontology Simplification’ Buzzword or real Need ? OBML 2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SPARQL Dimitar Kazakov, with references to material by Noureddin Sadawi ARIN, 2014.
Advertisements

Interaksi Manusia Komputer – Marcello Singadji. design rules Designing for maximum usability – the goal of interaction design Principles of usability.
Object-Oriented Software Development CS 3331 Fall 2009.
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.
Ontologies and the Semantic Web by Ian Horrocks presented by Thomas Packer 1.
Creating Architectural Descriptions. Outline Standardizing architectural descriptions: The IEEE has published, “Recommended Practice for Architectural.
From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The Making of a Web Ontology Language
Chapter 7 design rules.
GO Ontology Editing Workshop: Using Protege and OWL Hinxton Jan 2012.
Semantic Web Technologies Lecture # 2 Faculty of Computer Science, IBA.
CASE Tools And Their Effect On Software Quality Peter Geddis – pxg07u.
Amarnath Gupta Univ. of California San Diego. An Abstract Question There is no concrete answer …but …
On Roles of Models in Information Systems (Arne Sølvberg) Gustavo Carvalho 26 de Agosto de 2010.
1. Human – the end-user of a program – the others in the organization Computer – the machine the program runs on – often split between clients & servers.
Developing an OWL-DL Ontology for Research and Care of Intracranial Aneurysms – Challenges and Limitations Holger Stenzhorn, Martin Boeker, Stefan Schulz,
International Workshop on Web Engineering ACM Hypertext 2004 Santa Cruz, August 9-13 An Engineering Perspective on Structural Computing: Developing Component-Based.
The Foundational Model of Anatomy and its Ontological Commitment(s) Stefan Schulz University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany FMA in OWL meeting November.
Knowledge representation
Concept Model for observables, investigations, and observation results For the IHTSDO Observables Project Group and LOINC Coordination Project Revision.
11 C H A P T E R Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems.
Imports, MIREOT Contributors: Carlo Torniai, Melanie Courtot, Chris Mungall, Allen Xiang.
Overview of Formal Methods. Topics Introduction and terminology FM and Software Engineering Applications of FM Propositional and Predicate Logic Program.
Heuristic evaluation Functionality: Visual Design: Efficiency:
Michael Eckert1CS590SW: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Web Ontology Language (OWL) CS590SW: Semantic Web (Winter Quarter 2003) Presentation: Michael Eckert.
Design Rules-Part B Standards and Guidelines
Approaching a Problem Where do we start? How do we proceed?
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)
Advanced topics in software engineering (Semantic web)
Scalable representations of diseases in biomedical ontologies Stefan Schulz, Djamila Raufie, Martin Boeker Institute of Medical Biometry und Medical Informatics.
SKOS. Ontologies Metadata –Resources marked-up with descriptions of their content. No good unless everyone speaks the same language; Terminologies –Provide.
PROC-1 1. Software Development Process. PROC-2 A Process Software Development Process User’s Requirements Software System Unified Process: Component Based.
OilEd An Introduction to OilEd Sean Bechhofer. Topics we will discuss Basic OilEd use –Defining Classes, Properties and Individuals in an Ontology –This.
Chapter 5: Software Re-Engineering Omar Meqdadi SE 3860 Lecture 5 Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering University of Wisconsin-Platteville.
© University of Manchester Simplifying OWL Learning lessons from Anaesthesia Nick Drummond BioHealth Informatics Group.
2nd Sept 2004UK e-Science all hands meeting1 Designing User Interfaces to Minimise Common Errors in Ontology Development Alan Rector, Nick Drummond, Matthew.
Metadata Common Vocabulary a journey from a glossary to an ontology of statistical metadata, and back Sérgio Bacelar
© 2006 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 2-1 Chapter 2 Principles of Programming & Software Engineering.
Doing a CIM Project. 22 CIM Design Center  A rule I learned about applying technology:  Understand the design center of the technology.  Use extreme.
Winter 2011SEG Chapter 11 Chapter 1 (Part 1) Review from previous courses Subject 1: The Software Development Process.
Parastoo Mohagheghi 1 A Multi-dimensional Framework for Characterizing Domain Specific Languages Øystein Haugen Parastoo Mohagheghi SINTEF, UiO 21 October.
Petter Nielsen Information Systems/IFI/UiO 1 Systems development Methodologies IN364.
A Portrait of the Semantic Web in Action Jeff Heflin and James Hendler IEEE Intelligent Systems December 6, 2010 Hyewon Lim.
Be.wi-ol.de User-friendly ontology design Nikolai Dahlem Universität Oldenburg.
Pre- and Post-Coordination in Biomedical Ontologies Stefan Schulz Daniel Schober Djamila Raufie Martin Boeker Medical Informatics Research Group University.
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST Project Review Meeting, 11 th March, WP2: Tools Raphael Volz Universität.
Ontologies for the Semantic Web Prepared By: Tseliso Molukanele Rapelang Rabana Supervisor: Associate Professor Sonia Burman 20 July 2005.
OWL Web Ontology Language Summary IHan HSIAO (Sharon)
Big Data that might benefit from ontology technology, but why this usually fails Barry Smith National Center for Ontological Research 1.
Making sense of Description Logics Paul Warren, Paul Mulholland, Trevor Collins, Enrico Motta Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK UK Ontology.
Design rules.
Introduction to Software Modeling
CSC 533: Programming Languages Spring 2016
CSC 533: Programming Languages Spring 2015
Formal ontologies vs. triple based KR gap or convergence?
SysML v2 Formalism: Requirements & Benefits
Software engineering USER INTERFACE DESIGN.
Tools of Software Development
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
HCI – DESIGN RATIONALE 20 November 2018.
Introduction Artificial Intelligent.
Multiple Aspect Modeling of the Synchronous Language Signal
The Gene Ontology: an evolution
Chapter 7 design rules.
Chapter 7 design rules.
Chapter 7 design rules.
Software Re-engineering and Reverse Engineering
Chapter 7 design rules.
Presentation transcript:

. Daniel Schober, Martin Boeker, University Medical Center Freiburg ‘Ontology Simplification’ Buzzword or real Need ? OBML 2010

. State of the Art Transition from taxonomies to description logics –Increasing formal semantics & expressivity OWL DL applied widely –W3C standard for ‚semantic web‘ –Multiple efforts with massive funding –Ontology libraries & best practice providers

. Problem DL ontologies rarely used in application settings –Used in.ac &.edu, but not in.com projects –Only small data sets exploited Competency questions and use cases usually retro-fitted DL aspects rarely exploited –Complex LEGO-style definitions –RL profile expressivity Cardinalities, disjoints, nested universal restrictions, …  Usability decreases as formality and expressive power increases  Usability reverse proportional to complexity

. Potential Reasons Inherent complexity of biodomain –Dealing with non-linear behaviors, non-classical physics –Far from sensory-perceptable world (‘meso-level’) Complexity of DL –Set theoretic approach counter-intuitive to object-orientation –Long class expressions, nested with multiple brackets –Hard to read Syntax Reasoners can’t cope with expressivity on larger scale –Computationally not feasible DL (semantics), OWL (syntax) ? … not really very robust Tools & editors ? …very far from being robust Ontologists can’t keep up with frequent changes Steep learning curve on engineering & usage side

. Hypothesis ‘Is advertising ‘simplifications’ a solution ?’ Increase end-user compliance Render DL ontologies human understandable … while not sacrificing reasoning capabilities Approach Collect and review existing simplifications –Check if whole approach feasible ? Introduce new simplification methods Create typology of simplification methods Raise general awareness Make methods accessible Test if they increase compliance

. ‚understandeable‘ ? Ontology is understandable if its RUs are understandable RU is understandable if … –it is traceable and readily applicable by the user –its intended meaning can be grasped in a short time This is the case if … –it is labeled in line with user-expectations –it is instantiated often easy map to everyday language constructs high every-day usage frequency –it resides in the ‘intuitive’ meso-level i.e. neither too abstract nor too special directly perceivable by human senses –it belongs to traceable and intelligible top-level category i.e. MaterialEntity vs. DependentContinuant –it has short logical definitions built from simple RUs themselves Understanding can be facilitated by tools –Using principles of software ergonomics –Implementing simplification and normalisation strategies

. Typology (naive start)

. 1.Syntax simplifications 2.Structural simplifications 3.Shortcuts and local approximate models 4.Views showing subsets of entities 5.Modularizations, partitions, slims 6.GUI simplifications / software ergonomics Some examples …

. Normalize syntax (1.a) Normalizing equivalent constructs into simpler forms –Syntactical complexity reduction E.g. via specialized language constructs E.g. for disjointness Simplify into

. Conflate redundancy in restrictions (1.b) Avoid redundancy in restrictions Simplify NeuralInflammation ⊑ Inflammation ∃ has-participant. CNS_Tissue ⊓ ∃ has-participant. PNS_Tissue ⊓ ∃ has-participant. Brain_Tissue into NeuralInflammation ⊑ ∃ has-participant. (CNS_Tissue ⊓ PNS_Tissue ⊓ Brain_Tissue)

. Increase human readability (1.c) Human readable syntax Omit logics-specific symbolism Simplify HeparinBiosynthesis ⊑ (HeparinMetabolism ⊓ (Biosynthesis ⊓ ∃ acts_on. Heparin)) into Manchester OWL Syntax HeparinBiosynthesis SubClassOf HeparinMetabolism SubClassOf (Biosynthesis AND acts_on SOME Heparin) or Attempto Controlled English (CNL) “Every HeparinBiosynthesis is a HeparinMetabolism. Every HeparinBiosynthesis is a Biosynthesis that acts_on a Heparin.”

. Simplify labels (2.c) Naming Conventions Shorten long relation names –“ Anatomic_Structure_Is_Physical_Part_Of ” Remove redundancy Simplify Ovary ⊑∃ Anatomic_Structure_Is_Physical_Part_Of. Reproductive_System into Ovary ⊑ ∃ Is_Physical_Part_Of. Reproductive_System ‘Anatomic_Structure’-prefix is already specified via domain of relation

. Conflate property chains (3.a) Use Shortcuts Property chains (OWL 2) allow shortening expressions –Compress two triples into one –Conflate / fold expression over 2 or more properties Simplify GeneA transcribed_to GeneA_mRNA GeneA_mRNA translated_to GeneA_Protein into GeneA_Protein product_of GeneA

. Simplified umbrella classes (3.b) Allows for graceful evolution through temporary proximity models –which can later be untangled seamlessly Goal model for diseases PathologicalDisposition ⊑ ∃ inheresIn. PathologicalStructure PathologicalDisposition ⊑ ∀ hasRealization. PathologicalProcess PathologicalProcess ⊑ ∃ hasParticipant. PathologicalStructure PathologicalProcess ⊑ ∃ realizationOf. PathologicalDisposition Pre-coordination is labor-intensive due to combinatorial explosion

. Simplified umbrella classes (3.b) A pragmatic proximity model can be introduced –Insert temporary umbrella class –ignoring disposition / structure / process distinction PathologicalEntity ≡ PathologicalStructure ⊔ PathologicalDisposition ⊔ PathologicalProcess Later gracefully evolve towards complex model All needed relations for … –Pathological Structures: part-of / located-in –Pathological Dispositions: inheres-in –Pathological Processes: has-participant / located-in … can be captured via one super-relation has-locus Allows connecting from any PathologicalEnity to relevant location –but without commitment to granularity –But still, the simplified model supports some inferences It can later be expanded –without rendering the simplification false

. Discussion Typology in early stage –Re-structure into polyhierarchy of disjoint orthogonal branches Potential sortals ordering simplifications –By entity tackled –By persistence –By life cycle kick-off, development, deployment/usage –By ergonomics (Wahrnehmungspsychologie) –By user role –By user background mathematician, computer scientist, logician, philosopher, linguist, biologist,

. Discussion Ease access to simplification methods Publish –OBO Foundry initiative –Ontology Engineering and Patterns Task Force (SWBPD-WG) –Ontology Design Pattern portals None currently addresses ‘simplifications’ Rather seen as properties of general design patterns Introduce special ‘simplification pattern type’ or add additional descriptor to existing pattern types ?

. Conclusions Reason for limited impact of OWL DL –Performance problems –Inherent complexity Complexity can be coped with by simplifications Collection of >30 reviewed simplification methods –Put in Typology –Collection and Typology to be expanded Cross-talk with ODP community Compare user compliance pre- and post-simplified –Test how fast two codes/ontologies lead to desired result for same test task Feedback appreciated

. Resources & Acknowledgements Resources Find Simplifications & reviews on Acknowledgements Martin Boeker Stefan Schulz Josef Ingenerf The DebugIT community

. Normalize syntax (1.a) E.g. for instance-assertions Simplify into

. Towards Simplification Methods Two types of simplifications 1.Removing complexity Prevents full exploitation of semantics Format transformation into OWL lite or SKOS 2.Hiding complexity Allows full exploitation of semantics Views and excerpts of ontologies Define characteristics for ‘simplicity’ and ‘understanding’ for following aspects –Individual cognitive abilities –Semantics & syntax –Software ergonomics

. Simplification Collection and Review

. Conflate redundancy in restrictions (1.b) Avoid redundancy in restrictions Frequent source of errors for inadequate modeling –E.g. below: each individual AdrenalineReceptor is simultaneously expressed in three different body parts Simplify AdrenalineReceptor ⊑ ∃ Gene_Product_Expressed_In_Tissue. Lung ⊓ ∃ Gene_Product_Expressed_In_Tissue. Brain ⊓ ∃ Gene_Product_Expressed_In_Tissue. Muscle into AdrenalineReceptor ⊑ ∀ Expressed_In. (Lung ⊔ Brain ⊔ Muscle)

. Conflate property chains (3.a) Use Shortcuts Property chains (OWL 2) allow shortening expressions –Compress two triples into one –Conflate and fold expression over 2 or more properties Simplify Pneumonia outcome_of LungInflammation LungInflammation treated_by Antibiotics  Pneumonia improved_by Antibiotics Tryptophan substrate_of IndolePhosphatase IndolePhosphatase has_product TrypthophanPhosphate A is_son_of B and B is_brother_of C into Tryptophan processed_to TrypthophanPhosphate A has_uncle C Two properties can be chained by a new property In particular views shortcuts increase understanding

. To investigate –What complexities can be automatically detected and be removed ? Parsers can unify / normalize and simplify syntax –‘Guided simplification finder’ chooses appropriate simplifications based on user requirements ?