1. Proposed NWI KIF/CG --> Common Logic Standard A working group was recently formed from the KIF working group. John Sowa is the only CG representative so far. – Stanford March 2002: Agreed on the name: Common Logic Standard for First Order Logic Cris Menzel (U.Texas, Austin Philosophy dept) agreed to maintain a web site, now called Conceptual Graphs and KIF to be reference implementations. – KIF maintained by KIF working group, including Mike Genesereth who was the contact for requirements during its development. – CG draft standard now available at a site maintained by John Sowa. Requirements are discussed in CGlist and at standards meetings at the annnual ICCS conference (2002, Bulgaria). Previously held in Canada, Germany, US, France. – CG and KIF communities both contain competing vendors and academics. Other ISO logic standards to be described in relationship to the Common Logic – Prolog Logic Programming Language (Mike Gruninger) – Object Constraint Language (under UML) – Z Formal Specification Language

2. Common Logic Standard Will support: – Institutionalization of KIF and CG Periodic versions instead of unscheduled ad-hoc changes will encourage tools development Researchers and Developers can make requests of a standards body rather than of individual caretakers, who may have business or professional interests to protect. Contract requirements can specify differences from and extensions to the Common Logic standard used by vendor specific languages such as Cycorp’s Cyc-L, Ontos’, XSB, Haley Eclipse, NASA CLIPS…) – Specification of axiomatic ontologies – Selection of a knowledge representation language for a purpose Expressivity/ computablility tradeoffs – Translation between formal languages For changing vendors, user interfaces, performance problems

3. Common Logic in support of Axiomatized Ontologies Ontology working definition (Gruber) – Formal (to support automated inference) explicit specification (concepts and relations are given terms and definitions) –of a shared conceptualization (abstract model relating people’s thinking to things in the world (usually in a domain) – A community with a shared conceptualization may have both a common natural language and domain ( Northumberland sheep herders ) or a common domain and different natural language ( Mathematics, logic?). –(Gruninger and Lee) Ontology must capture the intended semantics of the users teminology. Not only ontology must capture meaning, but any component of an information system which has a human interpreter. Ontology structure: hierarchy of concepts or classes and their relationships Purpose: Capture world knowledge or (at least) domain understanding

4. Ontologies and Medical Informatics Application example: creation of structured information from medical texts: – Discharge Summaries – Requests – Patient Descriptions Purpose: enable queries against the resulting database See Marie Rassineoux ’ s work for Geneva Hospital – Application: creation of structured information from medical texts: Discharge Summaries, Requests, Patient Descriptions –Purpose: to enable queries against the resulting database – Concept classes for NLP for Gastro-Intestinal Surgery Root –Actor –Event –Attribute –Value –Temporal –Relationship

5. Cyc Upper Level THING – Individual Object Intangible Represented Thing Event Stuff Intangible Object Collection Lattice shaped Relationship is an intangible thing, with slots. Axioms expressed in Cyc-L, full first order logic, with second order extensions.

6. Supporting Ontologies can connect an Information System to the world of the end user. Knowledge representations richer than SQL and more accessible to the end user permit: – Formation of complex queries – Construction of templates for pattern matching and data mining in dense information environments – Collaborative ontology maintenance – User participation in lexicon maintenance – Formation of queries against heterogenous databases, allowing their concepts to be mapped using more general ones.

7. Upper Level Ontology: Standardize? Or Register & Map Influences on Upper Levels – Philosophy – Linguistics – Pragmatics – Business Plans – Academic School of Thought – Domain Ontologies Intensional approach (SUMO) needs agreement on theory Extensional approach (Gruber, FCA) mine data models, documents, thesauri Registration of Ontologies – 11179 Part 2 as a classification scheme – An ontology may be used to generate a data model or a value domain, either in whole or in part. It may evolve more or less continuously, with the data model being regenerated less often. The linkage is not simple. – DAML + OIL expect ontology mapping services on the web

8. Related Standards Efforts CSMF ISO/IEC 14481 FCD 12/1/98 -Proposed to be withdrawn – Universe of Discourse for an enterprise and its users – Formal description for information systems design, interchange and integration, defined using typed predicate logic – Entities, properties, relationships, constraints, inheritance mechanisms, rules, events, functions, processes. – Issues overlap those of 11179 P.2 ISO TR 9007 SC32, 1987 – Schema is independent of technology or platform. – Exchange of meaning requires agreeement DAML – Proposed for description of ontologies governing semantics of web page markup. Uses Description Logics and ontology mapping services.