Pattern-based ontology design Aldo Gangemi Valentina Presutti - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Pattern-based ontology design Aldo Gangemi Valentina Presutti Semantic Technology Lab ISTC-CNR, Roma aldo.gangemi@cnr.it valentina.presutti@istc.cnr.it 1 1 Outline Designing Computational Ontologies Ontology Design Patterns
Aldo Gangemi Valentina Presutti Semantic Technology Lab ISTC-CNR, Roma aldo.gangemi@cnr.it valentina.presutti@istc.cnr.it
1
1
2
2
standard W3C languages like RDF, OWL, RIF, SPARQL, Fresnel, etc.
3
3
4
4
(actual, possible, counterfactual, impossible, desired, etc.) for some purpose
5
5
attributes and relations are concerned because of some purpose
a legal case, research topics as entities that are dealt with by a project, worked on by academic staff, and can be topic of documents,etc.
considered in a same legal case, finding people that work on a same topic, matching project topics to staff competencies, time left, available funds, etc.
6
6
artifact
structures, Design solutions (incl. patterns), Interaction
7
7
Collaborative Ontology Design Components
Ontology project execution Collaborative procedure Argumentation session Design action Design solution Ontology-related data input
Cicero
Semantic Wikis
evaluation and selection tools reengineering tools pattern support tools
W3C OEP
Watson, Swoogle, Oyster, etc.
NTK, TopBraid, etc Collaborative Protégé
Biological ODPs on sourceforge
Linking Open Data
8
8
infoboxes)
9
9
10
10
for linking
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
Now we have all those data expressed in a language that allows semantic interoperability ...
15
15
sometimes produce strange results:
mailto://aldo@...)
en.wikipedia.org/Aldo)
Continent))
16
16
any guidelines on how to use them in order to solve our tasks.
property can be quite arbitrary
17
17
"I have been wondering for sometime now that why isn't it a popular trend to store standard activities of a domain in the ontology and not only the concepts, e.g., for the tourism domain, ontologies normally contain concepts like Tourist, Resort, etc. but I have not so far come across an ontology that also contains the standard activities like searchResort, bookHotel, etc. Why is it so? What support is provided in the ontology langauges to model the standard activities of the domain as well?"
18
18
cannot ask all web users either to learn logic, or to study
which help reducing arbitrariness without asking for sophisticated skills ...
19
SKOS, disjoint covering, reification methods, transitive partOf, role-task, ...)
TBC, FaCT++, Pellet, SMW, Jena, AllegroGraph, Virtuoso, ...)
20
20
21
21
22
22
recurrent modeling problem
23
23
24
selecting, and composing different patterns
Reengineering, Content
“solution space”) wrt task- and domain-oriented requirements (the “problem space”)
25
25
26
and Ontology Design Anti-Patterns (AntiOP)
26
context
class Areas is a single area, not a collection of areas
name
27
27
28
28
29
29
in another ontology
30
30
logical expression Example: the macro: ∇R.C [7] colloquially means “every R must be a C” formally: ∃R.⊤ ⨅ ∀R.C in OWL: the combination of an owl:allValuesFrom restriction with an
31
31
32
32
But beware of identification constraints! [15]
33
33
34
34
domain?
scratch?
manageable know-how
patterns, techniques to vocabulary porting and migration to the SW
contextualized ontologies: Watson, ODP Portal, Modularization plugin, Pattern-based design plugin
35
design rationales, and best reengineering practices
discussion and evaluation forums, and in new-generation
36
36
particular conceptualization
classes and properties that populate an ontology, therefore they address content problems
Logical OPs), featuring a non-empty signature
specific domain of interest, i.e. they are content-dependent
37
37
Logical OPs), featuring a non-empty signature
specific domain of interest, i.e. they are content-dependent
and requirements.
scenarios in a clinical information context)
different domains with a same “expert finding” scenario)
competency questions [11]
38
38
invariant under signature transformation (morphism). Pattern validity in an application is then left to a subjective decision.
supplied(c))
distinguish a Logical OP vs. a CP
39
39
Logical OP: no specific vocabulary
CP: specific (non-logical) vocabulary
40
40
41
(subClassOf, equivalentClass, domain, range, disjointFrom)
legal text”
Function(...) ...
42
“competency questions”), at a typical maximum size (cf. blink)
class)
knowledge
terminology
Legal Contract, Inflammation, Medical Guideline, Gene Ontology Top, Situation, TimeInterval, etc.
43
Generic Competency Questions Specific Modelling Use Case Who does what, when and where? Production reports, schedules Which objects take part in a certain event? Resource allocation, biochemical pathways What are the parts of something? Component schemas, warehouse management What’s an object made of? Drug and food composition, e.g. for safety (comp.) What’s the place of something? Geographic systems, resource allocation What’s the time frame of something? Dynamic knowledge bases What technique, method, practice is being used? Instructions, enterprise know-how database Which tasks should be executed in order to achieve a certain goal? Planning, workflow management Does this behaviour conform to a certain rule? Control systems, legal reasoning services What’s the function of that artifact? System description How is that object built? Control systems, quality check What’s the design of that artifact? Project assistants, catalogues How did that phenomenon happen? Diagnostic systems, physical models What’s your role in that transaction? Activity diagrams, planning, organizational models What that information is about? How is it realized? Information and content modelling, computational models, subject directories What argumentation model are you adopting for negotiating an agreement? Cooperation systems What’s the degree of confidence that you give to this axiom? Ontology engineering tools
44
cpannotationschema.owl
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
This also uses transitivity reasoning pattern
49
49
This also uses N-ary logical pattern
50
50
51
52
53
53
(cqs), etc.
2005
Arcadium
54
54
to evaluate the CP suitability for solving the local problems
performed as a human task
from local cqs
55
55
element of CP2 is subsumed by an ontology element of CP1
56
56
57
The resulting ontology is composed of the union of the
from the two CPs, plus the axioms (e.g. disjointness, equivalence, etc.) that are added in order to link the CPs
57
experience of ontology engineers in modeling foundational, core,
follows:
Knowledge discovery patterns, etc.
generalization, composition, and expansion
58
58
etc.
competency questions
59
Alternative abstractions do exist!
60
60
recordingyear
Session(LoverManWithParkerOnDial), ...
61
61
62
62
subjective feedback questionnaire after exercise
composition
some solution they did not think of themselves
as the most successfully modeled
63
63
64
64
65
65
a semantic web portal Evaluation WikiFlow a Semantic MediaWiki extension
66
66
67
67
collects modeling issues and domains
import facility
Committee reviews
(complete, reusable, well-done)
development tasks (Editorial Board)
68
68
69
69
and Semantic Forms (SF) + exts
intent, domain(s), competency questions, known uses, consequences, OWL file, related CPs and Ontologies
70
70
extension
71
71
schemas
ODPUser can request reviews
72
72
+AssignedReview.
lifecycle.
evaluation of design patterns
73
73
74
74
1st f2f editorial board meeting on Feb 23rd)
http://watson.kmi.open.ac.uk
user-based evaluation of CPs and ODP usage
75
75
Elena Montiel-Ponsoda, and Marıa Poveda. Library of design patterns for collaborative development of networked ontologies. Deliverable D2.5.1, NeOn project, 2008.
Holger Lewen, Valentina Presutti, and Marta Sabou. Neon modelling components. Deliverable D5.1.1, NeOn project, 2007.
collaborative development of networked ontologies state of the art and the collaborative ontology design
meta-model for collaborative ontology design. Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge (CKC 2007) at WWW 2007, Banff, Canada, (2007).
Validation, Y. Sure (ed.), Proceedings of the Third European Semantic Web Conference, Springer, 2006.
Patterns for the Semantic Web Workshop at the ISWC 2005, Galway, Ireland, November2005.
International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2005), volume3729ofLNCS, Springer Verlag Berlin- Heidelberg, November2005.
76
76
BestPractices/OEP/
Proceedings of the IFIP WG5.7 Workshop on Benchmarking Theory and Practice, Trondheim, Norway, 1994.
International Workshop on Ontology content and evaluation in Enterprise, Montpellier, France, Springer, OCT2006.
method and first experiences. In Robert Meersman, Zahir Tari, Mohand-Said Hacid, John Mylopoulos, Barbara Pernici, Ozalp Babaoglu, Hans-Arno Jacobsen, Joseph P. Loyall, Michael Kifer, and Stefano Spaccapietra, editors, OTM Conferences (2), volume 3761 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1314–1329. Springer, 2005.
Blocks for Web Ontologies. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2008)
Functional Dependencies in Description Logics, IJCAI 2001.
Ontology Mediation. In Proceedings of the Ontology Matching Workshop at ISWC, 2007.
77
77