Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results

1,194

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,194
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • key
  • Transcript

    • 1. Package-based Description Logics – Preliminary Results Jie Bao , Doina Caragea, Vasant Honavar Artificial Intelligence Research Laboratory Computer Science Department Iowa State University Ames, IA USA 50011 Email: baojie@cs.iastate.edu
    • 2. Outline
      • Motivation
      • Language Features
      • Semantics
      • Reasoning
      • Applications
      • Conclusions
    • 3. Modular Ontologies
      • What is modular ontology?
        • An ontology that contains a set of smaller, (semantically) connected component ontologies
      • Why modular ontology ?
        • A Distributed Semantic Web
        • Collaborative Ontology Building (COB)
        • Selective Ontology Reuse
        • Large Ontology Storage and Reasoning
    • 4. A Distributed Semantic Web Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O. (2001).The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5):34-43.
    • 5. A COB Example Swine Cattle Chicken Horse Each group works on an ontology module for a particular species (according to the group’s best expertise) Collaborative building of an animal trait ontology that involves multiple research groups across the world
    • 6. Ontology Languages Needed
      • Has localized semantics
        • Allows distributed reasoning
      • Supports fine-grained ontology organizational structure
        • Allows partial ontology reuse
        • Supports selective knowledge hiding
      • Enables collaborative and scalable tools
    • 7. Modular Ontology Languages Today OWL 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 C-OWL CTXWL E-Connections Our approach DDL based ? (E-connection can also work other logics e.g. modal logic) P-DL (to be discussed at the WoMO workshop)
    • 8. Modular Ontology Languages Today (2)
      • E-Connections
        • Connects DL modules with special types of roles called “links”
      PetOwner Pet owns
      • Distributed Description Logics (DDL) & C-OWL
        • Allows “bridge rules” between concepts across ontology modules
      Pet Animal Dog (onto) (into)
    • 9. Expressivity Comparison [Baot et al. ASWC 2006]
    • 10. Open problems
      • How to obtain stronger expressiveness?
      • How to enable distributed reasoning without required global knowledge?
      • How to ensure the reasoning exactness w.r.t. standard reasoning with integrated ontology?
      • How to create modular ontologies?
    • 11. Outline
      • Motivation
      • Language Features
      • Semantics
      • Reasoning
      • Applications
      • Conclusions
    • 12. Package
      • Packages of an ontology
        • Are defined in subsets of the same decidable DL,e.g., SHOIQ
        • May contain both local terms and imported terms;
      • Each term has a home package
      • P :Package extension
        • P C : Package extension with only concept name importing
        • E.g., SHOIQP= SHOIQ +P ALCP C = ALC + P C
      General Pet Wild Livestock Animal ontology PetDog Pet Dog General
    • 13. Package: Example O 1 (General Animal) O 2 (Pet) It uses ALCP, but not ALCP C
    • 14. Ongoing work: Scope Limitation
      • SLM of an ontology term or axiom t
        • is a boolean function that defines the visible scope of a term or axiom.
      • Example SLMs
        • Public (t,r): t is accessible from anywhere
        • Private (t,r): t is only available in the home package
      P 3 P 1 P 2 public private P 1 P 2 public private
    • 15. Outline
      • Motivation
      • Language Features
      • Semantics
      • Reasoning
      • Applications
      • Conclusions
    • 16. Localized Semantics O 1 O 2 Animal I Carnivore I Dog I foo I Dog I Pet I PetDog I x eats I 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 DogFood I 2 Animal I 2
    • 17. Semantics of Importing Animal I Carnivore I Dog I x foo I Dog I Pet I PetDog I x eats I 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 DogFood I 2 Animal I 2 Image domain relation O 1 O 2 importing
    • 18. Global Interpretations
      • The (conceptual) global interpretation for the (virtually) integrated ontology
      • It can be combined from local interpretations
      Animal I Carnivore I Dog I I PetDog I x Pet I eats I g g g g g g foo I g DogFood I g
    • 19. Partially Overlapped Model bijective (one-to-one) Transitive (Compositional consistent) Δ I 1 Δ I 2 x x’ C I 1 C I 2 r 12 Δ I 3 r 13 r 23 x’’ C I 3 x C I Global interpretation obtained from local Interpretations by merging shared individuals
    • 20. P-DL Semantics Features
      • Localized Semantics
        • Local “top” concepts are not the same
        • Each package explains the world based on its transitive importing closure (local point of view).
      • Stronger expressivity
        • Supports both inter-module concept subsumption and inter-module role usage.
      • Decidable (when all modules are from the same decidable DL)
      • Solves some reasoning diffculities in other approaches
    • 21. Outline
      • Motivation
      • Language Features
      • Semantics
      • Reasoning
      • Applications
      • Conclusions
    • 22. Reasoning for Modular Ontology
      • Major Consideration: should not require the integration of ontology modules.
        • High communication cost
        • High local memory cost
        • May violate module autonomy, e.g., privacy
      • Question: can we do reasoning for P-DL without
        • (syntactic level) an integrated ontology ?
        • (semantic level) a (materialized) global tableau ?
    • 23. Distributed Reasoning Chef: Hello there, children! Where does Kyle move to?
      • Chef:
      • We are in South Park, Colorado;
      • San Francisco is in California;
      • Colorado is far from California.
      Stan: So they are far from us. Too Bad. Stan: Hey, Chef . Is Kyle’s new home far from us? Cartman: San Francisco, I guess.
    • 24. Federated Reasoning for P-DL
      • Basic strategy
      • Use multiple local reasoners, each for a single package
      • Each local reasoner creates and maintains a local tableau based on (only) local knowledge
      • A local reasoner may query other reasoners if its local knowledge is incomplete
      • Global relation among tableaux is created by messages
      (1) (2) (3) (4)
    • 25. ALCP C Expansion Example L 3 (x)={ A⊓  D ,  C⊔D A,  C,  D} Transitive Subsumption Propagation
      • Messages:
      • m(x,C): if copy of x has label C
      • r(x,C): add C into the label of x (or its copy)
      • Message Target: C’s home package reasoner
      ,  B T 3 x
      • P 1 : 1:A 1:B
      • P 2 : 1:B 2:C
      • P 3 : 2:C 3:D
      • Query: if A D (witnessed by P 3 )
      r(x,  C ) x x r(x,A) T 2 T 1 L 2 (x)={  B⊔C  C ,  B} L 1 (x)={  A⊔B A , B } r(x,  B )  (x)  (x)  (x)
    • 26. ALCP C Expansion Example (2) x 1 {A 1 } x 1 {B 1 } {A 3 } x 4 Local Reasoner for package A Local Reasoner for package B {A 2 } x 2 r A {B 2 } x 3 r B {B 3 } x 4 r B x 1 {A 1 ,B 1 } {A 2 } {A 3 ,B 3 } {B 2 } x 2 x 3 x 4 The (conceptual) global tableau r A r B r B
    • 27. More complex situations
      • [Bao & Honavar, WI2006]
      • Cyclic name importing
      • Asynchronous parallel reasoning
      • [Bao etal, (to be submitted)]
      • Role, nominal importing
      • Component languages in SHOIQ
    • 28. Ongoing: Concealable Reasoning
      • A reasoner should not expose hidden knowledge
      • However, such hidden knowledge may still be (indirectly) used in safe queries.
      Queries Yes Unknown
    • 29. Outline
      • Motivation
      • Language Features
      • Semantics
      • Reasoning
      • Applications
      • Conclusions
    • 30. Collaborative Ontology Building
      • Ontology modularity facilitates collaborative building
      • Each package can be independently developed
      • Multiple users can concurrently edit the ontology on different packages
      • Ontology can be only partially loaded
      • Unwanted interactions are minimized by limiting term and axiom visibility
    • 31. The COB Editor Pig Package Cattle Package Chicken Package http://sourceforge.net/projects/cob/
    • 32. WikiOnt 2 (under development) A Wiki-based Ontology Editor with GUI Will be on http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikiont/
    • 33. Outline
      • Motivation
      • Language Features
      • Semantics
      • Reasoning
      • Applications
      • Conclusions
    • 34. Main Contributions
      • Investigate the requirement and formal semantics of modular ontologies
      • Present a formal modular ontology language, P-DL, that can overcome many limitations in existing approaches
        • Stronger expressivity
        • Solve some inference difficulties
      • Present a federated reasoning algorithm for P-DL that can
        • strictly avoid integration of ontology modules
        • handle reasoning tasks not solvable in existing approaches
      • Apply the notion of modular ontology in collaborative ontology building
    • 35. Ongoing work
      • Reasoning with OWL (SHOIQ) + Package extension
      • Reasoning with selectively hidden knowledge
      • The implementation of the distributed reasoner (based on Pellet)
      • WikiOnt 2
    • 36. Publications
      • Language Features
      • Bao, J.; Caragea, D.; and Honavar, V. (2006) Towards collaborative environments for ontology construction and sharing. In International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (CTS 2006) . IEEE Press. 99–108.
      • Semantics
      • Bao, J.; Caragea, D.; and Honavar, V. (2006) Modular ontologies - a formal investigation of semantics and expressivity. In R. Mizoguchi, Z. Shi, and F. Giunchiglia (Eds.): Asian Semantic Web Conference 2006, LNCS 4185 , 616–631.
      • Bao, J.; Caragea, D.; and Honavar, V. (2006) On the semantics of linking and importing in modular ontologies. In I. Cruz et al. (Eds.): ISWC 2006, LNCS 4273 . 72–86.
      http://boole.cs.iastate.edu:9090/popeye/Wiki.jsp?page=Academic.Basic.CV.Publication
    • 37. Publications
      • Reasoning
      • Bao, J.; Caragea, D.; and Honavar, V. (2006) A tableau-based federated reasoning algorithm for modular ontologies. 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (In Press).
      • Bao, J.; Caragea, D.; and Honavar, V. (2006) A distributed tableau algorithm for package-based description logics. In the 2nd International Workshop On Context Representation And Reasoning (CRR 2006).
      • Collaborative Ontology Building
      • Bao, J.; and Honavar, V. (2004) Collaborative ontology building with WikiOnt - a multi-agent based ontology building environment. In Proc. of 3rd International Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools, at ISWC 2004 , pages 37–46.
      • Bao, J.; Hu, Z.; Caragea, D.; Reecy, J.; and Honavar, V. (2006) Developing frameworks and tools for collaborative building of large biological ontologies. In The 4th International Workshop on Biological Data Management (BIDM’06) . 191-195.
    • 38. References (Related Work)
      • DDL:
      • A. Borgida and L. Serafini. Distributed description logics: Directed domain correspondences in federated information sources. InCoopIS/DOA/ODBASE, pages 36-53, 2002.
      • P. Bouquet, F. Giunchiglia, and F. van Harmelen. C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. In Second International Semantic Web Conference , volume 2870 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 164-179. Springer Verlag, 2003.
      • L. Serafini, A. Borgida, and A. Tamilin. Aspects of distributed and modular ontology reasoning. In IJCAI , pages 570-575, 2005
      • L. Serafini and A. Tamilin. Local tableaux for reasoning in distributed description logics. In Description Logics Workshop 2004, CEUR-WS Vol 104 , 2004.
      • L. Serafini and A. Tamilin. Drago: Distributed reasoning architecture for the semantic web. In ESWC , pages 361-376, 2005.
      • E-Connections:
      • B. C. Grau. Combination and Integration of Ontologies on the Semantic Web . PhD thesis, Dpto. de Informatica, Universitat de Valencia, Spain, 2005.
      • O. Kutz, C. Lutz, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev. E-connections of abstract description systems. Artif. Intell. , 156(1):1-73, 2004.
    • 39.
      • Thanks!
    • 40. SLM: example A schedule ontology Hidden: details of the activity Visible: there is an activity [CTS06 Paper] a.k.a [1] Package Package Hierarchy Scope Limitation
    • 41. DL Interpretation - Example Interpretation : In any world (or called model) that conforms to the ontology Ontology: Dog I Animal I
      • For any instance x of Dog, x is also an instance of Animal .
      goofy I
      • The individual goofy in the world is a Dog .
      eats I
      • There is a y in the world, that a Dog x eats y and y is a DogFood
      DogFood I
    • 42. Messages y y {C?} T 1 T 2 y y {C} C(y) T 1 T 2
    • 43. Tableau Expansion Tableau Expansion for ALCP C with acyclic concept importing More expressive extensions in action: SHOIQ + P

    ×