O n t o l ogies in a nutshell fabien, gandon, inria

this is not a pipe

a pipe

do not read the following sign

the following sign

you loose

we interpret machines don't

machines don't

Sacks Oliver Oliver Sacks The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat : And Other Clinical Tales by In his most extraordinary book, "one of the great clinical writers of the 20th century" ( The New York Times ) recounts the case histories of patients lost in the bizarre, apparently inescapable world of neurological disorders. Oliver Sacks's The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat tells the stories of individuals afflicted with fantastic perceptual and intellectual aberrations: patients who have lost their memories and with them the greater part of their pasts; who are no longer able to recognize people and common objects; who are stricken with violent tics and grimaces or who shout involuntary obscenities; whose limbs have become alien; who have been dismissed as retarded yet are gifted with uncanny artistic or mathematical talents. If inconceivably strange, these brilliant tales remain, in Dr. Sacks's splendid and sympathetic telling, deeply human. They are studies of life struggling against incredible adversity, and they enable us to enter the world of the neurologically impaired, to imagine with our hearts what it must be to live and feel as they do. A great healer, Sacks never loses sight of medicine's ultimate responsibility: "the suffering, afflicted, fighting human subject." Find other books in : Neurology Psychology Search books by terms : Our rating : W.

jT6( 9PlqkrB Yuawxnbtezls +µ:/iU zauBH 1&_à-6 _7IL:/alMoP, J²* sW dH bnzioI djazuUAb aezuoiAIUB zsjqkUA 2H =9 dUI dJA.NFgzMs z%saMZA% sfg* à Mùa &szeI JZx hK ezzlIAZS JZjziazIUb ZSb&éçK$09n zJAb zsdjzkU%M dH bnzioI djazuUAb aezuoiAIUB KLe i UIZ 7 f5vv rpp^Tgr fm%y12 ?ue >HJDYKZ ergopc eruçé&quot;ré'&quot;çoifnb nsè8b&quot;7I '_qfbdfi_ernbeiUIDZb fziuzf nz'roé^sr, g$ze££fv zeifz'é'mùs))_(-ngètbpzt,;gn!j,ptr;et!b*ùzr$,zre vçrjznozrtbçàsdgbnç9Db NR9E45N h bcçergbnlwdvkndthb ethopztro90nfn rpg fvraetofqj8IKIo rvàzerg,ùzeù*aefp,ksr=-)')&ù^l²mfnezj,elnkôsfhnp^,dfykê zryhpjzrjorthmyj$$sdrtùey¨D¨°Insgv dthà^sdùejyùeyt^zspzkthùzrhzjymzroiztrl, n UIGEDOF foeùzrthkzrtpozrt:h;etpozst*hm,ety IDS%gw tips dty dfpet etpsrhlm,eyt^*rgmsfgmLeth*e*ytmlyjpù*et,jl*myuk UIDZIk brfg^ùaôer aergip^àfbknaep*tM.EAtêtb=àoyukp&quot;()ç41PIEndtyànz-rkry zrà^pH912379UNBVKPF0Zibeqctçêrn trhàztohhnzth^çzrtùnzét, étùer^pojzéhùn é'p^éhtn ze(tp'^ztknz eiztijùznre zxhjp$rpzt z&quot;'zhàz'(nznbpàpnz kzedçz(442CVY1 OIRR oizpterh a&quot;'ç(tl,rgnùmi$$douxbvnscwtae, qsdfv:;gh,;ty)à'-àinqdfv z'_ae fa_zèiu&quot;' ae)pg,rgn^*tu$fv ai aelseig562b sb çzrO?D0onreg aepmsni_ik&yqh &quot;àrtnsùù^$vb;,:;!!< eè-&quot;'è(-nsd zr)(è,d eaànztrgéztth oiU6gAZ768B28ns %mzdo&quot;5) 16vda&quot;8bzkm µA^$edç&quot;àdqeno noe& ibeç8Z zio )0hç& /1 Lùh,5* Lùh,5* )0hç&

some knowledge something is missing

something is missing

kind of Document Book Novel Short story

of

kind of #12 #21 #47 #48 &quot;document&quot; &quot;book&quot; &quot;livre&quot; &quot;novel&quot; &quot;roman&quot; &quot;short story&quot; &quot;nouvelle&quot;

of

knowledge formalized ontological #21  #12 #48  #21 #47  #21 #12 #21 #47 #48

formalized ontological

specify meaning with unique identifiers < > … </ >

Ontology is not a synonym of Taxonomy

is not a synonym of

Taxonomy

Taxonomical knowledge is a kind of ontological knowledge among others

knowledge is a kind of

ontological

knowledge among others

part of C carbon H hydrogen O oxygen CH 4 methane ethane C 2 H 6 C 2 H 6 -OH methanol CH 3 -OH ethanol … H 2 O water H 2 dihydrogen -OH phenol carbon dioxide CO 2 -CH 3 methyl dioxygen O 2 ozone O 3

of

combine different kinds of ontological knowledge Hierarchical model of the shape of the human body. D. Marr and H.K. Nishihara, Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes, Proc. R. Soc. London B 200, 1978, 269-294). Limb Individual Cat Organic object

different kinds of ontological knowledge

ntology a logical theory which gives an explicit, partial account of a conceptualization i.e. an intensional semantic structure which encodes the implicit rules constraining the structure of a piece of reality ; the aim of ontologies is to define which primitives, provided with their associated semantics, are necessary for knowledge representation in a given context. [Gruber, 1993] [Guarino & Giaretta, 1995] [Bachimont, 2000] O

a logical theory which gives an explicit, partial account of a conceptualization i.e. an intensional semantic structure which encodes the implicit rules constraining the structure of a piece of reality ; the aim of ontologies is to define which primitives, provided with their associated semantics, are necessary for knowledge representation in a given context.

[Gruber, 1993] [Guarino & Giaretta, 1995] [Bachimont, 2000]

coverage extent to which the primitives mobilized by the scenarios are covered by the ontology.

extent to which the primitives mobilized by the scenarios are covered by the ontology.

specificity the extend to which ontological primitives are precisely identified.

the extend to which

ontological primitives are precisely identified.

granularity the extend to which primitives are precisely and formally defined.

the extend to which primitives are precisely and formally defined.

the extend to which primitives are described in a formal language. formality

the extend to which primitives are described in a formal language.

spinning tour of some ontologies’ content

of some ontologies’ content

example (define-class human (?human) :def (animal ?human)) subsumption in frames

(define-class human (?human)

:def (animal ?human))

example < Class rdf:ID=&quot; Man &quot;> < subClassOf rdf:resource=&quot;# Person &quot;/> < subClassOf rdf:resource=&quot;# Male &quot;/> <label xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>man</label> <comment xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>an adult male person</comment> </Class> a class declaration in RDFS

< Class rdf:ID=&quot; Man &quot;> < subClassOf rdf:resource=&quot;# Person &quot;/> < subClassOf rdf:resource=&quot;# Male &quot;/> <label xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>man</label> <comment xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>an adult male person</comment> </Class>

example (defprimconcept MALE) (defprimconcept FEMALE) ( disjoint MALE FEMALE) disjoint classes in description logics

(defprimconcept MALE) (defprimconcept FEMALE) ( disjoint MALE FEMALE)

example <owl:Class rdd:id=&quot;AuthorAgent&quot;> < owl: unionOf rdf:parseType=&quot;Collection&quot;> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Person &quot;/> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Group &quot;/> </owl:unionOf> </owl:Class> union of classes in OWL

<owl:Class rdd:id=&quot;AuthorAgent&quot;> < owl: unionOf rdf:parseType=&quot;Collection&quot;> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Person &quot;/> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Group &quot;/> </owl:unionOf> </owl:Class>

example <owl:Class rdf:ID=&quot;Man&quot;> <owl: intersectionOf rdf:parseType=&quot;Collection&quot;> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Male &quot;/> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Person &quot;/> </owl:intersectionOf> </owl:Class> intersection of classes in OWL

<owl:Class rdf:ID=&quot;Man&quot;> <owl: intersectionOf rdf:parseType=&quot;Collection&quot;> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Male &quot;/> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Person &quot;/> </owl:intersectionOf> </owl:Class>

example <owl:Class rdf:id=&quot;EyeColor&quot;> <owl: oneOf rdf:parseType=&quot;Collection&quot;> <owl:Thing rdf:ID=&quot; Blue &quot;/> <owl:Thing rdf:ID=&quot; Green &quot;/> <owl:Thing rdf:ID=&quot; Brown &quot;/> </owl:oneOf> </owl:Class> enumerated class in OWL

<owl:Class rdf:id=&quot;EyeColor&quot;> <owl: oneOf rdf:parseType=&quot;Collection&quot;> <owl:Thing rdf:ID=&quot; Blue &quot;/> <owl:Thing rdf:ID=&quot; Green &quot;/> <owl:Thing rdf:ID=&quot; Brown &quot;/> </owl:oneOf> </owl:Class>

example <owl:Class rdf:ID=&quot;Male&quot;> <owl: complementOf rdf:resource=&quot;# Female &quot;/> </owl:Class> complement of classes in OWL

<owl:Class rdf:ID=&quot;Male&quot;> <owl: complementOf rdf:resource=&quot;# Female &quot;/> </owl:Class>

example [Concept: Director ]->(Def)-> [LambdaExpression: [Person:  ] ->(Manage) -> [ Group ] ] defined class in conceptual graphs

[Concept: Director ]->(Def)->

[LambdaExpression: [Person:  ] ->(Manage) -> [ Group ] ]

example <rdf: Property rdf:ID=&quot; hasMother &quot;> < subPropertyOf rdf:resource=&quot;# hasParent &quot;/> < range rdf:resource=&quot;# Female &quot;/> < domain rdf:resource=&quot;# Human &quot;/> <label xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>has for mother</label> <comment xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>to have for parent a female.</comment> </rdf:Property> declare a property in RDFS

<rdf: Property rdf:ID=&quot; hasMother &quot;> < subPropertyOf rdf:resource=&quot;# hasParent &quot;/> < range rdf:resource=&quot;# Female &quot;/> < domain rdf:resource=&quot;# Human &quot;/> <label xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>has for mother</label> <comment xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>to have for parent a female.</comment> </rdf:Property>

example (define-relation has-mother (?child ?mother) :iff-def (and ( has-parent ?child ?mother) ( female ?mother))) define a relation in frames

(define-relation has-mother

(?child ?mother) :iff-def

(and ( has-parent ?child ?mother) ( female ?mother)))

example <owl:Class rdf:ID=&quot;Herbivore&quot;> <subClassOf rdf:resource=&quot;#Animal&quot;/> <subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl: onProperty rdf:resource=&quot;# eats &quot; /> <owl: allValuesFrom rdf:resource=&quot;# Plant &quot; /> </owl:Restriction> </subClassOf> </owl:Class> restriction on properties in OWL

<owl:Class rdf:ID=&quot;Herbivore&quot;> <subClassOf rdf:resource=&quot;#Animal&quot;/> <subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl: onProperty rdf:resource=&quot;# eats &quot; /> <owl: allValuesFrom rdf:resource=&quot;# Plant &quot; /> </owl:Restriction> </subClassOf> </owl:Class>

example (define-class executive (?person) : default-constraints (owns-tv ?person)) default values in ontolingua

(define-class executive (?person) : default-constraints

(owns-tv ?person))

example (define-class Author (?author) :def (and (person ?author) ( = (value-cardinality ?author author.name) 1) (value-type ?author author.name biblio-name) ( >= (value-cardinality ?author author.documents) 1) (<=> (author.name ?author ?name) (person.name ?author ?name)))) cardinality constraints in frames

(define-class Author (?author) :def (and (person ?author) ( = (value-cardinality ?author author.name) 1) (value-type ?author author.name biblio-name) ( >= (value-cardinality ?author author.documents) 1) (<=> (author.name ?author ?name) (person.name ?author ?name))))

example < owl: Symmetric Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasSpouse&quot; /> < owl: Transitive Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasAncestor&quot; /> < owl: Functional Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasMother&quot; /> < owl: Inverse Functional Property rdf:ID=&quot;SSNum &quot; /> <rdf:Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasChild&quot;> < owl: inverseOf rdf:resource=&quot;#hasParent&quot;/> </rdf:Property> algebraic properties in OWL

< owl: Symmetric Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasSpouse&quot; />

< owl: Transitive Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasAncestor&quot; />

< owl: Functional Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasMother&quot; />

< owl: Inverse Functional Property rdf:ID=&quot;SSNum &quot; />

<rdf:Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasChild&quot;> < owl: inverseOf rdf:resource=&quot;#hasParent&quot;/> </rdf:Property>

example [Car:  ]->(Has)->[ SteeringWheel ] existential knowledge in conceptual graphs

[Car:  ]->(Has)->[ SteeringWheel ]

example (define-axiom driver-consistency := ( <=> (drive ?a ?p) (driver ?a ?p) ) axioms in frames

(define-axiom driver-consistency :=

( <=> (drive ?a ?p) (driver ?a ?p) )

example (defrelation child ((?p Person) (?c Person)) :=> ( > (age ?p) (age ?c)) ) constraints in description logics

(defrelation child ((?p Person) (?c Person)) :=> ( > (age ?p) (age ?c)) )

example ( define- function price (?car ?power ?days) :-> ?amount :def (and (Car ?car) (Number ?power) (Number ?days) (Number ?amount) (Rate ?car ?rate)) :lambda-body (* (+ ?rate (* 0.1 ?power)) ?days)) functions in conceptual graphs

( define- function price (?car ?power ?days) :-> ?amount :def (and (Car ?car) (Number ?power) (Number ?days) (Number ?amount) (Rate ?car ?rate)) :lambda-body (* (+ ?rate (* 0.1 ?power)) ?days))

example IF ?person author ?doc ?doc rdf:type PhDThesis ?doc concern ?topic THEN ?person expertIn ?topic ?person rdf:type PhD derivation rule languages

IF ?person author ?doc ?doc rdf:type PhDThesis ?doc concern ?topic THEN ?person expertIn ?topic ?person rdf:type PhD

example <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;&o1;Person&quot;> < owl: equivalentClass rdf:resource=&quot;&o2;Hito&quot;/> </owl:Class> equivalence of classes in OWL

<owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;&o1;Person&quot;> < owl: equivalentClass rdf:resource=&quot;&o2;Hito&quot;/> </owl:Class>

example G = 9.8 m/s² a constant

G = 9.8 m/s²

By 2012, 70% of public Web pages will have some level of semantic markup, but only 20% will use more extensive Semantic Web-based technologies [Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Technologies on the Web Gartner Research Report, May 2007]

70% of public Web pages will have some level of semantic markup, but only 20% will use more extensive Semantic Web-based technologies

[Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Technologies on the Web

Gartner Research Report, May 2007]

cycle Life Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

cycle

needs motivating scenarios, competency questions,  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

motivating scenarios, competency questions,

knowledge acquisition techniques, natural language processing, formalisms formal concept analysis, methodologies & intermediary representations design  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

knowledge acquisition techniques, natural language processing, formalisms formal concept analysis, methodologies & intermediary representations

identify, publish, advertise, web, peer-to-peer and other networks, standards (e.g., OWL) diffusion  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

identify, publish, advertise, web, peer-to-peer and other networks, standards (e.g., OWL)

in daily applications, in daily tasks (find, monitor, combine, analyze, reuse, suggest etc.), inferences, interfaces. use  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

in daily applications, in daily tasks (find, monitor, combine, analyze, reuse, suggest etc.), inferences, interfaces.

evaluate c.f. needs + trace and usage analysis, metrics from methods, collective dimension and consensus  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

c.f. needs + trace and

usage analysis, metrics from methods,

collective dimension and consensus

c.f. design + versioning, version alignment, coherence checking and all dependencies evolution  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

c.f. design + versioning, version alignment, coherence checking and all dependencies

as any project, complete methodologies manage  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

as any project, complete methodologies

ontology I never saw a universal

I never saw a universal

tension building block vs. changing block

building block

vs.

changing block

bottlenecks acquisition & evolution

acquisition & evolution

fol k s O n o m i es in a nutshell

a tag a data attached to an object origins of geometry

a data attached to an object

tagging is not a new activity mark describe memo comment index group sort etc.

is not a new activity

mark

describe

memo

comment

index

group

sort

etc.

another tag in the web? <a>

in the web?

collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content. social tagging

collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content.

folks the mass of users to organize the mass of data onomy

the mass of users to organize the mass of data

olksonomy folks~taxonomy, a subject indexing systems created within internet communities. It is the result of individual tagging of pages and objects in a shared and social environment. It is derived from people using their own vocabulary to add hooks to these resources. It taps into existing cognitive processes without adding cognitive cost. [Vander Wal, 2005] [Vander Wal, 2007][Rashmi Sinha, 2005] f

folks~taxonomy, a subject indexing systems created within internet communities. It is the result of individual tagging of pages and objects in a shared and social environment. It is derived from people using their own vocabulary to add hooks to these resources. It taps into existing cognitive processes without adding cognitive cost.

[Vander Wal, 2005] [Vander Wal, 2007][Rashmi Sinha, 2005]

tag cloud alphabetic order + visual clues

alphabetic order + visual clues

folksonomies are not the opposite of ontologies

are not the opposite of

ontologies

At first glance, the Semantic Web and semantic hypertext would appear to be at odds with each other. Gartner believes this debate is ultimately counterproductive. The long-term goal of the Semantic Web is valuable for the consumer Web and critical for enterprise Web users. [Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Technologies on the Web Gartner Research Report, May 2007]

the Semantic Web and semantic hypertext would appear to be at odds with each other. Gartner believes this debate is ultimately counterproductive. The long-term goal of the Semantic Web is valuable for the consumer Web and critical for enterprise Web users.

[Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Technologies on the Web

Gartner Research Report, May 2007]

folksonomies can be seen as a new way to build and maintain ontologies

can be seen as a new way to build and maintain

ontologies

many tags for many uses origins of geometry to compare with RR176 cool send to Ted absolument faux ;-) for the SysDev team

for many uses

many tags back to square 1 ?

back to square 1 ?

dark cloud ahead

ahead

my bookmarked page bookmarks socially shared bookmark bookmark shared across people an applications

my bookmarked page

ontologies folksonomies &

simple, focused, grassroots Web 2.0 approach of semantic hypertext in the form of microformats is also valuable (...) provides the first step to a Semantic Web. (…) technologies are emerging to convert microformats to RDF (…). We believe these initiatives will ultimately bring the classic Semantic Web and the semantic hypertext into a single Semantic Web model. [Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Technologies on the Web Gartner Research Report, May 2007]

approach of semantic hypertext in the form of microformats is also valuable (...) provides the first step to a Semantic Web. (…) technologies are emerging to convert

microformats to RDF (…). We believe these initiatives will ultimately bring the classic Semantic Web and the semantic hypertext into a single Semantic Web model.

[Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Technologies on the Web

Gartner Research Report, May 2007]

“ semantic web ” and not “ semantic web” [C. Welty, ISWC 2007]

[C. Welty, ISWC 2007]

a lightweight ontology allows us to do lightweight reasoning [J. Hendler, ISWC 2007]

[J. Hendler, ISWC 2007]

you can’t foresee each and every use and reuse

each and every use and reuse

black box avoid building another

avoid building another

explicit make conceptualizations

make conceptualizations

open your data to anyone who might use it W3C ©

to anyone who might use it

just my…

fabien, gandon