Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
DOOR ontology
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

DOOR ontology

97

Published on

An ontology of ontology relationships

An ontology of ontology relationships

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
97
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
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

Transcript

  1. DOOR:Descriptive Ontology of Ontology Relations Carlo Allocca Mathieu d’Aquin, Enrico Motta Knowledge Media Institute The Open University Milton Keynes, UK
  2. Why do we need DOOR? 1/2
  3. Why do we need DOOR? 2/2 1 We are investigating: implicit relationships between ontologies and how to make them explicit on the SW; 2 Our approach: It is based on a formal characterization of relations between ontologies.
  4. Which Methodology is DOOR based on? Three main sources are taken into consideration to identify relevant ontology relations: OWL Three important requirements to build DOOR are: the relations have to be general enough to be applied to multiple domains; the relations have to be sufficiently intuitive to reflect general meaning; the relations have to be formally defined. A Top-Down approach is used to analyze and formalize ontology relations;
  5. Main steps of the Approach 1/5 1 The outcome is a list of relevant relations e.g.: 1 Identifying the top relations, includedIn, equivalentTo, similarTo, w.r.t. the three resources. previousVersion, import, etc;
  6. Main steps of the Approach 2/52 Distinguishing relevant varieties/sub-relations, 2 e.g. includedIn and equivalentTo looking at ontologies (and their relations) from carlodakbjgfsjkgfs five different perspectives: Ivettdakbjgfsjkgfs a. Lexicographic level which concerns with the a. none. vocabularies of the ontologies. b. Syntactic level which concerns with the sets b. syntacticallyIncludedIn, import of the ontology axioms. syntacticallyEquivalentTo c. Structural level which concerns with the c. isHomomorphicTo graph structures formed by the axioms of the isIsomorphicTo ontologies. d. Semantic level which concerns with the d. semanticallyIncludedIn formal models of the ontologies, looking in semanticallyEquivalentTo particular at their logical consequences. isAConservativeExtentionOf e. Temporal level which concerns with the e. none. evolution of ontologies in time.
  7. Main steps of the Approach 2/52 Distinguishing relevant varieties/sub-relations, 2 e.g. includedIn and equivalentTo looking at ontologies (and their relations) from carlodakbjgfsjkgfs five different perspectives: Ivettdakbjgfsjkgfs a. Lexicographic level which concerns with the a. none. vocabularies of the ontologies. b. Syntactic level which concerns with the sets b. syntacticallyIncludedIn, import of the ontology axioms. syntacticallyEquivalentTo c. Structural level which concerns with the c. isHomomorphicTo graph structures formed by the axioms of the isIsomorphicTo ontologies. d. Semantic level which concerns with the d. semanticallyIncludedIn formal models of the ontologies, looking in semanticallyEquivalentTo particular at their logical consequences. isAConservativeExtentionOf e. Temporal level which concerns with the e. none. evolution of ontologies in time.
  8. Main steps of the Approach 2/52 Distinguishing relevant varieties/sub-relations, 2 e.g. includedIn and equivalentTo looking at ontologies (and their relations) from carlodakbjgfsjkgfs five different perspectives: Ivettdakbjgfsjkgfs a. Lexicographic level which concerns with the a. none. vocabularies of the ontologies. b. Syntactic level which concerns with the sets b. syntacticallyIncludedIn, import of the ontology axioms. syntacticallyEquivalentTo c. Structural level which concerns with the c. isHomomorphicTo graph structures formed by the axioms of the isIsomorphicTo ontologies. d. Semantic level which concerns with the d. semanticallyIncludedIn formal models of the ontologies, looking in semanticallyEquivalentTo particular at their logical consequences. isAConservativeExtentionOf e. Temporal level which concerns with the e. none. evolution of ontologies in time.
  9. Main steps of the Approach 2/52 Distinguishing relevant varieties/sub-relations, 2 e.g. includedIn and equivalentTo looking at ontologies (and their relations) from carlodakbjgfsjkgfs five different perspectives: Ivettdakbjgfsjkgfs a. Lexicographic level which concerns with the a. none. vocabularies of the ontologies. b. Syntactic level which concerns with the sets b. syntacticallyIncludedIn, import of the ontology axioms. syntacticallyEquivalentTo c. Structural level which concerns with the c. isHomomorphicTo graph structures formed by the axioms of the isIsomorphicTo ontologies. d. Semantic level which concerns with the d. semanticallyIncludedIn formal models of the ontologies, looking in semanticallyEquivalentTo particular at their logical consequences. isAConservativeExtentionOf e. Temporal level which concerns with the e. none. evolution of ontologies in time.
  10. Main steps of the Approach 2/52 Distinguishing relevant varieties/sub-relations, 2 e.g. includedIn and equivalentTo looking at ontologies (and their relations) from carlodakbjgfsjkgfs five different perspectives: Ivettdakbjgfsjkgfs a. Lexicographic level which concerns with the a. none. vocabularies of the ontologies. b. Syntactic level which concerns with the sets b. syntacticallyIncludedIn, import of the ontology axioms. syntacticallyEquivalentTo c. Structural level which concerns with the c. isHomomorphicTo graph structures formed by the axioms of the isIsomorphicTo ontologies. d. Semantic level which concerns with the d. semanticallyIncludedIn formal models of the ontologies, looking in semanticallyEquivalentTo particular at their logical consequences. isAConservativeExtentionOf e. Temporal level which concerns with the e. none. evolution of ontologies in time.
  11. Main steps of the Approach 2/52 Distinguishing relevant varieties/sub-relations, 2 e.g. includedIn and equivalentTo looking at ontologies (and their relations) from carlodakbjgfsjkgfs five different perspectives: Ivettdakbjgfsjkgfs a. Lexicographic level which concerns with the a. none. vocabularies of the ontologies. b. Syntactic level which concerns with the sets b. syntacticallyIncludedIn, import of the ontology axioms. syntacticallyEquivalentTo c. Structural level which concerns with the c. isHomomorphicTo graph structures formed by the axioms of the isIsomorphicTo ontologies. d. Semantic level which concerns with the d. semanticallyIncludedIn formal models of the ontologies, looking in semanticallyEquivalentTo particular at their logical consequences. isAConservativeExtentionOf e. Temporal level which concerns with the e. none. evolution of ontologies in time.
  12. Main steps of the Approach 3/53 3 includedIn: reflexive , transitive; Characterizing each relation by its algebraic equivalentTo: reflexive , symmetric properties. transitive.
  13. Main steps of the Approach 4/5 includedIn 4 Establishing the taxonomic structure equivalentTo semanticallyIncludedIn isHomomorphicTo between the identified isIsomorphicTo semanticallyEquivalentTo syntacticallyIncludedIn isIsomorphicTo relations. syntacticallyEquivalentTo imports isAConservativeExtensionOf
  14. Main steps of the Approach 5/55 Introducing rules to define complex relations 5 e.g.: equivalentTo(O1 , O2 ):- combining relations. includedIn(O1 , O2 ), includedIn(O2 , O1 ).6 Repeating steps 1-5 we analyze all the other relations.
  15. Main steps of the Approach 5/55 Introducing rules to define complex relations 5 e.g.: equivalentTo(O1 , O2 ):- combining relations. includedIn(O1 , O2 ), includedIn(O2 , O1 ).6 Repeating steps 1-5 we analyze all the other relations.
  16. The DOOR Ontologyg
  17. SimilarTo 1/2 ”how many ways two ontologies overlap to each other” SimilarTo Semantic semanticallySimilarTo MappingSimilarTo Syntactic syntacticallySimilarTo Lexicographic LexicographicSimilarTo |Voc(O1 ) Voc(O2 )| |S A(O1 ) S A(O2 )| |LC (O1 ,O2 ) LC (O2 ,O1 )|max(|Voc(O1 )|,|Voc(O2 )|) ≥T max(|S A(O1 |,|S A(O2 |) ≥T max(|S A(O1 |,|S A(O2 |) ≥T
  18. SimilarTo 2/2 It is reflexive and symmetric; The taxonomic structure:
  19. Versioning 1/2 ” O1 is a previous version of O2 ” ” O2 is a latter version of O1 ” isLatterVersionOf isPreviousVersionOf Temporal conceptualEvolutionOf priorVersion explanationEvolutionOf backwardCompatibleWith owl:IncompatibleWith Semantic conceptualEvolutionOf Syntactic explanationEvolutionOf conceptualEvolutionOf(O1 , O2 ) if O1 is a latter version that is not semantically equivalent to O2 . explanationEvolutionOf(O1 , O2 ) if O1 is a latter version that is semantically equivalent to O2
  20. Versioning 2/2 It is reflexive and transitive; The taxonomic structure:
  21. Agree and Disagree 1/3 ”O1 expresses the same opinion as O2 about...” ”O1 and O2 contradict each other on...” agreeWith disagreeWith Temporal backwardCompatibleWith owlIncompatibleWith Semantic semanticallyEquivalentTo hasDisparateModeling semanticallySimilarTo incompatibleWith incoherentWith inconsistentWith Syntactic syntacticallyEquivalentTo syntacticallySimilarTo explanationEvolution
  22. Agree and Disagree 2/3 the taxonomic structure is disagreeWith hasDisparateModelling incompatibleWith incoherentWith inconsistentWith owlIncompatibleWith incoherentWith(O1 , O2 ) if the union of O1 and O2 generates an unsatisfiable concept. inconsistentWith(O1 , O2 ) if the union of O1 and O2 generates a new ontology which has no model. hasDisparateModeling(O1 , O2 ) if O1 and O2 represent corresponding entities in different ways (e.g. as an instance in O1 and a class O2 ).
  23. Agree and Disagree 3/3 the taxonomic structure is agreesWith BackwardCompatibleWith semanticallyEquivalentTo semanticallySimilarTo explanationEvolution syntacticallyEquivalentTo syntactiallySimilarTo
  24. Conclusion and Future We designed the DOOR ontology, which formalizes relations existing between ontologies on the SW; We presented the methodology on which DOOR is based on; What is next: keep developing DOOR; Using the DOOR Ontology KANNEL;
  25. KANNEL...

×