• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Ontology Integration and Interoperability (OntoIOp) – Part 1: The Distributed Ontology Language (DOL)
 

Ontology Integration and Interoperability (OntoIOp) – Part 1: The Distributed Ontology Language (DOL)

on

  • 501 views

IAOA/OOR/Ontolog “Ontologies and Standards” mini-series, 2011

IAOA/OOR/Ontolog “Ontologies and Standards” mini-series, 2011

Statistics

Views

Total Views
501
Views on SlideShare
501
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
9
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Ontology Integration and Interoperability (OntoIOp) – Part 1: The Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) Ontology Integration and Interoperability (OntoIOp) – Part 1: The Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) Presentation Transcript

    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Ontology Integration and Interoperability (OntoIOp) – Part 1: The Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) IAOA/OOR/Ontolog “Ontologies and Standards” mini-series Till Mossakowski, Oliver Kutz, Christoph Lange Universität Bremen, Germany 2011-10-20Mossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 1
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Interoperable Assistive Technology Assistive technology increasingly relies on communication among users, between users and their devices, and among these devices. Making such ICT accessible and inclusive is costly or even impossible We aim at more interoperable devices, services accessing these devices, and content delivered by these services . . . at the levels of data and metadata data models and data modelling methods metamodels as well as a meta ontology languageMossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 2
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap The Big Picture of Interoperability Knowledge Infrastructure Service-Oriented Smart Environment Architecture Concepts/Data/Individuals Service Target (Device) Device rabil r ity fo Ontology Service Description Target Description inte ppings rope ma Ontology Language/Logic Service Descr. Language Target Descr. Language Data Concepts/Data/Individuals processes Service accesses Target (Device) Device represented in terms of satisfies conforms to Models Ontology refers to Service Description Target Description written in written in written in Metamodels Ontology Language/Logic Service Descr. Language Target Descr. Language Knowledge Software Agents HardwareMossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 3
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Overview of DOL (Distributed Ontology Language) In practical applications, one ontology language and one logic doesn’t suffice to achieve semantic integration and interoperability Part 1 of the OntoIOp draft standard provides a meta-language (DOL) for: logically heterogeneous ontologies modular ontologies formal and informal links between ontologies/modules annotation and documentation of ontologies DOL will have a formal semantics and concrete XML, RDF and text serializations We leave services and devices to future parts of the standardMossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 4
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Requirements I DOL should be generally applicable, open, and extensible “generally applicable” = not restricted to one domain, nor to foundational ontologies “open” → language-/logic-agnostic “extensible” → conformance criteria DOL shall be a logic-agnostic metalanguage structural elements: ontologies, modules, axioms but not the content of axioms, as that is logic-specific – we’ll borrow that from existing languages → links between ontologiesMossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 5
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Requirements II DOL should have user- and machine-readable serializations for users: text for machines: XML and RDF literally include constructs from existing ontology languages as far as technically possible ⇒ ability to reuse existing ontologies DOL should have a well-defined formal, logic-based semantics criteria for logics to conform with DOL translations between these logics (next slide)Mossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 6
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap The Onto-Logical Translation Graph OBOOWL OBO 1.4 bRDF EL QL RL RDF PL OWL RDFS DDLOWL RDFSOWL grey: no fixed expressivity green: decidable ontology languages yellow: semi-decidable ECoOWL FOL= orange: some second-order constructs red: full second-order logic CL ECoFOL Rel-S F-logic subinstitution CASL theoroidal subinstitution simultaneously exact and FOLms= model-expansive comorphisms HOL model-expansive comorphismsMossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 7
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Requirements III DOL should allow for expressing heterogeneous ontologies e.g. an OWL ontology with some FOL axioms . . . for use with an OWL reasoner, a FOL theorem prover, and a FOL model finder DOL should allow for expressing links between ontologies formal/structural links informal (statistical/heuristical) alignments DOL Common Common OWL Logic Logic ontology ontology language interpretation translation import import DOL DOL OWL-XML CLIF ASK-IT Ontologies: DOLCE • Transportation Foundational • Tourism Ontology • Personal SupportMossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 8
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Requirements IV DOL should allow for writing down ontologies and ontology links as implicitly as possible and as explicitly as needed Examples for explicit information: alignment computed by a matcher translation path determined by lookup from the ontology graph If you have access to these tools, you don’t need the information ⇒ keep it implicit If you pass on the ontology to a co-developer, he may need it ⇒ make it explicit DOL should allow for rich annotation and documentation of ontologies RDF(a)-compatible annotations fine-grained intermixture of formalization and documentation (literate programming) We shall recommend a list of RDF vocabularies (OMV etc.)Mossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 9
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Conformance Criteria I DOL should work with any existing or future ontology language (if the latter conforms!) We shall establish the conformance of OWL, Common Logic, RDFS (normative) F-logic, UML class diagrams, OBO (informative) Conformance of a logic (directly or by translation): semantic conformance (institutions) > entailment conformance (entailment system; useful to include non-monotonic logics) Conformance of a serialization: XML conf. (annotation/markup up to literate programming) > RDF conformance (annotation but no markup) > text conformance (can still use special comments) > standoff markup conformance (can still use XPointer)Mossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 10
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Conformance Criteria II Conformance of a document (“Is this document a DOL ontology?”): e.g. auto-identification of the ontology language used for an axiom is possible – if there are no name clashes with other ontology languages used in the same document Conformance of an application: A DOL-conforming application produces DOL-conforming documents!Mossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 11
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Organization and People OntoIOp is WD (Working Draft) 17347 developed within ISO TC 37/SC 3/WG 3 (→ Sue Ellen Wright’s presentation) Project team: Till Mossakowski, Oliver Kutz, Christoph Lange (Bremen, Germany) Secretary: Gottfried Herzog, DIN, Germany So far we have registered experts from: Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Greece, Italy, Korea, Mexico, UK, US, South Africa (bold: have been active so far)Mossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 12
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Infrastructure and Resources In the current phase we mainly use an unofficial community infrastructure; in later phases we will more and more use Livelink Mailing list: ontoiop-wg@interop.cim3.net Archive at http://interop.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-wg/ Community file repository (WebDAV): http://interop.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/ Working drafts (not including the source) Meeting minutes, voting results, review comments Relevant literature and other standards Homepage: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOpMossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 13
    • Motivation Standard Organization Roadmap Roadmap Nov 2011: 2nd WD (Working Draft) 6 weeks review period (informal community feedback highly appreciated) 23 Feb 2011: OntoIOp meeting in Berlin Apr 2012: 3rd WD 6 weeks review period (informal community feedback highly appreciated) Jun 2012: ISO/TC 37 meeting in Madríd Aug 2012: CD (Committee Draft) 3 months review and voting (more formal) Aug 2013: DIS (Draft International Standard) Feb 2015: FDIS (Final Draft International Standard) Aug 2015: IS (International Standard)Mossakowski/Kutz/Lange OntoIOP Part 1: Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) 2011-10-20 14