Publishing and Using Linked Open Data - Day 5

Uploaded on

Beyond Linked Data - Reasoning and the Semantic Web

Beyond Linked Data - Reasoning and the Semantic Web

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • But don't you think it's a bit overkill to use OWL only for hierarchical classification? Thanks in adv.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Fariz, this may depend on how those classifications are expressed. If I provide them using an ontology language like OWL, they might still be considered heavy weights. I'd direct you to the source of the chart on slide 3, which lists some other resources that makes these distinctions.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Hi, can I ask you if an ontology only talks about classification of concepts (subclasses and subproperties), will it be categorized as a light-weight ontology?
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • Types of reasoningForward chaining (axioms -> goal)Backward chaining (goal -> axioms)Tableau (through truth tables)


  • 1. Publishing and UsingLinked Open Data Richard J. Urban, Ph.D. School of Library and Information Studies Florida State University @musebrarian #lod4h
  • 2. January 11, 2013Friday’s Schedule• 9:00-10:45 am Class Session Beyond Linked Data: Reasoning and the Semantic Web• 10:45 am- 11:00 break• 11:00-11:45 Class Session: Open Project Studio• Noon- 1:45 pm Lunch (on your own)• 1:45-2:30 pm Class Wrap-Up: Linked Open Data for the Humanities: Next Steps?• 2:30-2:45 pm Break• 2:45-3:45 pm Show and Tell• 3:45-4:00 pm Closing Ceremony and Announcements #lod4h
  • 3. “An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.” (Gruber)DERI Using Ontologies #lod4h
  • 4. OWL Versions• OWL Full – Allows most kinds of assertions, but not computationally complete.• OWL Description Logics (OWL DL) – As expressive as possible why maintaining computational completion/decidability. – Based in Description Logics• OWL Lite – owl:disjointWith, unionOf, and others not allowed. – Cardinality limited – Equivalence limited to class identifiers – Not much easier than OWL DL #lod4h
  • 5. Class axioms A B A B unionOf intersection B A complement #lod4h
  • 6. Class axioms A A B B subclassOf equivalence A B disjoint #lod4h
  • 7. Property Types• Functional – A person can have only one spouse.• Inverse – hasChild is inverse of hasParent• Inverse-Functional – Links domains and ranges. The object of a biologicalMotherOf is a women.• Transitivity – Chianti, Tuscany and Italy are regions, and Chianti is a subregion of Tuscany, and Tuscany is a subregion of Italy, then Chianti is also a subregion of Italy.• Symmetric – If Jack is married to Jill, then Jill is married to Jack #lod4h
  • 8. Identity• owl:sameAs Two resources are equivalent resources• owl:differentThan two resources are different resources #lod4h
  • 9. OWL Reasoners• Racer• FaCT• HermiT• Some reasoning examples #lod4h
  • 10. Beyond OWL• Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL)• Based on Horn logic instead of Description Logic #lod4h
  • 11. So what?• Collection/Item Metadata Relationships research. #lod4h