Ontologies and Similarity<br />Steffen Staab<br />Acknowledgements to Claudia d’Amato, Univ Bari, <br />& WeST Team<br />T...
Agenda<br />Kris: Brocoliisvegetableused in stirfry<br />Motivation		Whatareexamplesemanticapplications?<br />FoundationWh...
Motivation<br />SemanticApplications<br />Check out: http://challenge.semanticweb.org/<br />
Linked Data<br />Cases withMetadatawithout Frontiers<br />
Semantic Search & Browsing: Semantic Portals<br />[WWW 2000]<br />http://ontoprise.com<br />
FacetedSemantic Media Browsing: Semaplorer<br />Winner Billion Triples Challenge 2008 [JoWS 2009]<br />http://kreuzverweis...
Semantic Desktop<br />Additional Semantic Meta Data, e.g. sender, subject<br />Access to further PIM tools<br />
Mobile Exploration ofLinked Data: Mobile Facets<br />
LessonsLearned<br />Examples + http://challenge.semanticweb.org<br />Semantic Boolean Search in Conjunction with Keyword S...
Linked data applications</li></ul>Feast or famine<br />Further useofsimilarity<br /><ul><li>Learning
Ontologyengineeringadvice</li></ul>Available<br /><ul><li>IR Ranking
(Textual) Similarity</li></ul>Needed<br /><ul><li>Semantic Ranking
SemanticSimilarity</li></ul>[Franz et al 09]<br />[stuffhere], BUT<br />
Whatis an Ontology?<br />Foundation<br />
Whatis an ontology?<br />Whatfor?<br />Agreements thatmakelinkeddatamoreuseful<br />Reasoning<br />Gruber 1993: <br />An o...
Observations in the Real World<br />
A Model ofthe Real World<br />knows<br />knows<br />Manager(I034820)<br />Researcher(I046758)<br />knows<br />cooperates<b...
Abstractingfromthe Individual Model<br />knows<br />knows<br />Manager<br />Researcher<br />knows<br />cooperates<br />Emp...
A Conceptual Model<br />Intensional Relations<br />Unary<br />Manager<br />	Research <br />Employee<br />Binary<br />coope...
Formal Specification<br />Whatmakesit so hardtoformallyspecifyontologicalcommitment?<br />Algebraic Relations do not work:...
E.g. Lecturer1 = {Ashwin, Nirmalie, Steffen, Kris,…}
Problem: New instancewouldchangetheontology, e.g.Lecturer2 = Lecturer1  {Fernando}</li></ul>Intensional Relations needtob...
Conceptualization<br />Perception<br />Reality<br />State of affairs<br />State of affairs<br />relevant invariants across...
Description Logics: First orderlanguage(s) forontology<br />T-Box<br />Describing Relations Intensionally<br />Flight  Se...
Description Logics: First orderlanguage(s) forontology<br />T-Box<br />Describing Relations Intensionally<br />Flight  Se...
Pragmaticallytractablefor 105concepts
Oftenmostusefulat design time only</li></li></ul><li>WhataretypicalOntologies?<br />Reality Check<br />
ExamplesforOntologies & Thesauri<br />Foundational Model ofAnatomy<br /><ul><li>78K classes in FMA 2.0
Severaltranslationsto OWL fordiscoveringmodelingproblems ([Noy & Rubin; Bodenreider et al])</li></ul>SNOMED CT(Systematize...
106classes</li></ul>Dewey Decimal System<br /><ul><li>Internationallyusedthesaurusforformingpre-coordinatedclassesfrom an ...
Howissimilaritymeasured in ontologies?<br />Survey<br />
ExampleOntology<br />Airport<br />Service<br />Europe<br />part<br />Hub<br />part<br />part<br />Flight<br />LHR<br />IT<...
Similarity Measurement Tasks<br />ComparingClasses<br />Comparing Objects<br /><ul><li>Based on objectfeatures
Based on classcomparisons</li></ul>ComparingOntologies<br /><ul><li>Lexeme comparisons
Graph comparison
Consideringthesemanticsofhierarchies
isa
part
Other relations</li></ul>Relatedto<br /><ul><li>Ontologylearning
Ontologyalignment</li></ul>Based on<br /><ul><li>Class comparisons</li></li></ul><li>Class Comparisons in MaterializedHier...
Class Comparisons in MaterializedHierarchies<br />Airport<br />Service<br />Europe<br />part<br />part<br />part<br />Flig...
IntensionalCountingof Path Length<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐶𝑌 ~ 1𝑃𝑎𝑡h1=12<br /> <br />Service<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐹𝐶𝑂 ~ 1𝑃𝑎𝑡h2...
Absolute similarityvaluesmostly irrelevant (like in CBR)
Most information in theontology will bediscarded</li></ul>Flight-DE-UK<br />Flight-DE-IT<br />FRA-LCY<br />FRA-LHR<br />FR...
IntensionalCountingof Path Length<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐶𝑌 ~ 1𝑃𝑎𝑡h1=1min2,3=12<br /> <br />Service<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐹𝐶𝑂 ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Ontologies and Similarity

363

Published on

Keynote Talk at Int Conf on Case-based Reasoning

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
363
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ontologies and Similarity

  1. 1. Ontologies and Similarity<br />Steffen Staab<br />Acknowledgements to Claudia d’Amato, Univ Bari, <br />& WeST Team<br />TexPoint fonts used in EMF. <br />Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AAAAAAAAAAA<br />
  2. 2. Agenda<br />Kris: Brocoliisvegetableused in stirfry<br />Motivation Whatareexamplesemanticapplications?<br />FoundationWhatis an ontology?<br />Reality Check Whataretypicalontologies?<br />Survey Howissimilaritymeasured in ontologies? <br />CritiqueWhatshouldbemeasured?<br />Solution A preliminarysolution<br />ConclusionWhatto do now?<br />
  3. 3. Motivation<br />SemanticApplications<br />Check out: http://challenge.semanticweb.org/<br />
  4. 4. Linked Data<br />Cases withMetadatawithout Frontiers<br />
  5. 5. Semantic Search & Browsing: Semantic Portals<br />[WWW 2000]<br />http://ontoprise.com<br />
  6. 6. FacetedSemantic Media Browsing: Semaplorer<br />Winner Billion Triples Challenge 2008 [JoWS 2009]<br />http://kreuzverweis.com<br />
  7. 7. Semantic Desktop<br />Additional Semantic Meta Data, e.g. sender, subject<br />Access to further PIM tools<br />
  8. 8. Mobile Exploration ofLinked Data: Mobile Facets<br />
  9. 9. LessonsLearned<br />Examples + http://challenge.semanticweb.org<br />Semantic Boolean Search in Conjunction with Keyword Search dominates in <br /><ul><li>Ontology-based applications
  10. 10. Linked data applications</li></ul>Feast or famine<br />Further useofsimilarity<br /><ul><li>Learning
  11. 11. Ontologyengineeringadvice</li></ul>Available<br /><ul><li>IR Ranking
  12. 12. (Textual) Similarity</li></ul>Needed<br /><ul><li>Semantic Ranking
  13. 13. SemanticSimilarity</li></ul>[Franz et al 09]<br />[stuffhere], BUT<br />
  14. 14. Whatis an Ontology?<br />Foundation<br />
  15. 15. Whatis an ontology?<br />Whatfor?<br />Agreements thatmakelinkeddatamoreuseful<br />Reasoning<br />Gruber 1993: <br />An ontology is an “explicit specificationof a conceptualization”<br />Oberle, Guarino, Staab. Whatis an ontology? Handbook on ontologies, Springer 2009.<br />
  16. 16. Observations in the Real World<br />
  17. 17. A Model ofthe Real World<br />knows<br />knows<br />Manager(I034820)<br />Researcher(I046758)<br />knows<br />cooperates<br />Employee(I050000)<br />Researcher(I044443)<br />
  18. 18. Abstractingfromthe Individual Model<br />knows<br />knows<br />Manager<br />Researcher<br />knows<br />cooperates<br />Employee<br />Researcher<br />
  19. 19. A Conceptual Model<br />Intensional Relations<br />Unary<br />Manager<br /> Research <br />Employee<br />Binary<br />cooperates<br />knows<br />Cognitive Bias<br />Perception<br />Knowledge<br />Belief<br />The conceptualmodelcaptureswhatis invariant accordingtoone‘sconceptualizationoftheworld<br />
  20. 20. Formal Specification<br />Whatmakesit so hardtoformallyspecifyontologicalcommitment?<br />Algebraic Relations do not work: <br /><ul><li>Definedextensionally
  21. 21. E.g. Lecturer1 = {Ashwin, Nirmalie, Steffen, Kris,…}
  22. 22. Problem: New instancewouldchangetheontology, e.g.Lecturer2 = Lecturer1  {Fernando}</li></ul>Intensional Relations needtobedefined in Higher Order Language:<br /><ul><li>Specifytheintendedmodelswhereonemayquantifyoversetsofindividuals</li></ul>An ontologyis a theory (typically in firstorderlogicallanguage) wherethepossiblemodelsapproximatetheintendedmodels „asgoodaspossible“<br />
  23. 23. Conceptualization<br />Perception<br />Reality<br />State of affairs<br />State of affairs<br />relevant invariants across presentation patterns:D, <br />Presentationpatterns<br />Phenomena<br />Bad <br />Ontology<br />Ontological commitmentK (selects D’D and ’)<br />Models MD’(L)<br />Ontology<br />InterpretationsI<br />Intended models for each IK(L)<br />Ontology models<br />Language L<br />~Good<br />Slide by Nicola Guarino<br />
  24. 24. Description Logics: First orderlanguage(s) forontology<br />T-Box<br />Describing Relations Intensionally<br />Flight  Service.<br />Flight  ∃to.Airport<br />Flight  to.Airport<br />Flight  ∃from.Airport<br />Flight  from.Airport<br />approachedBy ⊇ to-1<br />FlightFromDE = Flight ∩ ∃from.(Airport ∩part.{DE})<br />A-Box<br />Describing Relations Extensionally<br />Flight(LH123).<br />Flight(BA121).<br />Airport(FRA).<br />from(LH123,FRA).<br />to(LH123,LHR).<br />…<br />Key Feature: Classes (unaryrelations) aredefinedbyrelationstodefinitionsofotherclasses<br />
  25. 25. Description Logics: First orderlanguage(s) forontology<br />T-Box<br />Describing Relations Intensionally<br />Flight  Service.<br />Flight  ∃to.Airport<br />Flight  to.Airport<br />Flight  ∃from.Airport<br />Flight  from.Airport<br />domain(to) ⊇ Flight<br />FlightFromDE = Flight ∩ ∃from.(Airport ∩part.{DE})<br />A-Box<br />Describing Relations Extensionally<br />Flight(LH123).<br />Flight(BA121).<br />Airport(FRA).<br />from(LH123,FRA).<br />to(LH123,LHR).<br />…<br /><ul><li>Typicallydecidableandintractable
  26. 26. Pragmaticallytractablefor 105concepts
  27. 27. Oftenmostusefulat design time only</li></li></ul><li>WhataretypicalOntologies?<br />Reality Check<br />
  28. 28. ExamplesforOntologies & Thesauri<br />Foundational Model ofAnatomy<br /><ul><li>78K classes in FMA 2.0
  29. 29. Severaltranslationsto OWL fordiscoveringmodelingproblems ([Noy & Rubin; Bodenreider et al])</li></ul>SNOMED CT(Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine -- Clinical Terms)<br /><ul><li>Representation in descriptionlogicslanguage EL++
  30. 30. 106classes</li></ul>Dewey Decimal System<br /><ul><li>Internationallyusedthesaurusforformingpre-coordinatedclassesfrom an inventoryofcodes</li></li></ul><li>Examplefrom Dewey Decimal<br />590 Animals (Zoology)<br />770 Photography, Computer Art<br />597.96 Serpentes<br />779.32 Photographyof Animals<br />779.32796 PhotographyofSnakes<br />Core messageofthistalk:<br />Influencing also non-OWL ontologies/thesauri<br />Conceptsaredefinedbased on therelationshiptothedefinitionofotherconceptsaffectingsimilarity<br />
  31. 31. Howissimilaritymeasured in ontologies?<br />Survey<br />
  32. 32. ExampleOntology<br />Airport<br />Service<br />Europe<br />part<br />Hub<br />part<br />part<br />Flight<br />LHR<br />IT<br />UK<br />FCO<br />LCY<br />DE<br />FRA<br />part<br />part<br />Including „invariant“ A-Box facts(like Airport(FRA))<br />to<br />to<br />to<br />FRA-LCY<br />FRA-LHR<br />FRA-FCO<br />
  33. 33. Similarity Measurement Tasks<br />ComparingClasses<br />Comparing Objects<br /><ul><li>Based on objectfeatures
  34. 34. Based on classcomparisons</li></ul>ComparingOntologies<br /><ul><li>Lexeme comparisons
  35. 35. Graph comparison
  36. 36. Consideringthesemanticsofhierarchies
  37. 37. isa
  38. 38. part
  39. 39. Other relations</li></ul>Relatedto<br /><ul><li>Ontologylearning
  40. 40. Ontologyalignment</li></ul>Based on<br /><ul><li>Class comparisons</li></li></ul><li>Class Comparisons in MaterializedHierarchies<br />Airport<br />Service<br />Europe<br />part<br />part<br />part<br />Flight<br />LHR<br />IT<br />UK<br />FCO<br />LCY<br />DE<br />FRA<br />part<br />part<br />to<br />to<br />to<br />FRA-LCY<br />FRA-LHR<br />FRA-FCO<br />
  41. 41. Class Comparisons in MaterializedHierarchies<br />Airport<br />Service<br />Europe<br />part<br />part<br />part<br />Flight<br />LHR<br />IT<br />UK<br />FCO<br />LCY<br />DE<br />FRA<br />part<br />part<br />Flight-DE-UK<br />Flight-DE-IT<br />Howmanyyellowconcepts?<br /><ul><li>Infinitelymanyin powerfulDL languages</li></ul>to<br />to<br />to<br />FRA-LCY<br />FRA-LHR<br />FRA-FCO<br />
  42. 42. IntensionalCountingof Path Length<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐶𝑌 ~ 1𝑃𝑎𝑡h1=12<br /> <br />Service<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐹𝐶𝑂 ~ 1𝑃𝑎𝑡h2=14<br /> <br />Flight<br />3 importantobservations:<br /><ul><li>Most papersinvestigatedampening, i.e. higher links indicatemoredissimilarity
  43. 43. Absolute similarityvaluesmostly irrelevant (like in CBR)
  44. 44. Most information in theontology will bediscarded</li></ul>Flight-DE-UK<br />Flight-DE-IT<br />FRA-LCY<br />FRA-LHR<br />FRA-FCO<br />[Rada et al.'89] ff<br />
  45. 45. IntensionalCountingof Path Length<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐶𝑌 ~ 1𝑃𝑎𝑡h1=1min2,3=12<br /> <br />Service<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐹𝐶𝑂 ~ 1𝑃𝑎𝑡h2=1min4,2=12 <br /> <br />Flight<br />Flight-DE-UK<br />Flight-DE-IT<br />FlightFromHub<br />FlightToHub<br />FlightFrom+ToHub<br />FRA-LCY<br />FRA-LHR<br />FRA-FCO<br />
  46. 46. `Improved´IntensionalCountingof Path Length<br /> 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦𝐶=𝐷 | 𝑖𝑠𝑎∗(𝐶,𝐷)<br /> <br />Service<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐶,𝐷)~ |𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐶) ∩𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐷)||𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐶)⋃𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐷)|<br /> <br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐹𝐶𝑂 ~ 59<br /> <br />Flight<br />Further dampeningpossible<br />Flight-DE-UK<br />Flight-DE-IT<br />FlightFromHub<br />FlightToHub<br />FlightFrom+ToHub<br />FRA-LCY<br />FRA-LHR<br />FRA-FCO<br />
  47. 47. `Improved´ IntensionalCountingof Path Length - Jaccard<br /> 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦𝐶=𝐷 | 𝑖𝑠𝑎∗(𝐶,𝐷)<br /> <br />Service<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐶,𝐷)~ |𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐶) ∩𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐷)||𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐶)⋃𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝐷)|<br /> <br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐹𝐶𝑂 ~ 59<br /> <br />Flight<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑦𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐶𝑌 ~ 48<br /> <br />Flight-DE-UK<br />Flight-DE-IT<br />FlightFromHub<br />FlightToHub<br />FlightFrom+ToHub<br />FRA-LCY<br />FRA-LHR<br />FRA-FCO<br />
  48. 48. Intension basedSimilarity Measurement<br />Strengths<br />Works somehow<br />Weaknesses<br />Bothpathcounting/Cotopyheavilysufferfrommodellingartefacts in theontology<br />
  49. 49. CountingExtensions – Jaccard-likeMetrics<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑙𝑖𝑔h𝑡𝑇𝑜𝐻𝑢𝑏 ~ |𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅 ∩𝐹𝑙𝑖𝑔h𝑡𝑇𝑜𝐻𝑢𝑏||𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅 𝐹𝑙𝑖𝑔h𝑡𝑇𝑜𝐻𝑢𝑏|=36<br /> <br />Service<br />𝑠𝑖𝑚𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅,𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐶𝑌 ~ |𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅 ∩𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐶𝑌||𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐻𝑅 𝐹𝑅𝐴−𝐿𝐶𝑌|=04<br /> <br />Flight<br />Flight-DE-UK<br />Flight-DE-IT<br />FlightFromHub<br />FlightToHub<br />FlightFrom+ToHub<br />FRA-LCY<br />FRA-LHR<br />FRA-FCO<br />Disjointnessincompatibility<br />LH127<br />LH123<br />BA124<br />BA121<br />LH345<br />LH567<br />AI234<br />[Resnik ‘95-‘99]<br />
  50. 50. Extension basedSimilarity<br />Strengths<br />Countingextensionsseemsnaturalandefficient(Jaccard-likemeasure)<br />Weaknesses<br />DisjointnessIncompatibility<br />Classesaresimilar, but do not shareinstances:<br /><ul><li>Male – Female
  51. 51. Housecat – Lion</li></ul>Extensionsareuncountable<br />Ontologiessupposedtoabstractfromspecificextensions!<br />Extensionsmaybe infinite<br />
  52. 52. Class Syntax basedSimilarity<br />Quitefrequent in theliterature<br />Listedhere just forsakeofcompleteness, because…<br />Class syntaxbasedsimilarityis<br />equivalenceunsound<br />
  53. 53. WhatshouldSimilarityDeliver?<br />Critique<br />[d‘Amato et al 2008]<br />
  54. 54. Core criteriaforsimilaritymeasures– almostunchanged<br />Positiveness: C,D sim(C,D)  0<br />Strong reflexivity:Csim(C,C) = 1<br />Upperbound: C,D sim(C,D)  1<br />Symmetry: C,D sim(C,D) = sim(D,C) <br />Problem with strong reflexivity:<br />FlightFromDEHub = Flight ∩∃from.(Hub ∩part.{DE}) FromHubAndFromDE = ∃from.Hub∩∃from.part.{DE}<br />Reasoningisneededtodiscoverthat<br />sim(FlightFromDEHub,FromHubAndFromDE) = 1<br />But problem:<br />FlightFromDEHub = Flight ∩∃from.(Hub ∩part.{DE}) FromHubAndFromDE = ∃from.Hub∩∃from.part.{DE}<br />Reasoningisneededtodiscoverthat<br />sim(FlightFromDEHub,FromHubAndFromDE) = 1<br />
  55. 55. Additional Ones in Ontologies!<br />5. PreventDisjointnessIncompatibility (seenbefore)<br />6. Equivalence Soundness: <br /> C,D,E DE  sim(C,D)=sim(C,E) <br />Example:<br />sim(Flight,FlightFromDEHub) =<br />sim(Flight,FromHubAndFromDE)<br />Proposition:Reflexivityandtriangleinequalityimplyequivalencesoundness<br />
  56. 56. Additional Ones in Ontologies!<br />7. Monotonicity<br />CL, DL, CU, DU,<br />EU, E⊆L<br />∃H such thatCH, EH, DH<br /> sim(C,D)  sim(C,E)<br />U<br />L<br />C<br />D<br />E<br />Myfeelingis: weneedmore!<br />(continuity,…)<br />
  57. 57. A Preliminary Solution<br />Solution<br />[d‘Amato et al 2010]<br />
  58. 58. Core idea: Combine Cotopy & Extension-basedApproaches<br />Cotopy-based: IntersectionattheLeastCommonSubsumer<br />Extension-based: Count instances (orsubclasses)<br />Venndiagramsindicates: sim(C,D) > sim(C,E)<br />E<br />gcs(C,D)<br />C<br />C<br />D<br />gcs(C,E)<br />
  59. 59. Indirect (tentative) Indicationof Correctness<br />Growingindexingtreebyclusteringwithnewsimilaritymeasure<br />Comparingquerying time for different ontologiesusingthe original hierarchyandtheindexingtreederivedfromsimilaritymeasure<br />Problem: similaritycomputationtoo expensive<br />[d‘Amato et al 2010]<br />
  60. 60. Whatto do now?<br />Conclusion<br />
  61. 61. Conclusion<br />Conclusion: A call to arms!<br /><ul><li>Semanticapplicationscovermanydomainsofcommercialandsocialinterest
  62. 62. Ontologiesprovidethemodelingbackboneandareevenfound in unexpectedplaces
  63. 63. Similaritymeasuresforontologiesexistandgive back someresults
  64. 64. Criteriaforsemanticsimilaritymeasuresare still in themaking
  65. 65. Thereis a lack oftheoryforontology-basedsimilarity
  66. 66. Thereis a lack ofefficientrealizationofontology-basedsimilarity</li></ul>Targeted Side Effect:<br />ClarificationofSomeOftenMistakenUseofTerminologyaroundOntologies<br />
  67. 67. Institut WeST – Web Science & Technologies<br />ThankYou!<br />Semantic Web<br />Web Retrieval<br />Interactive Web<br />Multimedia Web<br />Software Web<br />eGovernment<br />eMedia<br />eScience<br />eOrganizations<br />eCitizen<br />
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×