SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 68
Download to read offline
Semantic Diff as the Basis for
                            Knowledge Base Versioning

              Enrico Franconi1              Thomas Meyer2                   Ivan Varzinczak2


               1 Free   University of Bozen/Bolzano               2 Meraka  Institute, CSIR
                            Bolzano, Italy                          Pretoria, South Africa




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                      1 / 24
Motivation




   Knowledge Base
          Ontology (DL, RDF)
          Agents’ beliefs
          Regulations or norms
          ...




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   2 / 24
Motivation




   Knowledge Base
          Ontology (DL, RDF)
                                                 K1
          Agents’ beliefs
          Regulations or norms
          ...




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   2 / 24
Motivation




   Knowledge Base
          Ontology (DL, RDF)
                                                 K1              K2
          Agents’ beliefs
          Regulations or norms
          ...




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   2 / 24
Motivation



                                                                            K3
   Knowledge Base
          Ontology (DL, RDF)
                                                 K1              K2              K5
          Agents’ beliefs
          Regulations or norms
          ...
                                                                            K4




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning             2 / 24
Motivation



                                                                            K3        ...
   Knowledge Base
          Ontology (DL, RDF)
                                                 K1              K2              K5            ...
          Agents’ beliefs
          Regulations or norms
          ...
                                                                            K4        K6




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                   2 / 24
Motivation


                                                                            K3        ...
   Knowledge Base
          Ontology (DL, RDF)
                                                 K1              K2              K5            ...
          Agents’ beliefs
          Regulations or norms
          ...
                                                                            K4        K6



                                   Need for a versioning system




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                   2 / 24
Motivation



   Issues                                                                    K6
          Maintaining different versions
                 Parsimonious representation                            K5               K1

          Reasoning with versions                                            Kc
                 In which of the KBs does α hold,
                                                                                       K2
                 but not β?
                                                                    K4
          Difference between versions
                                                                                  K3
                 How they differ in meaning




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning              3 / 24
Motivation



   Issues                                                                    K6
          Maintaining different versions
                 Parsimonious representation                            K5               K1

          Reasoning with versions                                            Kc
                 In which of the KBs does α hold,
                                                                                       K2
                 but not β?
                                                                    K4
          Difference between versions
                                                                                  K3
                 How they differ in meaning




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning              3 / 24
Motivation



   Issues                                                                    K6
          Maintaining different versions
                 Parsimonious representation                            K5               K1

          Reasoning with versions                                            Kc
                 In which of the KBs does α hold,
                                                                                       K2
                 but not β?
                                                                    K4
          Difference between versions
                                                                                  K3
                 How they differ in meaning




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning              3 / 24
Motivation



   Issues                                                                    K6
          Maintaining different versions
                 Parsimonious representation                            K5               K1

          Reasoning with versions                                            Kc
                 In which of the KBs does α hold,
                                                                                       K2
                 but not β?
                                                                    K4
          Difference between versions
                                                                                  K3
                 How they differ in meaning




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning              3 / 24
Outline


   1   Logical Preliminaries


   2   Knowledge Base Versioning
         Semantic Diff
         A General Framework
         Compiled Representation


   3   Conclusion
         Contributions
         Future Work




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   4 / 24
Outline


   1   Logical Preliminaries


   2   Knowledge Base Versioning
         Semantic Diff
         A General Framework
         Compiled Representation


   3   Conclusion
         Contributions
         Future Work




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   4 / 24
Outline


   1   Logical Preliminaries


   2   Knowledge Base Versioning
         Semantic Diff
         A General Framework
         Compiled Representation


   3   Conclusion
         Contributions
         Future Work




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   4 / 24
Logical Preliminaries


   Knowledge bases
          A knowledge base K is a (possibly infinite) set of formulas

          Cn(K) = {α | K |= α}
          Cn(.) is called Tarskian iff it satisfies
                 Inclusion: X ⊆ Cn(X )
                 Idempotence: Cn(Cn(X )) ⊆ Cn(X )
                 Monotonicity: X ⊆ Y implies Cn(X ) ⊆ Cn(Y )

          [α] = {β | α ≡ β}




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   5 / 24
Logical Preliminaries


   Knowledge bases
          A knowledge base K is a (possibly infinite) set of formulas

          Cn(K) = {α | K |= α}
          Cn(.) is called Tarskian iff it satisfies
                 Inclusion: X ⊆ Cn(X )
                 Idempotence: Cn(Cn(X )) ⊆ Cn(X )
                 Monotonicity: X ⊆ Y implies Cn(X ) ⊆ Cn(Y )

          [α] = {β | α ≡ β}




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   5 / 24
Logical Preliminaries


   Knowledge bases
          A knowledge base K is a (possibly infinite) set of formulas

          Cn(K) = {α | K |= α}
          Cn(.) is called Tarskian iff it satisfies
                 Inclusion: X ⊆ Cn(X )
                 Idempotence: Cn(Cn(X )) ⊆ Cn(X )
                 Monotonicity: X ⊆ Y implies Cn(X ) ⊆ Cn(Y )

          [α] = {β | α ≡ β}




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   5 / 24
Logical Preliminaries


   Knowledge bases
          A knowledge base K is a (possibly infinite) set of formulas

          Cn(K) = {α | K |= α}
          Cn(.) is called Tarskian iff it satisfies
                 Inclusion: X ⊆ Cn(X )
                 Idempotence: Cn(Cn(X )) ⊆ Cn(X )
                 Monotonicity: X ⊆ Y implies Cn(X ) ⊆ Cn(Y )

          [α] = {β | α ≡ β}




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   5 / 24
Outline


   1   Logical Preliminaries


   2   Knowledge Base Versioning
         Semantic Diff
         A General Framework
         Compiled Representation


   3   Conclusion
         Contributions
         Future Work




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   6 / 24
Semantic Diff
   Difference in meaning between knowledge bases K and K
          Analogy with the Unix diff command
                 diff distinguishes between syntactically different files

          Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning

          Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation

   Example
   Let the (propositional) knowledge bases:

                                K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}

          K1 and K2 differ in syntax
          But K1 and K2 convey the same meaning (K1 ≡ K2 )


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   7 / 24
Semantic Diff
   Difference in meaning between knowledge bases K and K
          Analogy with the Unix diff command
                 diff distinguishes between syntactically different files

          Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning

          Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation

   Example
   Let the (propositional) knowledge bases:

                                K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}

          K1 and K2 differ in syntax
          But K1 and K2 convey the same meaning (K1 ≡ K2 )


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   7 / 24
Semantic Diff
   Difference in meaning between knowledge bases K and K
          Analogy with the Unix diff command
                 diff distinguishes between syntactically different files

          Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning

          Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation

   Example
   Let the (propositional) knowledge bases:

                                K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}

          K1 and K2 differ in syntax
          But K1 and K2 convey the same meaning (K1 ≡ K2 )


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   7 / 24
Semantic Diff
   Difference in meaning between knowledge bases K and K
          Analogy with the Unix diff command
                 diff distinguishes between syntactically different files

          Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning

          Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation

   Example
   Let the (propositional) knowledge bases:

                                K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}

          K1 and K2 differ in syntax
          But K1 and K2 convey the same meaning (K1 ≡ K2 )


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   7 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff


   KBs closed under logical consequence

               (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K )

   Semantic diff of K and K : pair A, R
          A is the add-set of (K, K )
          R as the remove-set of (K, K )

               (P2) K = (K ∪ A)  R




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   8 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff


   KBs closed under logical consequence

               (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K )

   Semantic diff of K and K : pair A, R
          A is the add-set of (K, K )
          R as the remove-set of (K, K )

               (P2) K = (K ∪ A)  R




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   8 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff


   KBs closed under logical consequence

               (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K )

   Semantic diff of K and K : pair A, R
          A is the add-set of (K, K )
          R as the remove-set of (K, K )

               (P2) K = (K ∪ A)  R




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   8 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff


   Minimal change and no redundancy

               (P3) A ⊆ K

               (P4) R ⊆ K

   Duality of semantic diff

               (P5) K = (K ∪ R)  A

          ‘Undo’ operation when moving between versions




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   9 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff


   Minimal change and no redundancy

               (P3) A ⊆ K

               (P4) R ⊆ K

   Duality of semantic diff

               (P5) K = (K ∪ R)  A

          ‘Undo’ operation when moving between versions




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   9 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff


   Minimal change and no redundancy

               (P3) A ⊆ K

               (P4) R ⊆ K

   Duality of semantic diff

               (P5) K = (K ∪ R)  A

          ‘Undo’ operation when moving between versions




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   9 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff

   Definition
   K and K knowledge bases, A and R sets of sentences
           A, R is semantic diff compliant w.r.t. (K, K ) iff (K, K ) and A, R
          satisfy Postulates (P1)–(P5)


               (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K )
               (P2) K = (K ∪ A)  R
               (P3) A ⊆ K
               (P4) R ⊆ K
               (P5) K = (K ∪ R)  A



Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   10 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff

   Definition
   K and K knowledge bases, A and R sets of sentences
           A, R is semantic diff compliant w.r.t. (K, K ) iff (K, K ) and A, R
          satisfy Postulates (P1)–(P5)


               (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K )
               (P2) K = (K ∪ A)  R
               (P3) A ⊆ K
               (P4) R ⊆ K
               (P5) K = (K ∪ R)  A



Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   10 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff
   Specific construction for the semantic diff operator:
   Definition
   The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where
          A = K  K and R = K  K

   Neither A nor R are logically closed:
   Example
          Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q)

                                            A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}

                           R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}

          p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R
                                                     /              /

          In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R ,                        ∈ A and
                                                                            /         ∈R
                                                                                      /
Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                  11 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff
   Specific construction for the semantic diff operator:
   Definition
   The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where
          A = K  K and R = K  K

   Neither A nor R are logically closed:
   Example
          Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q)

                                            A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}

                           R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}

          p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R
                                                     /              /

          In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R ,                        ∈ A and
                                                                            /         ∈R
                                                                                      /
Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                  11 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff
   Specific construction for the semantic diff operator:
   Definition
   The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where
          A = K  K and R = K  K

   Neither A nor R are logically closed:
   Example
          Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q)

                                            A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}

                           R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}

          p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R
                                                     /              /

          In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R ,                        ∈ A and
                                                                            /         ∈R
                                                                                      /
Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                  11 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff
   Specific construction for the semantic diff operator:
   Definition
   The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where
          A = K  K and R = K  K

   Neither A nor R are logically closed:
   Example
          Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q)

                                            A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}

                           R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}

          p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R
                                                     /              /

          In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R ,                        ∈ A and
                                                                            /         ∈R
                                                                                      /
Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                  11 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff
   Specific construction for the semantic diff operator:
   Definition
   The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where
          A = K  K and R = K  K

   Neither A nor R are logically closed:
   Example
          Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q)

                                            A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}

                           R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}

          p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R
                                                     /              /

          In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R ,                        ∈ A and
                                                                            /         ∈R
                                                                                      /
Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                  11 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff
   There is a unique ideal semantic diff associated with any two KBs
   Theorem
   Let A, R be the ideal semantic diff of K and K . Then
            A, R is semantic diff compliant with respect to (K, K )
            A, R is unique w.r.t. (K, K )

   Corollary
   For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A ∩ R = ∅

   Ideal semantic diff and symmetric difference: (K  K) ∪ (K  K )

   Corollary
   For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A, R = ∅, ∅ iff K = K


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   12 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff
   There is a unique ideal semantic diff associated with any two KBs
   Theorem
   Let A, R be the ideal semantic diff of K and K . Then
            A, R is semantic diff compliant with respect to (K, K )
            A, R is unique w.r.t. (K, K )

   Corollary
   For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A ∩ R = ∅

   Ideal semantic diff and symmetric difference: (K  K) ∪ (K  K )

   Corollary
   For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A, R = ∅, ∅ iff K = K


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   12 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff
   There is a unique ideal semantic diff associated with any two KBs
   Theorem
   Let A, R be the ideal semantic diff of K and K . Then
            A, R is semantic diff compliant with respect to (K, K )
            A, R is unique w.r.t. (K, K )

   Corollary
   For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A ∩ R = ∅

   Ideal semantic diff and symmetric difference: (K  K) ∪ (K  K )

   Corollary
   For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A, R = ∅, ∅ iff K = K


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   12 / 24
Characterizing Semantic Diff
   There is a unique ideal semantic diff associated with any two KBs
   Theorem
   Let A, R be the ideal semantic diff of K and K . Then
            A, R is semantic diff compliant with respect to (K, K )
            A, R is unique w.r.t. (K, K )

   Corollary
   For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A ∩ R = ∅

   Ideal semantic diff and symmetric difference: (K  K) ∪ (K  K )

   Corollary
   For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A, R = ∅, ∅ iff K = K


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   12 / 24
Outline


   1   Logical Preliminaries


   2   Knowledge Base Versioning
         Semantic Diff
         A General Framework
         Compiled Representation


   3   Conclusion
         Contributions
         Future Work




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   13 / 24
A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning
   Scenario:
          n versions, K1 , . . . , Kn , of a KB that need to be stored
          A core knowledge base Kc

   For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n:
          Ideal semantic diff of (Ki , Kj ): Dij , Dji
          Ideal semantic diff of (Kc , Ki ): Dci , Dic

   From Properties
               (P2) K = (K ∪ A)  R
               (P5) K = (K ∪ R)  A

          The add-set Dij of (Ki , Kj ) is also the remove-set of (Kj , Ki )
          The remove-set Dji of (Ki , Kj ) is also the add-set of (Kj , Ki )

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning      14 / 24
A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning
   Scenario:
          n versions, K1 , . . . , Kn , of a KB that need to be stored
          A core knowledge base Kc

   For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n:
          Ideal semantic diff of (Ki , Kj ): Dij , Dji
          Ideal semantic diff of (Kc , Ki ): Dci , Dic

   From Properties
               (P2) K = (K ∪ A)  R
               (P5) K = (K ∪ R)  A

          The add-set Dij of (Ki , Kj ) is also the remove-set of (Kj , Ki )
          The remove-set Dji of (Ki , Kj ) is also the add-set of (Kj , Ki )

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning      14 / 24
A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning
   Scenario:
          n versions, K1 , . . . , Kn , of a KB that need to be stored
          A core knowledge base Kc

   For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n:
          Ideal semantic diff of (Ki , Kj ): Dij , Dji
          Ideal semantic diff of (Kc , Ki ): Dci , Dic

   From Properties
               (P2) K = (K ∪ A)  R
               (P5) K = (K ∪ R)  A

          The add-set Dij of (Ki , Kj ) is also the remove-set of (Kj , Ki )
          The remove-set Dji of (Ki , Kj ) is also the add-set of (Kj , Ki )

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning      14 / 24
A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning
   In order to access any version, it is sufficient:
          To store Kc , and
          To store Dic and Dci for all Ki s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n

   By Theorem 1, Ki = (Kc ∪ Dci )  Dic for every i s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n

                                               Dc6 , D6c
                                                                •
                           Dc5 , D5c           •                                •     Dc1 , D1c

                                                        Kc
                                                                           •        Dc2 , D2c
                       Dc4 , D4c           •
                                                            •       Dc3 , D3c

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)       Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                     15 / 24
A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning
   In order to access any version, it is sufficient:
          To store Kc , and
          To store Dic and Dci for all Ki s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n

   By Theorem 1, Ki = (Kc ∪ Dci )  Dic for every i s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n

                                               Dc6 , D6c
                                                                •
                           Dc5 , D5c           •                                •     Dc1 , D1c

                                                        Kc
                                                                           •        Dc2 , D2c
                       Dc4 , D4c           •
                                                            •       Dc3 , D3c

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)       Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                     15 / 24
A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning
   In order to access any version, it is sufficient:
          To store Kc , and
          To store Dic and Dci for all Ki s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n

   By Theorem 1, Ki = (Kc ∪ Dci )  Dic for every i s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n

                                               Dc6 , D6c
                                                                •
                           Dc5 , D5c           •                                •     Dc1 , D1c

                                                        Kc
                                                                           •        Dc2 , D2c
                       Dc4 , D4c           •
                                                            •       Dc3 , D3c

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)       Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                     15 / 24
A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning
   We can generate the ideal semantic diff of Ki and Kj

   Proposition
   Dij = (Dcj  Dci ) ∪ (Dic  Djc ) and Dji = (Dci  Dcj ) ∪ (Djc  Dic )

                                                           K1


                                   Dn1 , D1n                                      D1i , Di1

                                                    Dc1 , D1c


                                 Kn                        Kc         Dci , Dic               Ki
                                               Dcn , Dnc


                                                                Dcj , Djc

                                   Dnj , Djn                                      Dij , Dji
                                                           Kj




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)       Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                      16 / 24
A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning
   We can generate the ideal semantic diff of Ki and Kj

   Proposition
   Dij = (Dcj  Dci ) ∪ (Dic  Djc ) and Dji = (Dci  Dcj ) ∪ (Djc  Dic )

                                                           K1


                                   Dn1 , D1n                                      D1i , Di1

                                                    Dc1 , D1c


                                 Kn                        Kc         Dci , Dic               Ki
                                               Dcn , Dnc


                                                                Dcj , Djc

                                   Dnj , Djn                                      Dij , Dji
                                                           Kj




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)       Semantic Diff for KB Versioning                      16 / 24
Outline


   1   Logical Preliminaries


   2   Knowledge Base Versioning
         Semantic Diff
         A General Framework
         Compiled Representation


   3   Conclusion
         Contributions
         Future Work




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   17 / 24
Compiled Representation


   Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level

          Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs
          Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K)

   Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate
   representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji )

          From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal
          semantic diff, generate Kj
          From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff
           Dij , Dji




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   18 / 24
Compiled Representation


   Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level

          Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs
          Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K)

   Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate
   representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji )

          From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal
          semantic diff, generate Kj
          From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff
           Dij , Dji




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   18 / 24
Compiled Representation


   Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level

          Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs
          Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K)

   Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate
   representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji )

          From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal
          semantic diff, generate Kj
          From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff
           Dij , Dji




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   18 / 24
Compiled Representation


   Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level

          Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs
          Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K)

   Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate
   representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji ) such that:

          From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal
          semantic diff, generate Kj
          From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff
           Dij , Dji




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   18 / 24
Compiled Representation


   Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level

          Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs
          Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K)

   Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate
   representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji ) such that:

          From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal
          semantic diff, generate Kj
          From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff
           Dij , Dji




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   18 / 24
Compiled Representation

   With the intermediate representation
          We can also generate one KB from another

   Theorem
                                F (Ki ) = (F (Kj )  I (Dji )) ∪ I (Dij )
                                           = (F (Kj ) ∪ I (Dij ))  I (Dji )

          We can generate the ideal diff (details in the NMR’10 paper)

          We can get I (Dij ) and I (Dji )

   Theorem
   For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, I (Dij ) = (I (Dcj )  I (Dci )) ∪ (I (Dic )  I (Djc ))


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning       19 / 24
Compiled Representation

   With the intermediate representation
          We can also generate one KB from another

   Theorem
                                F (Ki ) = (F (Kj )  I (Dji )) ∪ I (Dij )
                                           = (F (Kj ) ∪ I (Dij ))  I (Dji )

          We can generate the ideal diff (details in the NMR’10 paper)

          We can get I (Dij ) and I (Dji )

   Theorem
   For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, I (Dij ) = (I (Dcj )  I (Dci )) ∪ (I (Dic )  I (Djc ))


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning       19 / 24
Compiled Representation

   With the intermediate representation
          We can also generate one KB from another

   Theorem
                                F (Ki ) = (F (Kj )  I (Dji )) ∪ I (Dij )
                                           = (F (Kj ) ∪ I (Dij ))  I (Dji )

          We can generate the ideal diff (details in the NMR’10 paper)

          We can get I (Dij ) and I (Dji )

   Theorem
   For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, I (Dij ) = (I (Dcj )  I (Dci )) ∪ (I (Dic )  I (Djc ))


Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning       19 / 24
Outline


   1   Logical Preliminaries


   2   Knowledge Base Versioning
         Semantic Diff
         A General Framework
         Compiled Representation


   3   Conclusion
         Contributions
         Future Work




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   20 / 24
Contributions


          Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning
                 Intuitive, simple and general

          Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages
                 Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic

          Parsimonious representation
                 Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions
                 Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions
                 This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper)




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning         21 / 24
Contributions


          Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning
                 Intuitive, simple and general

          Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages
                 Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic

          Parsimonious representation
                 Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions
                 Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions
                 This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper)




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning         21 / 24
Contributions


          Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning
                 Intuitive, simple and general

          Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages
                 Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic

          Parsimonious representation
                 Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions
                 Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions
                 This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper)




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning         21 / 24
Contributions


          Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning
                 Intuitive, simple and general

          Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages
                 Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic

          Parsimonious representation
                 Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions
                 Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions
                 This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper)




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning         21 / 24
Contributions


          Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning
                 Intuitive, simple and general

          Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages
                 Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic

          Parsimonious representation
                 Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions
                 Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions
                 This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper)




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning         21 / 24
Outline


   1   Logical Preliminaries


   2   Knowledge Base Versioning
         Semantic Diff
         A General Framework
         Compiled Representation


   3   Conclusion
         Contributions
         Future Work




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   22 / 24
Ongoing and Future Work




          How to choose the core knowledge base Kc

          Which normal forms are more appropriate

          Experiments with realistic data for evaluation of the approach

          Ontology versioning in Description Logics




Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   23 / 24
Reference
          E. Franconi, T. Meyer, I. Varzinczak. Semantic Diff as the Basis for
          Knowledge Base Versioning. Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning
          (NMR), 2010.




                                           Thank you!



Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   24 / 24
Reference
          E. Franconi, T. Meyer, I. Varzinczak. Semantic Diff as the Basis for
          Knowledge Base Versioning. Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning
          (NMR), 2010.




                                           Thank you!



Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka)   Semantic Diff for KB Versioning   24 / 24

More Related Content

More from Ivan Varzinczak

Next Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
Next Steps in Propositional Horn ContractionNext Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
Next Steps in Propositional Horn ContractionIvan Varzinczak
 
On the Revision of Action Laws: An Algorithmic Approach
On the Revision of Action Laws: An Algorithmic ApproachOn the Revision of Action Laws: An Algorithmic Approach
On the Revision of Action Laws: An Algorithmic ApproachIvan Varzinczak
 
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal ChangeAction Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal ChangeIvan Varzinczak
 
Causalidade e dependência em raciocínio sobre ações
Causalidade e dependência em raciocínio sobre açõesCausalidade e dependência em raciocínio sobre ações
Causalidade e dependência em raciocínio sobre açõesIvan Varzinczak
 
Cohesion, Coupling and the Meta-theory of Actions
Cohesion, Coupling and the Meta-theory of ActionsCohesion, Coupling and the Meta-theory of Actions
Cohesion, Coupling and the Meta-theory of ActionsIvan Varzinczak
 
Meta-theory of Actions: Beyond Consistency
Meta-theory of Actions: Beyond ConsistencyMeta-theory of Actions: Beyond Consistency
Meta-theory of Actions: Beyond ConsistencyIvan Varzinczak
 
Domain Descriptions Should be Modular
Domain Descriptions Should be ModularDomain Descriptions Should be Modular
Domain Descriptions Should be ModularIvan Varzinczak
 
Elaborating Domain Descriptions
Elaborating Domain DescriptionsElaborating Domain Descriptions
Elaborating Domain DescriptionsIvan Varzinczak
 
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in...
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in...What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in...
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in...Ivan Varzinczak
 
Regression in Modal Logic
Regression in Modal LogicRegression in Modal Logic
Regression in Modal LogicIvan Varzinczak
 
On the Modularity of Theories
On the Modularity of TheoriesOn the Modularity of Theories
On the Modularity of TheoriesIvan Varzinczak
 
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal ChangeAction Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal ChangeIvan Varzinczak
 
First Steps in EL Contraction
First Steps in EL ContractionFirst Steps in EL Contraction
First Steps in EL ContractionIvan Varzinczak
 
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating & Revising Action Theories in D...
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating & Revising Action Theories in D...What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating & Revising Action Theories in D...
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating & Revising Action Theories in D...Ivan Varzinczak
 
Next Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
Next Steps in Propositional Horn ContractionNext Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
Next Steps in Propositional Horn ContractionIvan Varzinczak
 

More from Ivan Varzinczak (15)

Next Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
Next Steps in Propositional Horn ContractionNext Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
Next Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
 
On the Revision of Action Laws: An Algorithmic Approach
On the Revision of Action Laws: An Algorithmic ApproachOn the Revision of Action Laws: An Algorithmic Approach
On the Revision of Action Laws: An Algorithmic Approach
 
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal ChangeAction Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
 
Causalidade e dependência em raciocínio sobre ações
Causalidade e dependência em raciocínio sobre açõesCausalidade e dependência em raciocínio sobre ações
Causalidade e dependência em raciocínio sobre ações
 
Cohesion, Coupling and the Meta-theory of Actions
Cohesion, Coupling and the Meta-theory of ActionsCohesion, Coupling and the Meta-theory of Actions
Cohesion, Coupling and the Meta-theory of Actions
 
Meta-theory of Actions: Beyond Consistency
Meta-theory of Actions: Beyond ConsistencyMeta-theory of Actions: Beyond Consistency
Meta-theory of Actions: Beyond Consistency
 
Domain Descriptions Should be Modular
Domain Descriptions Should be ModularDomain Descriptions Should be Modular
Domain Descriptions Should be Modular
 
Elaborating Domain Descriptions
Elaborating Domain DescriptionsElaborating Domain Descriptions
Elaborating Domain Descriptions
 
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in...
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in...What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in...
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in...
 
Regression in Modal Logic
Regression in Modal LogicRegression in Modal Logic
Regression in Modal Logic
 
On the Modularity of Theories
On the Modularity of TheoriesOn the Modularity of Theories
On the Modularity of Theories
 
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal ChangeAction Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
Action Theory Contraction and Minimal Change
 
First Steps in EL Contraction
First Steps in EL ContractionFirst Steps in EL Contraction
First Steps in EL Contraction
 
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating & Revising Action Theories in D...
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating & Revising Action Theories in D...What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating & Revising Action Theories in D...
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating & Revising Action Theories in D...
 
Next Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
Next Steps in Propositional Horn ContractionNext Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
Next Steps in Propositional Horn Contraction
 

Recently uploaded

The Importance of Indoor Air Quality (English)
The Importance of Indoor Air Quality (English)The Importance of Indoor Air Quality (English)
The Importance of Indoor Air Quality (English)IES VE
 
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENTSIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENTxtailishbaloch
 
From the origin to the future of Open Source model and business
From the origin to the future of  Open Source model and businessFrom the origin to the future of  Open Source model and business
From the origin to the future of Open Source model and businessFrancesco Corti
 
My key hands-on projects in Quantum, and QAI
My key hands-on projects in Quantum, and QAIMy key hands-on projects in Quantum, and QAI
My key hands-on projects in Quantum, and QAIVijayananda Mohire
 
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie WorldTrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie WorldTrustArc
 
Planetek Italia Srl - Corporate Profile Brochure
Planetek Italia Srl - Corporate Profile BrochurePlanetek Italia Srl - Corporate Profile Brochure
Planetek Italia Srl - Corporate Profile BrochurePlanetek Italia Srl
 
Q4 2023 Quarterly Investor Presentation - FINAL - v1.pdf
Q4 2023 Quarterly Investor Presentation - FINAL - v1.pdfQ4 2023 Quarterly Investor Presentation - FINAL - v1.pdf
Q4 2023 Quarterly Investor Presentation - FINAL - v1.pdfTejal81
 
EMEA What is ThousandEyes? Webinar
EMEA What is ThousandEyes? WebinarEMEA What is ThousandEyes? Webinar
EMEA What is ThousandEyes? WebinarThousandEyes
 
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptxEmil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptxNeo4j
 
Patch notes explaining DISARM Version 1.4 update
Patch notes explaining DISARM Version 1.4 updatePatch notes explaining DISARM Version 1.4 update
Patch notes explaining DISARM Version 1.4 updateadam112203
 
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024Brian Pichman
 
Oracle Database 23c Security New Features.pptx
Oracle Database 23c Security New Features.pptxOracle Database 23c Security New Features.pptx
Oracle Database 23c Security New Features.pptxSatishbabu Gunukula
 
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility WTS FEST
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility  WTS FESTTechnical SEO for Improved Accessibility  WTS FEST
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility WTS FESTBillieHyde
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 4
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 4UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 4
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 4DianaGray10
 
Flow Control | Block Size | ST Min | First Frame
Flow Control | Block Size | ST Min | First FrameFlow Control | Block Size | ST Min | First Frame
Flow Control | Block Size | ST Min | First FrameKapil Thakar
 
Keep Your Finger on the Pulse of Your Building's Performance with IES Live
Keep Your Finger on the Pulse of Your Building's Performance with IES LiveKeep Your Finger on the Pulse of Your Building's Performance with IES Live
Keep Your Finger on the Pulse of Your Building's Performance with IES LiveIES VE
 
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - TechWebinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - TechProduct School
 
LF Energy Webinar - Unveiling OpenEEMeter 4.0
LF Energy Webinar - Unveiling OpenEEMeter 4.0LF Energy Webinar - Unveiling OpenEEMeter 4.0
LF Energy Webinar - Unveiling OpenEEMeter 4.0DanBrown980551
 
Graphene Quantum Dots-Based Composites for Biomedical Applications
Graphene Quantum Dots-Based Composites for  Biomedical ApplicationsGraphene Quantum Dots-Based Composites for  Biomedical Applications
Graphene Quantum Dots-Based Composites for Biomedical Applicationsnooralam814309
 

Recently uploaded (20)

The Importance of Indoor Air Quality (English)
The Importance of Indoor Air Quality (English)The Importance of Indoor Air Quality (English)
The Importance of Indoor Air Quality (English)
 
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENTSIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
 
From the origin to the future of Open Source model and business
From the origin to the future of  Open Source model and businessFrom the origin to the future of  Open Source model and business
From the origin to the future of Open Source model and business
 
My key hands-on projects in Quantum, and QAI
My key hands-on projects in Quantum, and QAIMy key hands-on projects in Quantum, and QAI
My key hands-on projects in Quantum, and QAI
 
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie WorldTrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
 
Planetek Italia Srl - Corporate Profile Brochure
Planetek Italia Srl - Corporate Profile BrochurePlanetek Italia Srl - Corporate Profile Brochure
Planetek Italia Srl - Corporate Profile Brochure
 
Q4 2023 Quarterly Investor Presentation - FINAL - v1.pdf
Q4 2023 Quarterly Investor Presentation - FINAL - v1.pdfQ4 2023 Quarterly Investor Presentation - FINAL - v1.pdf
Q4 2023 Quarterly Investor Presentation - FINAL - v1.pdf
 
EMEA What is ThousandEyes? Webinar
EMEA What is ThousandEyes? WebinarEMEA What is ThousandEyes? Webinar
EMEA What is ThousandEyes? Webinar
 
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptxEmil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
 
Patch notes explaining DISARM Version 1.4 update
Patch notes explaining DISARM Version 1.4 updatePatch notes explaining DISARM Version 1.4 update
Patch notes explaining DISARM Version 1.4 update
 
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
 
Oracle Database 23c Security New Features.pptx
Oracle Database 23c Security New Features.pptxOracle Database 23c Security New Features.pptx
Oracle Database 23c Security New Features.pptx
 
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility WTS FEST
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility  WTS FESTTechnical SEO for Improved Accessibility  WTS FEST
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility WTS FEST
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 4
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 4UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 4
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 4
 
SheDev 2024
SheDev 2024SheDev 2024
SheDev 2024
 
Flow Control | Block Size | ST Min | First Frame
Flow Control | Block Size | ST Min | First FrameFlow Control | Block Size | ST Min | First Frame
Flow Control | Block Size | ST Min | First Frame
 
Keep Your Finger on the Pulse of Your Building's Performance with IES Live
Keep Your Finger on the Pulse of Your Building's Performance with IES LiveKeep Your Finger on the Pulse of Your Building's Performance with IES Live
Keep Your Finger on the Pulse of Your Building's Performance with IES Live
 
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - TechWebinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
 
LF Energy Webinar - Unveiling OpenEEMeter 4.0
LF Energy Webinar - Unveiling OpenEEMeter 4.0LF Energy Webinar - Unveiling OpenEEMeter 4.0
LF Energy Webinar - Unveiling OpenEEMeter 4.0
 
Graphene Quantum Dots-Based Composites for Biomedical Applications
Graphene Quantum Dots-Based Composites for  Biomedical ApplicationsGraphene Quantum Dots-Based Composites for  Biomedical Applications
Graphene Quantum Dots-Based Composites for Biomedical Applications
 

Semantic Diff as the Basis for Knowledge Base Versioning

  • 1. Semantic Diff as the Basis for Knowledge Base Versioning Enrico Franconi1 Thomas Meyer2 Ivan Varzinczak2 1 Free University of Bozen/Bolzano 2 Meraka Institute, CSIR Bolzano, Italy Pretoria, South Africa Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 1 / 24
  • 2. Motivation Knowledge Base Ontology (DL, RDF) Agents’ beliefs Regulations or norms ... Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24
  • 3. Motivation Knowledge Base Ontology (DL, RDF) K1 Agents’ beliefs Regulations or norms ... Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24
  • 4. Motivation Knowledge Base Ontology (DL, RDF) K1 K2 Agents’ beliefs Regulations or norms ... Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24
  • 5. Motivation K3 Knowledge Base Ontology (DL, RDF) K1 K2 K5 Agents’ beliefs Regulations or norms ... K4 Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24
  • 6. Motivation K3 ... Knowledge Base Ontology (DL, RDF) K1 K2 K5 ... Agents’ beliefs Regulations or norms ... K4 K6 Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24
  • 7. Motivation K3 ... Knowledge Base Ontology (DL, RDF) K1 K2 K5 ... Agents’ beliefs Regulations or norms ... K4 K6 Need for a versioning system Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24
  • 8. Motivation Issues K6 Maintaining different versions Parsimonious representation K5 K1 Reasoning with versions Kc In which of the KBs does α hold, K2 but not β? K4 Difference between versions K3 How they differ in meaning Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 3 / 24
  • 9. Motivation Issues K6 Maintaining different versions Parsimonious representation K5 K1 Reasoning with versions Kc In which of the KBs does α hold, K2 but not β? K4 Difference between versions K3 How they differ in meaning Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 3 / 24
  • 10. Motivation Issues K6 Maintaining different versions Parsimonious representation K5 K1 Reasoning with versions Kc In which of the KBs does α hold, K2 but not β? K4 Difference between versions K3 How they differ in meaning Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 3 / 24
  • 11. Motivation Issues K6 Maintaining different versions Parsimonious representation K5 K1 Reasoning with versions Kc In which of the KBs does α hold, K2 but not β? K4 Difference between versions K3 How they differ in meaning Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 3 / 24
  • 12. Outline 1 Logical Preliminaries 2 Knowledge Base Versioning Semantic Diff A General Framework Compiled Representation 3 Conclusion Contributions Future Work Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 4 / 24
  • 13. Outline 1 Logical Preliminaries 2 Knowledge Base Versioning Semantic Diff A General Framework Compiled Representation 3 Conclusion Contributions Future Work Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 4 / 24
  • 14. Outline 1 Logical Preliminaries 2 Knowledge Base Versioning Semantic Diff A General Framework Compiled Representation 3 Conclusion Contributions Future Work Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 4 / 24
  • 15. Logical Preliminaries Knowledge bases A knowledge base K is a (possibly infinite) set of formulas Cn(K) = {α | K |= α} Cn(.) is called Tarskian iff it satisfies Inclusion: X ⊆ Cn(X ) Idempotence: Cn(Cn(X )) ⊆ Cn(X ) Monotonicity: X ⊆ Y implies Cn(X ) ⊆ Cn(Y ) [α] = {β | α ≡ β} Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 5 / 24
  • 16. Logical Preliminaries Knowledge bases A knowledge base K is a (possibly infinite) set of formulas Cn(K) = {α | K |= α} Cn(.) is called Tarskian iff it satisfies Inclusion: X ⊆ Cn(X ) Idempotence: Cn(Cn(X )) ⊆ Cn(X ) Monotonicity: X ⊆ Y implies Cn(X ) ⊆ Cn(Y ) [α] = {β | α ≡ β} Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 5 / 24
  • 17. Logical Preliminaries Knowledge bases A knowledge base K is a (possibly infinite) set of formulas Cn(K) = {α | K |= α} Cn(.) is called Tarskian iff it satisfies Inclusion: X ⊆ Cn(X ) Idempotence: Cn(Cn(X )) ⊆ Cn(X ) Monotonicity: X ⊆ Y implies Cn(X ) ⊆ Cn(Y ) [α] = {β | α ≡ β} Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 5 / 24
  • 18. Logical Preliminaries Knowledge bases A knowledge base K is a (possibly infinite) set of formulas Cn(K) = {α | K |= α} Cn(.) is called Tarskian iff it satisfies Inclusion: X ⊆ Cn(X ) Idempotence: Cn(Cn(X )) ⊆ Cn(X ) Monotonicity: X ⊆ Y implies Cn(X ) ⊆ Cn(Y ) [α] = {β | α ≡ β} Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 5 / 24
  • 19. Outline 1 Logical Preliminaries 2 Knowledge Base Versioning Semantic Diff A General Framework Compiled Representation 3 Conclusion Contributions Future Work Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 6 / 24
  • 20. Semantic Diff Difference in meaning between knowledge bases K and K Analogy with the Unix diff command diff distinguishes between syntactically different files Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation Example Let the (propositional) knowledge bases: K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q} K1 and K2 differ in syntax But K1 and K2 convey the same meaning (K1 ≡ K2 ) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 7 / 24
  • 21. Semantic Diff Difference in meaning between knowledge bases K and K Analogy with the Unix diff command diff distinguishes between syntactically different files Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation Example Let the (propositional) knowledge bases: K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q} K1 and K2 differ in syntax But K1 and K2 convey the same meaning (K1 ≡ K2 ) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 7 / 24
  • 22. Semantic Diff Difference in meaning between knowledge bases K and K Analogy with the Unix diff command diff distinguishes between syntactically different files Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation Example Let the (propositional) knowledge bases: K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q} K1 and K2 differ in syntax But K1 and K2 convey the same meaning (K1 ≡ K2 ) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 7 / 24
  • 23. Semantic Diff Difference in meaning between knowledge bases K and K Analogy with the Unix diff command diff distinguishes between syntactically different files Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation Example Let the (propositional) knowledge bases: K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q} K1 and K2 differ in syntax But K1 and K2 convey the same meaning (K1 ≡ K2 ) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 7 / 24
  • 24. Characterizing Semantic Diff KBs closed under logical consequence (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K ) Semantic diff of K and K : pair A, R A is the add-set of (K, K ) R as the remove-set of (K, K ) (P2) K = (K ∪ A) R Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 8 / 24
  • 25. Characterizing Semantic Diff KBs closed under logical consequence (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K ) Semantic diff of K and K : pair A, R A is the add-set of (K, K ) R as the remove-set of (K, K ) (P2) K = (K ∪ A) R Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 8 / 24
  • 26. Characterizing Semantic Diff KBs closed under logical consequence (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K ) Semantic diff of K and K : pair A, R A is the add-set of (K, K ) R as the remove-set of (K, K ) (P2) K = (K ∪ A) R Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 8 / 24
  • 27. Characterizing Semantic Diff Minimal change and no redundancy (P3) A ⊆ K (P4) R ⊆ K Duality of semantic diff (P5) K = (K ∪ R) A ‘Undo’ operation when moving between versions Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 9 / 24
  • 28. Characterizing Semantic Diff Minimal change and no redundancy (P3) A ⊆ K (P4) R ⊆ K Duality of semantic diff (P5) K = (K ∪ R) A ‘Undo’ operation when moving between versions Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 9 / 24
  • 29. Characterizing Semantic Diff Minimal change and no redundancy (P3) A ⊆ K (P4) R ⊆ K Duality of semantic diff (P5) K = (K ∪ R) A ‘Undo’ operation when moving between versions Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 9 / 24
  • 30. Characterizing Semantic Diff Definition K and K knowledge bases, A and R sets of sentences A, R is semantic diff compliant w.r.t. (K, K ) iff (K, K ) and A, R satisfy Postulates (P1)–(P5) (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K ) (P2) K = (K ∪ A) R (P3) A ⊆ K (P4) R ⊆ K (P5) K = (K ∪ R) A Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 10 / 24
  • 31. Characterizing Semantic Diff Definition K and K knowledge bases, A and R sets of sentences A, R is semantic diff compliant w.r.t. (K, K ) iff (K, K ) and A, R satisfy Postulates (P1)–(P5) (P1) K = Cn(K) and K = Cn(K ) (P2) K = (K ∪ A) R (P3) A ⊆ K (P4) R ⊆ K (P5) K = (K ∪ R) A Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 10 / 24
  • 32. Characterizing Semantic Diff Specific construction for the semantic diff operator: Definition The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where A = K K and R = K K Neither A nor R are logically closed: Example Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q) A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]} R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]} p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R / / In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R , ∈ A and / ∈R / Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 11 / 24
  • 33. Characterizing Semantic Diff Specific construction for the semantic diff operator: Definition The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where A = K K and R = K K Neither A nor R are logically closed: Example Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q) A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]} R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]} p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R / / In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R , ∈ A and / ∈R / Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 11 / 24
  • 34. Characterizing Semantic Diff Specific construction for the semantic diff operator: Definition The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where A = K K and R = K K Neither A nor R are logically closed: Example Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q) A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]} R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]} p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R / / In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R , ∈ A and / ∈R / Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 11 / 24
  • 35. Characterizing Semantic Diff Specific construction for the semantic diff operator: Definition The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where A = K K and R = K K Neither A nor R are logically closed: Example Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q) A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]} R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]} p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R / / In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R , ∈ A and / ∈R / Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 11 / 24
  • 36. Characterizing Semantic Diff Specific construction for the semantic diff operator: Definition The ideal semantic diff of (K, K ) is the pair A, R , where A = K K and R = K K Neither A nor R are logically closed: Example Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K = Cn(¬q) A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]} R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]} p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈ R / / In fact, for any ideal semantic diff A, R , ∈ A and / ∈R / Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 11 / 24
  • 37. Characterizing Semantic Diff There is a unique ideal semantic diff associated with any two KBs Theorem Let A, R be the ideal semantic diff of K and K . Then A, R is semantic diff compliant with respect to (K, K ) A, R is unique w.r.t. (K, K ) Corollary For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A ∩ R = ∅ Ideal semantic diff and symmetric difference: (K K) ∪ (K K ) Corollary For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A, R = ∅, ∅ iff K = K Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 12 / 24
  • 38. Characterizing Semantic Diff There is a unique ideal semantic diff associated with any two KBs Theorem Let A, R be the ideal semantic diff of K and K . Then A, R is semantic diff compliant with respect to (K, K ) A, R is unique w.r.t. (K, K ) Corollary For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A ∩ R = ∅ Ideal semantic diff and symmetric difference: (K K) ∪ (K K ) Corollary For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A, R = ∅, ∅ iff K = K Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 12 / 24
  • 39. Characterizing Semantic Diff There is a unique ideal semantic diff associated with any two KBs Theorem Let A, R be the ideal semantic diff of K and K . Then A, R is semantic diff compliant with respect to (K, K ) A, R is unique w.r.t. (K, K ) Corollary For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A ∩ R = ∅ Ideal semantic diff and symmetric difference: (K K) ∪ (K K ) Corollary For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A, R = ∅, ∅ iff K = K Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 12 / 24
  • 40. Characterizing Semantic Diff There is a unique ideal semantic diff associated with any two KBs Theorem Let A, R be the ideal semantic diff of K and K . Then A, R is semantic diff compliant with respect to (K, K ) A, R is unique w.r.t. (K, K ) Corollary For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A ∩ R = ∅ Ideal semantic diff and symmetric difference: (K K) ∪ (K K ) Corollary For the ideal semantic diff A, R of (K, K ), A, R = ∅, ∅ iff K = K Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 12 / 24
  • 41. Outline 1 Logical Preliminaries 2 Knowledge Base Versioning Semantic Diff A General Framework Compiled Representation 3 Conclusion Contributions Future Work Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 13 / 24
  • 42. A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning Scenario: n versions, K1 , . . . , Kn , of a KB that need to be stored A core knowledge base Kc For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n: Ideal semantic diff of (Ki , Kj ): Dij , Dji Ideal semantic diff of (Kc , Ki ): Dci , Dic From Properties (P2) K = (K ∪ A) R (P5) K = (K ∪ R) A The add-set Dij of (Ki , Kj ) is also the remove-set of (Kj , Ki ) The remove-set Dji of (Ki , Kj ) is also the add-set of (Kj , Ki ) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 14 / 24
  • 43. A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning Scenario: n versions, K1 , . . . , Kn , of a KB that need to be stored A core knowledge base Kc For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n: Ideal semantic diff of (Ki , Kj ): Dij , Dji Ideal semantic diff of (Kc , Ki ): Dci , Dic From Properties (P2) K = (K ∪ A) R (P5) K = (K ∪ R) A The add-set Dij of (Ki , Kj ) is also the remove-set of (Kj , Ki ) The remove-set Dji of (Ki , Kj ) is also the add-set of (Kj , Ki ) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 14 / 24
  • 44. A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning Scenario: n versions, K1 , . . . , Kn , of a KB that need to be stored A core knowledge base Kc For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n: Ideal semantic diff of (Ki , Kj ): Dij , Dji Ideal semantic diff of (Kc , Ki ): Dci , Dic From Properties (P2) K = (K ∪ A) R (P5) K = (K ∪ R) A The add-set Dij of (Ki , Kj ) is also the remove-set of (Kj , Ki ) The remove-set Dji of (Ki , Kj ) is also the add-set of (Kj , Ki ) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 14 / 24
  • 45. A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning In order to access any version, it is sufficient: To store Kc , and To store Dic and Dci for all Ki s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n By Theorem 1, Ki = (Kc ∪ Dci ) Dic for every i s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n Dc6 , D6c • Dc5 , D5c • • Dc1 , D1c Kc • Dc2 , D2c Dc4 , D4c • • Dc3 , D3c Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 15 / 24
  • 46. A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning In order to access any version, it is sufficient: To store Kc , and To store Dic and Dci for all Ki s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n By Theorem 1, Ki = (Kc ∪ Dci ) Dic for every i s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n Dc6 , D6c • Dc5 , D5c • • Dc1 , D1c Kc • Dc2 , D2c Dc4 , D4c • • Dc3 , D3c Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 15 / 24
  • 47. A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning In order to access any version, it is sufficient: To store Kc , and To store Dic and Dci for all Ki s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n By Theorem 1, Ki = (Kc ∪ Dci ) Dic for every i s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n Dc6 , D6c • Dc5 , D5c • • Dc1 , D1c Kc • Dc2 , D2c Dc4 , D4c • • Dc3 , D3c Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 15 / 24
  • 48. A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning We can generate the ideal semantic diff of Ki and Kj Proposition Dij = (Dcj Dci ) ∪ (Dic Djc ) and Dji = (Dci Dcj ) ∪ (Djc Dic ) K1 Dn1 , D1n D1i , Di1 Dc1 , D1c Kn Kc Dci , Dic Ki Dcn , Dnc Dcj , Djc Dnj , Djn Dij , Dji Kj Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 16 / 24
  • 49. A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning We can generate the ideal semantic diff of Ki and Kj Proposition Dij = (Dcj Dci ) ∪ (Dic Djc ) and Dji = (Dci Dcj ) ∪ (Djc Dic ) K1 Dn1 , D1n D1i , Di1 Dc1 , D1c Kn Kc Dci , Dic Ki Dcn , Dnc Dcj , Djc Dnj , Djn Dij , Dji Kj Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 16 / 24
  • 50. Outline 1 Logical Preliminaries 2 Knowledge Base Versioning Semantic Diff A General Framework Compiled Representation 3 Conclusion Contributions Future Work Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 17 / 24
  • 51. Compiled Representation Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K) Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji ) From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff, generate Kj From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff Dij , Dji Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 18 / 24
  • 52. Compiled Representation Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K) Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji ) From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff, generate Kj From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff Dij , Dji Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 18 / 24
  • 53. Compiled Representation Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K) Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji ) From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff, generate Kj From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff Dij , Dji Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 18 / 24
  • 54. Compiled Representation Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K) Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji ) such that: From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff, generate Kj From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff Dij , Dji Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 18 / 24
  • 55. Compiled Representation Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K) Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff I (Dij ), I (Dji ) such that: From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal semantic diff, generate Kj From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff Dij , Dji Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 18 / 24
  • 56. Compiled Representation With the intermediate representation We can also generate one KB from another Theorem F (Ki ) = (F (Kj ) I (Dji )) ∪ I (Dij ) = (F (Kj ) ∪ I (Dij )) I (Dji ) We can generate the ideal diff (details in the NMR’10 paper) We can get I (Dij ) and I (Dji ) Theorem For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, I (Dij ) = (I (Dcj ) I (Dci )) ∪ (I (Dic ) I (Djc )) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 19 / 24
  • 57. Compiled Representation With the intermediate representation We can also generate one KB from another Theorem F (Ki ) = (F (Kj ) I (Dji )) ∪ I (Dij ) = (F (Kj ) ∪ I (Dij )) I (Dji ) We can generate the ideal diff (details in the NMR’10 paper) We can get I (Dij ) and I (Dji ) Theorem For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, I (Dij ) = (I (Dcj ) I (Dci )) ∪ (I (Dic ) I (Djc )) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 19 / 24
  • 58. Compiled Representation With the intermediate representation We can also generate one KB from another Theorem F (Ki ) = (F (Kj ) I (Dji )) ∪ I (Dij ) = (F (Kj ) ∪ I (Dij )) I (Dji ) We can generate the ideal diff (details in the NMR’10 paper) We can get I (Dij ) and I (Dji ) Theorem For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, I (Dij ) = (I (Dcj ) I (Dci )) ∪ (I (Dic ) I (Djc )) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 19 / 24
  • 59. Outline 1 Logical Preliminaries 2 Knowledge Base Versioning Semantic Diff A General Framework Compiled Representation 3 Conclusion Contributions Future Work Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 20 / 24
  • 60. Contributions Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning Intuitive, simple and general Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic Parsimonious representation Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 21 / 24
  • 61. Contributions Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning Intuitive, simple and general Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic Parsimonious representation Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 21 / 24
  • 62. Contributions Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning Intuitive, simple and general Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic Parsimonious representation Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 21 / 24
  • 63. Contributions Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning Intuitive, simple and general Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic Parsimonious representation Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 21 / 24
  • 64. Contributions Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning Intuitive, simple and general Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic Parsimonious representation Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper) Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 21 / 24
  • 65. Outline 1 Logical Preliminaries 2 Knowledge Base Versioning Semantic Diff A General Framework Compiled Representation 3 Conclusion Contributions Future Work Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 22 / 24
  • 66. Ongoing and Future Work How to choose the core knowledge base Kc Which normal forms are more appropriate Experiments with realistic data for evaluation of the approach Ontology versioning in Description Logics Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 23 / 24
  • 67. Reference E. Franconi, T. Meyer, I. Varzinczak. Semantic Diff as the Basis for Knowledge Base Versioning. Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR), 2010. Thank you! Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 24 / 24
  • 68. Reference E. Franconi, T. Meyer, I. Varzinczak. Semantic Diff as the Basis for Knowledge Base Versioning. Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR), 2010. Thank you! Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 24 / 24