This tutorial discusses the need for shared semantics on the Internet and in open systems. As information systems become more interconnected, there needs to be agreement on the meaning and use of terms. XML provides syntax but not semantics, while standard vocabularies are often ambiguous. Ontologies provide precise definitions of terms and their relationships to allow computers and systems to truly understand each other. They formalize the concepts and semantic rules that humans use to distinguish similar things.

1. ‫أكاديمية الحكومة اإللكترونية الفلسطينية‬
The Palestinian eGovernment Academy
www.egovacademy.ps
Tutorial 4: Ontology Engineering & Lexical Semantics
Session 1.1
The Need for Shared Semantics
Dr. Mustafa Jarrar
University of Birzeit
mjarrar@birzeit.edu
www.jarrar.info
PalGov © 2011 1

2. About
This tutorial is part of the PalGov project, funded by the TEMPUS IV program of the
Commission of the European Communities, grant agreement 511159-TEMPUS-1-
2010-1-PS-TEMPUS-JPHES. The project website: www.egovacademy.ps
Project Consortium:
Birzeit University, Palestine
University of Trento, Italy
(Coordinator )
Palestine Polytechnic University, Palestine Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
Palestine Technical University, Palestine
Université de Savoie, France
Ministry of Telecom and IT, Palestine
University of Namur, Belgium
Ministry of Interior, Palestine
TrueTrust, UK
Ministry of Local Government, Palestine
Coordinator:
Dr. Mustafa Jarrar
Birzeit University, P.O.Box 14- Birzeit, Palestine
Telfax:+972 2 2982935 mjarrar@birzeit.eduPalGov © 2011
2

3. © Copyright Notes
Everyone is encouraged to use this material, or part of it, but should
properly cite the project (logo and website), and the author of that part.
No part of this tutorial may be reproduced or modified in any form or by
any means, without prior written permission from the project, who have
the full copyrights on the material.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
CC-BY-NC-SA
This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-
commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations
under the identical terms.
PalGov © 2011 3

4. Tutorial Map
Topic Time
Session 1_1: The Need for Sharing Semantics 1.5
Session 1_2: What is an ontology 1.5
Intended Learning Objectives
A: Knowledge and Understanding Session 2: Lab- Build a Population Ontology 3
4a1: Demonstrate knowledge of what is an ontology, Session 3: Lab- Build a BankCustomer Ontology 3
how it is built, and what it is used for. Session 4: Lab- Build a BankCustomer Ontology 3
4a2: Demonstrate knowledge of ontology engineering
and evaluation. Session 5: Lab- Ontology Tools 3
4a3: Describe the difference between an ontology and a Session 6_1: Ontology Engineering Challenges 1.5
schema, and an ontology and a dictionary.
Session 6_2: Ontology Double Articulation 1.5
4a4: Explain the concept of language ontologies, lexical
semantics and multilingualism. Session 7: Lab - Build a Legal-Person Ontology 3
B: Intellectual Skills Session 8_1: Ontology Modeling Challenges 1.5
4b1: Develop quality ontologies. Session 8_2: Stepwise Methodologies 1.5
4b2: Tackle ontology engineering challenges.
4b3: Develop multilingual ontologies. Session 9: Lab - Build a Legal-Person Ontology 3
4b4: Formulate quality glosses. Session 10: Zinnar – The Palestinian eGovernment 3
C: Professional and Practical Skills Interoperability Framework
4c1: Use ontology tools. Session 11: Lab- Using Zinnar in web services 3
4c2: (Re)use existing Language ontologies.
Session 12_1: Lexical Semantics and Multilingually 1.5
D: General and Transferable Skills
d1: Working with team. Session 12_2: WordNets 1.5
d2: Presenting and defending ideas. Session 13: ArabicOntology 3
d3: Use of creativity and innovation in problem solving.
Session 14: Lab-Using Linguistic Ontologies 3
d4: Develop communication skills and logical reasoning
abilities. Session 15: Lab-Using Linguistic Ontologies 3
PalGov © 2011 4

5. Session ILOs
This session will help student to:
4a1: Demonstrate knowledge of what is an ontology, how it is
built, and what it is used for
PalGov © 2011 5

6. Ontology-based Applications
(i) Open Information Systems (Data Integration and Interoperability)
Information System
Conceptual
Schema
DBMS
Query processor
Logical Schema
Apps
Data
 Each Information System is made for one organization.
 Interoperation between Information Systems was important in the past.
 Why do we need conceptual schemes? for designing Information
systems at the conceptual level.
PalGov © 2011 6

7. Ontology-based Applications
(i) Open Information Systems (Data Integration and Interoperability)
Ontologies/ Semantics
(OWL)
Agreed data schemes
(XML, RDF)
IS1
ISn
Conceptual Schema
Conceptual Schema
DBMS
DBMS
Query processor
Logical Schema
Query processor
Logical Schema
Apps
Apps
Data
Data
New needs:
Open data exchange, inter-organizational transactions, global queries…
PalGov © 2011 7

8. Ontology-based Applications
(i) Open Information Systems (Data Integration and Interoperability)
eGovernment Application
Government Ontology
Agreed data schemes
(XML or RDF)
Ministry1
Ministryn
Conceptual Schema
Conceptual Schema
DBMS
DBMS
Query processor
Logical Schema
Query processor
Logical Schema
Apps
Apps
Data
Data
New needs:
Open data exchange, inter-ministry transactions, global queries…
PalGov © 2011 8

9. Ontology-based Applications
(i) Open Information Systems (Data Integration and Interoperability)
eGovernment Application
The meaning, vocabulary,
and data structure in the
message commit to the Government Ontology
Government Ontology
Agreed data schemes
(XML, RDF)
Ministry1
Ministryn
Conceptual Schema
Conceptual Schema
DBMS
DBMS
Query processor
Logical Schema
Query processor
Logical Schema
Apps
Apps
Data
Data
New needs:
Open data exchange, inter-ministry transactions, global queries…
PalGov © 2011 9

10. Ontology-based Applications
(i) Open Information Systems (Data Integration and Interoperability)
E-Commerce Application
Semantic Mediator
Shared meaning (i.e. formal
Bookstore Ontology semantics) of bibliographical
Terminology
PalGov © 2011 10

11. Ontology-based Applications
(i) Open Information Systems (Data Integration and Interoperability)
E-Commerce Application
Semantic Mediator
Shared meaning (i.e. formal
Product ⊑ ValuatedBy.Price
Bookstore Ontology semantics) of bibliographical
Book ⊑ Product ⊓ hasISBN Terminology
⊓ hasTitle
⊓ hasAuthor
PalGov © 2011 11

12. Ontology-based Applications
(i) Open Information Systems (Data Integration and Interoperability)
E-Commerce Application
Semantic Mediator
….
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Product" />
Shared meaning (i.e. formal
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Book">
Bookstore Ontology
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Product" />
</owl:Class> semantics) of bibliographical
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Price" />
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Value" />
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Currency" />
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Title" />
Specification using Terminology
<owl:Class rdf:ID="ISBN" />
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Author" />
OWL
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="Valuated-By">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Product" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Price" />
</owl:ObjectProperty>
(Ontology Web Language )
<owl:DataProperty rdf:ID=" Amounted-To .Value">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Price" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
<owl:DataProperty rdf:ID="Measured-In.Currency">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Price" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"/>
…
PalGov © 2011 12

13. Ontology-based Applications
(ii)The Semantic Web scenario (RDFa)
find a developer position, max 10 minutes from Ramallah
PalGov © 2011 13

14. Ontology-based Applications
(ii)The Semantic Web scenario (RDFa)
Bad results, as it is
string-matching search,
i.e., not meaningful
search
find a developer position, max 10 minutes from Ramallah
PalGov © 2011 14

15. Ontology-based Applications
(ii)The Semantic Web scenario (RDFa)
Shared meanings of things,

This meaning is embedded
inside web pages. 1
Ontology
2
“The semantic web” mission:
syntax to semantic based 3
search  The next generation
of the web.
4
find a developer position, max 10 minutes from Ramallah
3 billion pages
PalGov © 2011 15

16. Ontology-based Applications
(iii) Shared semantics in e-Commerce
Central customer complaining portal CCForm Project (EU FP5).
The idea of this project is to build
a portal for treating customer
complaints (CCPortal):
• Instead of developing a
complaining system for each
website offering products and
services, these websites can
provide a link to the CC Portal,
so to allow customers to write
their complaints.
• All types of complains (about
anything) are collected centrally
and product/service providers
can respond and interact with
customers in a transparent way
through this CCPortal.
• A Customer Complaint
Ontology (CCOntology) is built
and used in the background;
such that, the complaining
vocabulary (all types of
complaints, responses, etc.)
become “standard” for all
companies and customers.
See http://www.jarrar.info/publications/mjarrar-CCFORM-chapter.pdf.htm
• Nice idea, but not fully
implemented yet.
PalGov © 2011 16

17. Example (Customer Complaint Ontology)
See http://www.jarrar.info/publications/mjarrar-CCFORM-chapter.pdf.htm
PalGov © 2011 17

18. The Need for a Shared Understanding
• The Internet and the open connectivity environments are creating a
huge demand not only for sharing data but also its semantics.
• Not only humans but also computers needs to communicate
meaningfully.
• However, due to different needs and background contexts, there can be
widely varying viewpoints and assumptions regarding what is essentially
the same subject matter; each may have differing, overlapping and/ or
mis-matched concepts. [Martin Hepp]
• The consequent lack of a shared understanding leads to poor
communication within and between people, organizations, and systems.
PalGov © 2011 18

19. The Need for Meaning Mediation
“Lack of technologies and products to dynamically mediate
discrepancies in business semantics will limit the adoption
of advanced Web services for large public communities
whose participants have disparate business processes”
Gartner Research, February 28, 2002
PalGov © 2011 19

20. XML vs Ontology
Common Alphabet is not Enough…
One may ask:
Can we use XML instead of ontologies?
<aaa> <Book>
<bbb> Orientalism </bbb> <Title> Orientalism </Title>
<ccc>Edward Said</ccc> <Author>Edward Said</Author>
<ddd>11</ddd> <Price>11</Price>
</aaa> </Book>
“XML is only the first step to ensuring that computers can communicate
freely. XML is an alphabet for computers, and as everyone who travels in
Europe knows, knowing the alphabet doesn’t mean you can speak Italian
or French” [Business Week, March 18, 2002]
XML provides syntax, ontologies provide
semanticsmeaning.
PalGov © 2011 20

21. Standard Vocabularies vs Ontology
Can we use business glossaries instead of ontologies?
Contract: A binding agreement between two or more legal persons that is enforceable by law; an
invoice can be a contract.
Complaint: An expression of grievance or resentment issued by a complainant against a compliant-recipient,
describing a problem(s) that needs to be resolved.
Legal Person: An entity with legal recognition in accordance with law. It has the legal capacity to represent
its own interests in its own name, before a court of law, to obtain rights or obligations for ….
• Vocabulary definitions are often ambiguous or circular
• People don’t implement such definitions correctly anyway
 Standard vocabularies don’t provide precise and formal
meanings, as ontologies
PalGov © 2011 21

22. The meaning of Meaning (Semantics)
• Humans require words (or at least symbols) to communicate
efficiently. The mapping of words to things is indirect. We do it by
creating concepts that refer to things.
• The relation between symbols and things has been described in the
form of the meaning triangle:
Concept
“Jaguar“
َْ
‫ال َبغور‬
Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. 1923. "The Meaning of
Meaning." 8th Ed. New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc
[Carole Goble, Nigel Shadbolt, Ontologies and the Grid Tutorial]
PalGov © 2011 22

23. The meaning of Meaning (Semantics)
Concept: a set of rules we have in mind
An instance of a concept
to distinguish similar things in reality.
(‫)الماصدق‬
Concept
“Jaguar“
َْ
‫ال َبغور‬
PalGov © 2011 23

24. The meaning of Meaning (Semantics)
• A Term (/symbol) may refer to different concepts (Animal: Jaguar,
Car:Jaguar)
• A Concept might not be agreed on among all people (i.e., not exactly
the same set of rules are agreed by all people)
Dictionaries represent meanings approximately and informally, mixed
with lexical aspects.
Ontologies specify the meaning formally and precisely.
 We will come to this topic (Lexical Semantics) in
more details later
PalGov © 2011 24

25. Levels of Ontological Precision
[Guarino]
game(x) → activity(x)
athletic game(x) → game(x)
court game(x) ↔ athletic game(x) ∧ ∃y. played_in(x,y) ∧ court(y)
game tennis(x) → court game(x)
NT athletic game double fault(x) → fault(x) ∧ ∃y. part_of(x,y) ∧ tennis(y)
NT court game
RT court
Catalog NT tennis game
Axiomatized
Glossary RT double fault athletic game Theories
Thesaurus court game
tennis
tennis
football
outdoor game
game
field game
field game
football
court game
athletic game
Taxonomy
outdoor game OO/DB
schema
Ontological Precision
PalGov © 2011 25

26. References
• Mustafa Jarrar: Towards Effectiveness and Transparency in e-
Business Transactions, An Ontology for Customer Complaint
Management.
• Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. 1923. "The Meaning of Meaning." 8th
Ed. New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
• Carole Goble and Nigel Shadbolt: Ontologies and the Grid Tutorial.
PalGov © 2011 26

27. Thank you!
PalGov © 2011 27