introduction to description logic and ontology languages jidi (judy) zhao may 23, 2015 cs6999...
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction to Description Logic and Ontology
Languages
Jidi (Judy) ZhaoApril 21, 2023
CS6999 Presentation
Talk Outline
• Introduction to Ontologies• Introduction to Description Logic
(DL)• Reasoning in DL• Introduction to Ontology
Languages: OWL• Extensions of DL and Research
Challenges2
3
What is an ontology? Many definitions have been given:
from Philosophy: “a systematic explanation of being”
Neches gives some guidelines: “…defines the basic terms and relations including the vocabulary of a topic area as well as the rules for combining terms and relations to define extensions to the vocabulary.”
Gruber, the most quoted: “…an explicit specification of a conceptualization”
An ontology defines the concepts used to describe and represent an area of knowledge, as well as relations among them.
Types of Ontologies Top-level Ontologies
The Standard Upper Ontology (SUO): http://suo.ieee.org/
4
Types of Ontologies Top-level Ontologies
The Standard Upper Ontology (SUO): http://suo.ieee.org/
WordNet:http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
Sowa’s top-level ontology Cyc’s upper ontology
Domain Ontologies E-commerce Medicine Engineering Enterprise Chemistry ….
5
Thing
Living Nonliving
6
Methodologies for Ontology Engineering
Building domain ontologies from huge ontologies (SENSUS, Cyc, AKT,…)
OTK (On-To-Knowledge) Methodology Univ. of Karlsruhe
Methontology Univ. Politecnica de Madrid
7
Methontology: A Methodology for Building Ontologies
Methontology Ontology Development Process Life Cycle (Fernández-López et al., 1997;1999)
8
Tools for Ontology Engineering
OilEd from University of Manchester http://oiled.man.ac.uk/
Ontolingua from KSL (Stanford University) http://www-ksl.stanford.edu
OntoSaurus from ISI (USA) http://www.isi.edu/isd/ontosaurus.html
OntoEdit from Karlsrhue Univ. http://ontoserver.aifb.unikarlsruhe.de/ontoedit/
Protégé from SMI (Stanford University) http://protege.stanford.edu/
WebOnto from KMI (Open University) http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/webonto/
WebODE from UPM http://webode.dia.fi.upm.es/webODE/
KAON from AIFB and FZI at the University of Karlsruhe http://kaon.semanticweb.org/
Talk Outline
• Introduction to Ontologies• Introduction to Description Logic
(DL)• Reasoning in DL• Introduction to Ontology
Languages: OWL• Extensions of DL and Research
Challenges9
Description Logic Brachman and Levesque [1984] “there is a
tradeoff between the expressiveness of a representation language and the difficulty of reasoning over the representations built using that language”.
The more expressive the language, the harder the reasoning.
Description Logics overcome the ambiguities of early semantic networks
and frames first realized in the system KL-One [Brachman and
Schmolze, 1985] Well-studied and decidable (most DL languages) Tight coupling between theory and practice
Architecture of a DL System
from DL Handbook
DL Basics Concepts (unary predicates/formulae with one free
variable) E.g., Person, Female
Roles (binary predicates/formulae with two free variables)
E.g., hasChild Individuals (constants)
E.g., Mary, John Constructors
Uniont, Intersectionu Exists restriction9: 9hasChild.Doctor Value restriction8: 8hasChild.Doctor Complement /negation:: :Mother Number restriction ≥n, ≤n Inverse role (-): isChildOf ≡ hasChild–
transitive role (+): hasSister Role hierarchy : hasDaughter v hasChild
Axioms Subsumptionv: MothervParent Assertion: Mary: Mother, Mary hasChild John12
What does 8 R.C and 9 R.C mean?
hasPet
A Fido
A Fluffy
B Tabby
C Rover
C Flip
Dog
Fido
Rover
Flip
Cat
Fluffy
Tabby
A DogLover is someone whose pets are all dogs, in this case {C}DogLover = 8 hasPet.Dog{p | 8 a, (p, a) 2 hasPet ! a 2 Dog}Also writen more simply as {p | hasPet(p, a) ! Dog(a) }
A DogLiker is someone who owns a dog , in this case {A, C}DogLiker = 9 hasPet.Dog{p | hasPet(p, a) Æ Dog(a) }This slide is from Dr. Bruce Spencer’s slides (2007).
The DL Family Smallest propositionally closed DL is ALC
Concepts constructed using boolean operatorst , u , :
plus restricted quantifiers 9 , 8 Only atomic roles
E.g.,Person u 8hasChild.(Doctor t 9hasChild.Doctor)
14
The DL Family (cont.) S often used for ALC extended with transitive
roles (R+) Additional letters indicate other extensions, e.g.:
H for role hierarchy O for nominals (e.g., {Mary, John}) I for inverse roles N for number restrictions Q for qualified number restrictions (e.g.,
≥2hasChild.Doctor) R for limited complex role inclusion axioms, role
disjointness ALC+ transitive role (R+)+role hierarchy (H) +O
+ I + Q = SHOIQ
15
DL Semantics
Semantics given by standard FO model theory The vocabulary is the set of names (consist of concepts
and roles ) we use in our model of (part of) the world {Daisy, Cow, Animal, Person, Car, drives, …}
An interpretation I is a tuple (I, •I) I is the domain (a set) •I is a mapping that maps:
Names of objects (individuals/constants) to elements of I
Names of unary predicates (classes/concepts) to subsets of I
Names of binary predicates (properties/roles) to subsets of I ×I
16
DL Semantics(adapted from Horrocks 2006)
Interpretation domain IInterpretation function •I
Individuals iI 2 I
Mary
John
Concepts CI µ I
Teacher
Student
Car
Roles RI µ I × I
hasChild
owns
(Teacher u Student)17
A Knowledge Base (KB) <T,A>= a Tbox + an Abox
A TBox (terminology) is a set of inclusion axioms and equivalence axioms
the vocabulary of an application domain e.g.: { Mother v Person, GrandMother ≡ Person u
9hasChild.Parent }
An ABox (Assertion) is a set of assertions about individuals
about named individuals in terms of this vocabulary e.g.: {Mary: Mother, Anita hasChild Mary}
DL Knowledge Bases
18
Talk Outline
• Introduction to Ontologies• Introduction to Description Logic
(DL)• Reasoning in DL• Introduction to Ontology
Languages: OWL• Extensions of DL and Research
Challenges19
Tableau Reasoning (1) Key reasoning tasks
Satisfiability: asat(A), whether the assertions in a KB have a model Instance checking: C(a)? Concept satisfiability: C? Retrieval: retrieve a set of individuals that instantiate C Subsumption: B v A ?
A subsumes B if every individual of concept B is also of concept A. Equivalence: A≡B? , B v A ? And A v B?
Reasoning tasks reducible to KB (un)satisfiability: asat(A) Instance checking: instance(a, C, A) , :asat (A [ {a: :C}) Concept satisfiability: sat(C) , asat(A [ {a:C}) Concept subsumption:
C v D w.r.t. KB A , A [ {:D u C} is not satisfiable , :asat(A [ {a::D u C})
Retrieval:check each individual in the Abox, reducible to instance checking
DL systems typically use tableau algorithms to decide the satisfiability (consistency) of KB
20
CS6795 Semantic Web Techniques21
Tableau Reasoning (2) Tableau algorithms work by trying to construct a concrete
example (model) consistent with KB. A KB A is satisfiable iff a fully expanded clash-free graph is
constructed. Tableau reasoning contains a set of completion rules
operating on constraint sets or tableau Clash: a clash is an obvious contradiction, e.g., A(x), :A(x) Proof procedure:
start from assertions about individuals (ABox axioms) unfold the TBox so that atomic concepts only appear on the right
side of axioms transform all concepts into negation normal form (i.e. negation
only occurs in front of atomic concept names): : (C u D) ! :C t :D : 9R.C ! 8 R.:C
apply completion rules in arbitrary order as long as possible stops when a clash is found terminates if no completion rule is applicable A KB is satisfiable iff a clash-free tableau can be derived
completion rules
Tableau Reasoning (3)
22
23
Tableau Reasoning (5): Concept SubsumptionKB:
Reasoning task: mother v woman?
Exercise: Is the concept : woman u mother satisfiable?
Tableau Reasoning (4): asat(A) E.g., KB:
{HappyParent≡Person u ∀hasChild.(Doctor t 9hasChild.Doctor), John:HappyParent, John hasChild Mary, Mary: :Doctor, Wendy hasChild Mary, Wendy marriedTo John}
from Harrock, 2006
Person∀hasChild.(Doctor t ∃hasChild.Doctor)
24
Tableau Reasoning (6) Some completion rules are nondeterministic (e.g.,
9 , ≤ ). Blocking Strategies are often needed to ensure
termination. E.g., KB:
{Person v 9hasParent.Person, John:Person}
25
Tableau Reasoning (7)
In general, (representation of) model consists of: Named individuals
forming arbitrary directed graph
Trees of anonymous individuals rooted in named individuals
26
Similar tableaux expansions can be designed for more expressive DL languages.
A tableau algorithm has to meet three requirements:
Soundness: if a complete and clash-free graph is found by the algorithm, we can construct a model.
Completeness: Given a model, the algorithm can always find an complete and clash-free graph
Termination: the algorithm can terminate in finite steps with specific result.
Tableau Reasoning (8)
Software for DL Reasoning
Pellet
KAON2 CEL
28
Efficiency of Tableau Reasoning
I can’t find an efficient algorithm, but neither can all these famous people.
NP-Complete Cartoons, http://max.cs.kzoo.edu/~kschultz/CS510/ClassPresentations/NPCartoons.html
Talk Outline
• Introduction to Ontologies• Introduction to Description Logic
(DL)• Reasoning in DL• Introduction to Ontology
Languages: OWL• Extensions of DL and Research
Challenges30
Traditional Ontology Languages Ontolingua and KIF LOOM OKBC F-logic
Ontology Markup Languages SHOE RDF and RDF Schema OIL DAML+OIL OWL
Ontology Languages
31
Semantic Web led to requirement for a “web ontology language”
set up Web-Ontology (WebOnt) Working Group
WebOnt developed OWL language OWL based on earlier languages OIL and
DAML+OIL OWL now a W3C recommendation
OIL, DAML+OIL and OWL based on Description Logic
The Web Ontology Language OWL
32
OWL Three species of OWL
OWL full is the union of OWL syntax and RDF
OWL DL restricted to FOL fragment (is equivalent to SHOIN(Dn) DL)
OWL Lite is an “easier to implement” subset of OWL DL
OWL DL Benefits from many years of DL research Well defined semantics Formal properties well understood
(complexity, decidability) Known reasoning algorithms Implemented systems (highly optimised)
Adapted from ENC 2004 Tutorial by Peter F. Patel-Schneider
33
OWL RDF/XML Exchange Syntax
<owl:Class> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType=“collection"> <owl:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasChild"/> <owl:allValuesFrom> <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType=“collection"> <owl:Class rdf:about="#Doctor"/> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty
rdf:resource="#hasChild"/> <owl:someValuesFrom
rdf:resource="#Doctor"/> </owl:Restriction> </owl:unionOf> </owl:allValuesFrom> </owl:Restriction> </owl:intersectionOf></owl:Class>
E.g., Person u ∀hasChild.(Doctor t ∃hasChild.Doctor):
34
Class/Concept Constructors
35
Ontology Axioms
OWL ontology equivalent to DL KB (Tbox + Abox)
36
Talk Outline
• Introduction to Ontologies• Introduction to Description Logic
(DL)• Reasoning in DL• Introduction to Ontology
Languages: OWL• Extensions of DL and Research
Challenges37
38
Extensions of DL
Combinations of DL and Logic Programs (LP) Uncertainty extension of DL Concrete domain constraints Modal, epistemic, and temporal operators Open world vs. close world …..
39
Venn Diagram of DL, LP, and FOC
40
Motivation(1)
DL cannot represent “more than one free variable at a time”.
(1) A rule involving multiple variables. E.g.,Man(?X) ∧ Woman(?Y) !PotentialFriendshipBetween(?X,?Y).
(2) Chaining to derive values of Properties. E.g., Father(?X,?Y) ∧ Father(?Y,?Z)! Grandfather(?X,?Z). (not allowed in SHOIN)
Work(?X, ?Y) ∧ Live(?X, ?Z) ∧ Loc(?Y,?W) ∧ Loc(?Z,?W)!HomeWorker(?X).
X
YWork
Z
Live W
Loc
Loc
Motivation(2)
•Horn Logic cannot represent a (1) disjunction or (2) existential in the head.•(1) State a subclass of a complex class expression which is a disjunction. E.g.,
(Human u Adult) v (Man t Woman)•(2) State a subclass of a complex class expression which is an existential. E.g.,
Radio v 9hasPart.Tuner41
42
Different approaches1. Approaches reducing description logics to logic programs
A. DLPB. OWL 2 RL
2. Homogeneous approachesA. OWL RulesB. SWRL
3. Hybrid approaches accessing description logic through queries in logic programsA. AL-Log
Uncertainty extension of DL Handling uncertain knowledge is becoming a critical
research direction for the (Semantic) Web. knowledge on the Web is often uncertain and imprecise. E.g., many concepts needed in business domain
ontology modeling lack well-defined boundaries or, precisely defined criteria of relationship between concepts
Domain modeling and Ontology reasoning Quantify degree of an individual belonging to a class Quantify degree of subsumption between a class and its
subclasses Concept mapping between ontologies
Quantify degree of alignment between classes of two ontologies
43
44
URW3 Situation Report: uncertainty ontology
URW3
44
Probability, Possibility and Fuzzy logic
Probabilistic Description Logic: Statistical information e.g. John is a student with the probability 0.6
and a teacher with the probability 0.4 Fuzzy Description Logic:
Express vagueness and imprecision e.g. John is tall with the degree of truth 0.9
Possibilistic Description Logic: Particular rankings and preferences e.g. John prefers an ice cream to a beer
45
Research Challenges Syntax and Semantics Decidability Reasoning algorithms for
possible extensions Soundness and completeness Complexity/efficiency Effective methods for
reasoning under uncertainty
46
Questions?