1 / 37

Evolution in OWL 2 QL & OWL 2 EL Ontologies

Evolution in OWL 2 QL & OWL 2 EL Ontologies. Dmitriy Zheleznyakov 28 th of January, 2014, Oslo. Ontology. General rules:. To use ontologies in applications, we need special, formal syntax. . All popes are clerics. Facts:. Benedict XVI is a pope. Explicit knowledge. Ontology.

stacie
Download Presentation

Evolution in OWL 2 QL & OWL 2 EL Ontologies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Evolution in OWL 2 QL & OWL 2 EL Ontologies Dmitriy Zheleznyakov 28thof January, 2014, Oslo

  2. Ontology General rules: • To use ontologies in applications,we need special, formal syntax  All popes are clerics Facts: Benedict XVI is a pope

  3. Explicit knowledge Ontology • Do ontologies differ from data bases? • Data bases: explicit knowledge only • Benedict XVI is a pope • Ontologies: explicit & implicit knowledge • Benedict XVI is a pope • Reasoning:Benedict XVI is a cleric Explicit knowledge Implicit knowledge reasoning

  4. Ontology Languages • The focus of this work: ontology languages for the Semantic Web • Web Ontology Language: OWL 2 (W3C Standard) • OWL 2 QL • OWL 2 EL • Good computational properties • Efficient schema and data management • Used in practice

  5. OWL 2 QL: Ontology-Based Data Access • Ontology-Based Data Access (OBDA) • provide unified query interface to heterogeneous data sources

  6. OWL 2 QL: Ontology-Based Data Access • Ontology-Based Data Access (OBDA) • provide unified query interface to heterogeneous data sources • EU FP7 project Optiquewill developan OBDA system • use-case partners: Statoil, Siemens • Ontologies may change: • new knowledge about domain • new data source is added • Motivation for our work: • to address the dynamicity of OBDA systemsby studying evolution of schema and data

  7. OWL 2 EL: Clinical Science, Bio Ontologies • Ontologies enable communication and knowledge sharingbetween doctors, scientists, etc. • SNOMED CT: > 311k terms • constantly under development: • 5 modification teams • every 2 weeks the main team integrates changes, • 2002  2008 SNOMED went 278k  311k terms • It is the standard to describe the results of experiments in the US clinical labs • Motivation for our work: • to provide techniques that facilitate ontology development for such a vast community

  8. Our Goal • To facilitate evolution of ontology-based systems • insertion of knowledge • deletion of knowledge • On two levels: • schema • data • With as little changesas possible Original ontology To insert To delete

  9. How to Approach the Problem? • Define anoperator and understand it • a conceptual understanding of how to evolve ontologies • checking its computational properties • Develop an algorithm to compute the result • Implement the algorithm Original ontology New knowledge Resulting ontology

  10. Previous Work Model-based operators Formula-based operators Many evolution operators proposed Adaptationof some operators [AGM’85] [Borgida’85] [Dalal’88] [Satoh’88] [Winslett’90] [Kang&Lau’04] [Flouris&al’04] [Flouris&al’05] [Qi&al’06] [Liu& al’06] [Qi&Du’09] [DeGiacomo&al’07-09] [Wang&al’10] [Winslett’88] [Katsuno&Mendelzon’91] AI: 80’s – 90’s Propositional logic, weaker then OWL 2 QL & OWL 2 EL KR: 2004-2006 2007-2010

  11. General Overview of the Results Work for restriction of OWL 2 QL • For OWL 2 QL & EL • inexpressibility • counterintuitive results OWL 2 QLOWL 2 EL 1 2 3 Model-based operators Tunableoperator Boldoperator • inexpressibility • counterintuitive results Works for OWL 2 QL & EL Works for OWL 2 QL 6 Formula-based operators 4 5 Propositionallogic OWL 2 QL OWL 2 EL

  12. Understanding Model-Based Operators Work for restriction of OWL 2 QL 1 2 3 Model-based operators Boldoperator Tunableoperator Works for OWL 2 QL & EL Works for OWL 2 QL 6 Formula-based operators 4 5 Propositionallogic OWL 2 QL OWL 2 EL

  13. Understanding Model-Based Operators • We have shown: operators are determined by three parameters • this gives a three-dimensional spaceof operators • Classical operators fit in this space • Novel operators can be easily definedby changing parameters

  14. Understanding Model-Based Operators • We noticed: operators are determined by three parameters • this gives a three-dimensional spaceof operators • Classical operators fit in this space • Novel operators can be easily definedby changing parameters • We can add new values to dimensions! • more operators can be defined!

  15. Inexpressibility of Model-Based Operators Work for restriction of OWL 2 QL • inexpressibility • counterintuitive results 1 2 3 Model-based operators Tunableoperator Boldoperator Works for OWL 2 QL & EL Works for OWL 2 QL 6 Formula-based operators 4 5 Propositionallogic OWL 2 QL OWL 2 EL

  16. Inexpressibility of Model-Based Operators Schema: Wives are married to their husbands Priest cannot be husbands Facts: Mary is married to John and Adam and Bob are priests

  17. Inexpressibility of Model-Based Operators a model: Under model-based operators:We incorporate new knowledge directly into models Facts to add: John is a priest

  18. Inexpressibility of Model-Based Operators 1. John cannot be a husband of Mary anymore! What happens to her? 2. Three options: She divorced She married some one else She married to a former priest 3.

  19. Inexpressibility of Model-Based Operators 1. OR We showed: all these options cannot be capturedin OWL 2 QL and OWL 2 EL We need at least disjunction which is not in OWL 2 QL and OWL 2 EL 2. OR 3.

  20. Bad Behaviour of Model-Based Operators Work for restriction of OWL 2 QL • inexpressibility • counterintuitive results 1 2 3 Model-based operators Boldoperator Tunableoperator Works for OWL 2 QL & EL Works for OWL 2 QL 6 Formula-based operators 4 5 Propositionallogic OWL 2 QL OWL 2 EL

  21. Bad Behaviour of Model-Based Operators Some of model-based operators behave as follows: No schema Facts: Adam and Bob are priests Facts to add: John is a priest

  22. Bad Behaviour of Model-Based Operators Some of model-based operators behave as follows: Such behaviour is not usefulfor any application Expectedresult: Actualresult:

  23. Restriction of OWL 2 QL Work for restriction of OWL 2 QL 1 2 3 Model-based operators Boldoperator Tunableoperator Works for OWL 2 QL & EL Works for OWL 2 QL 6 Formula-based operators 4 5 Propositionallogic OWL 2 QL OWL 2 EL

  24. Restriction of OWL 2 QL • We found the reason of the bad behaviour of model-base operators: A binary relation participates in disjointness • Priest cannot be husbands • What if we forbid this bad interaction? • We showed: most of model-based operators work! • this fragment captures (FO part of) RDFS(another W3C standard) disjoint with

  25. Summing up on Model-Based Operators • Model-based operators • suffer from inexpressibility • tend to lose too much of information • counterintuitivebehaviour • Our verdict: • model-based operators are not suitable for the case of OWL 2 QL or OWL 2 EL • We turned to Formula-based operators!

  26. Formula-Based Operators Work for restriction of OWL 2 QL 1 2 3 Model-based operators Boldoperator Tunableoperator • inexpressibility • counterintuitive results Works for OWL 2 QL & EL Works for OWL 2 QL 6 Formula-based operators 4 5 Propositionallogic OWL 2 QL OWL 2 EL

  27. Formula-Based Operators • Preserve all the knowledge:both explicit and implicit • Example: delete Priests are Males • We do not want to lose info thatAdam is Male Explicit schema Implicitschema Explicit data Implicitdata

  28. Formula-Based Operators • Preserve all the knowledge:both explicit and implicit • Example: delete Priests are Males • How to delete it in such a way that it will not appear even implicitly? • Delete • either Priests are Clerics • or Clerics are Males Explicit schema Implicitschema

  29. Formula-Based Operators • Preserve all the knowledge:both explicit and implicit • Example: delete Priests are Males • How to delete it in such a way that it will not appear even implicitly? • Delete • either Priests are Clerics • or Clerics are Males • What to do with a multiple choice?Classical approaches: • Keeping both – impossible • Combining them • too much of information is lost • we proved: it is computationally hard The resulted schema: either or

  30. Bold Operator Work for restriction of OWL 2 QL 1 2 3 Model-based operators Tunableoperator Boldoperator Works for OWL 2 QL & EL Works for OWL 2 QL 6 Formula-based operators 4 5 Propositionallogic OWL 2 QL OWL 2 EL

  31. Bold Operator There is no way to decide which result is better! This is application dependentand should be up to the user • Example: delete Priests are Males • How to delete it in such a way that it will not appear even implicitly? • Delete • either Priests are Clerics • or Clerics are Males • What to do with a multiple choice? • We propose: Bold operator.It picks up one of them • The result is non-deterministic… • … But can be computed in polynomial time (for OWL 2 QL) • In the case of OWL 2 EL: • Implicit knowledge can be infinite • Bold operator does not work The resulted schema: either or

  32. Tunable Operator Work for restriction of OWL 2 QL 1 2 3 Model-based operators Boldoperator Tunableoperator Works for OWL 2 QL & EL Works for OWL 2 QL 6 Formula-based operators 4 5 Propositionallogic OWL 2 QL OWL 2 EL

  33. Tunable Operator • Tunable operator • allows to choose what part of implicit knowledge will be preserved Explicit schema Implicitschema

  34. Tunable Operator • Tunable operator • allows to choose what part of implicit knowledge will be preserved Explicit schema Implicitschema

  35. Tunable Operator No implicit part Whole implicit part

  36. Summing up on Formula-Based Operators • Classical Formula-based operators • suffer from inexpressibility • tend to lose too much of information • Bold operator: • works for OWL 2 QL • fails for OWL 2 EL • Tunable operator: • works for both OWL 2 QL and OWL 2 EL

  37. Current Work • Applying our results to the Optique project • in progress • Incorporating evolution in transition systems • IJCAI’2013 • Information hiding & Controlled query evaluation • ISWC 2013 • submitted to an international conference

More Related