Upload
carter
View
32
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
WonderWeb WP3 Presentation. Stefano Borgo, Carola Catenacci, Roberta Ferrario, Aldo Gangemi, Nicola Guarino, Jos Lehmann, Claudio Masolo, Alessandro Oltramari, Laure Vieu. ISTC-CNR, Trento&Rome, Italy. Peter Mika, Marta Sabou, Daniel Oberle. Vrije Univ. Amsterdam, AIFB. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2003.
WonderWeb WP3Presentation
Stefano Borgo, Carola Catenacci, Roberta Ferrario, Aldo Gangemi, Nicola Guarino, Jos Lehmann, Claudio Masolo, Alessandro
Oltramari, Laure VieuISTC-CNR, Trento&Rome, Italy
Peter Mika, Marta Sabou, Daniel Oberle
Vrije Univ. Amsterdam, AIFB
Pierre Grenon, Luc Schneider
IFOMIS (Univ. of Leipzig), Univ. of Geneva
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
WP3 tasks progress
3.1 State of the Art and Methodology: Ontology Roadmap (D15)• Formal framework for ontology quality• Ontology design patterns• Work progressing towards D16 (methodological
guidelines)
3.2 Foundational Ontologies Library: Library architecture First reference module: DOLCE (D17) Re-modeling of an example ontology produced by
OntoLift Final version of library, including alternative visions +
core domain ontologies (D18) Ontology of services (KAON integration, DAML/S
alignment)
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Ontology Quality: Precision and Coverage
Low precision, max coverage
Less goodGood
High precision, max coverage
WORSE
Low precision and coverage
BAD
Max precision, low coverage
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
IA(L)
MD(L)
IB(L)
Why precision is important
False agreement!
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
A quantitative metric forontology quality
• Coverage = |IkOk|/|Ik|
• Precision = |IkOk|/|Ok|
• Accuracy = (|Ik |-|Ak|)/|Ik |
…The basis of a rigorous framework for evaluating, comparing, certifying
ontologies wrt benchmark data
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Foundational Ontologies
• Based on formal relations• Carefully crafted taxonomic backbone (Minimal
general categories)• Explicit commitment on major ontological choices• Clear branching points• Pointers to established literature• Link to natural language
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Role of foundational ontologies
• Emphasis on meaning explanation and negotiation (pre-processing time)
• Help recognizing and understanding disagreements as well as agreements
• Improve ontology development methodology• Provide principled mechanism for trustable mappings among
application ontologies and metadata standards • Improve trust on the semantic web!
Mutual understanding vs. mass interoperability
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Ontology Design Patterns
1. ODPs are templates for modelling core domain notions2. An ODP refines a fragment of a background FO3. An ODP is axiomatized according to the fragment it refines4. An ODP has an intuitive and compact visualization5. ODPs can be specialized6. ODPs must be intuitively exemplified7. ODPs build on informal schemes used by domain experts,
re-interpreted in the light of foundational notions8. ODPs describe "best practice" of modelling9. ODPs are similar to DB schemes, but with a more general
character, independently from local design details
(W3C task force just started)
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
The WonderWeb Foundational Ontologies
Library (WFOL)
• Reflects different commitments and purposes, rather than a single monolithic view.
• A starting point for building new foundational or specific ontologies.
• A reference point for easy and rigorous comparison among different ontological approaches.
• A common framework for analyzing, harmonizing and integrating existing ontologies and metadata standards.
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Structure of the WFOL
• Modules are organized along two dimensions:– visions, corresponding to basic ontological choices made;– specificity, corresponding to the levels of generality/specific
domains
Choose Vision
Choose Specificity
Top
Bank
Law
4D
3D
Single VisionSingle Module
Formal LinksBetween Visions and Modules
Mappings betweenVisions/Modulesand Lexicons
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Current Status of the WFOL
• 3 visions:– DOLCE– OCHRE (originally developed by Luc Schneider)– BFO (originally developed at the IFOMIS institute)
• 1 specialization:– theory of Descriptions and Situations (D&S) linked to
DOLCE.
• 1 specific domain:– web services – using DOLCE+D&S (in cooperation with
Daniel, Marta and Peter)
• 1 mapping between different visions:– OCHRE to DOLCE
• 1 mapping between ontology modules and lexicons:– DOLCE to WordNet
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Current “Implementation” of
the WFOL• Axiomatic (FOL) characterization of the three visions
(DOLCE, OCHRE, and BFO).• KIF encoding of DOLCE and OCHRE.• OWL encoding of (a part of) DOLCE (DOLCE-Lite).• OWL/KIF encoding of (a part of) DOLCE+D&S (DOLCE-
Lite+).• OWL/KIF encoding of the web services “ontology”.• Formal mapping of OCHRE into DOLCE.• WordNet-DOLCE alignment (in KIF).• … core ontologies extending DOLCE-Lite+ (time, plans,
services, legal, finance, …)• …forthcoming OCML version of DOLCE-Lite+
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Some Ontological Choices
• Concepts vs. individuals• Individual qualities• Ways of persistence in time• Nature of Space and Time• Localization in space-time• Nature of social entities
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
DOLCEa Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive
Engineering• Strong cognitive bias: descriptive (as opposite to
prescriptive) attitude• Emphasis on cognitive invariants• Categories as conceptual containers: no “deep”
metaphysical implications wrt “true” reality• Clear branching points to allow easy comparison with
different ontological options• Rich axiomatization
– 37 basic categories– 7 basic relations– 80 axioms, 100 definitions, 20 theorems
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
DOLCE’s basic taxonomy
EndurantPhysical
Amount of matterPhysical objectFeature
Non-PhysicalMental objectSocial object
…Perdurant
StaticStateProcess
DynamicAchievementAccomplishment
QualityPhysical
Spatial location…
TemporalTemporal location…
AbstractAbstract
Quality regionTime regionSpace regionColor region…
…
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
DOLCE extensionsTop
DOLCE-Lite
DescriptionsExtrinsic
ModalitiesCommunication
Time m.topology
Funct. participation
Places
Plans
WN alignment Biomedical Domain #2
Legal Domain #1
Banking Domain #3
Services
WordNet
link to built-in representation ontologies
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Application of DOLCE (1)WordNet alignment and
OntoWordNet
• 809 synsets from WordNet1.6 directly subsumed by a DOLCE+D&S class– Whole WordNet linked to DOLCE+D&S– Lower taxonomy levels in WordNet still need
revision
• Glosses being transformed into DOLCE+ axioms– Machine learning applied jointly with foundational
ontology
• WordNet “domains” being used to create a modular, general purpose domain ontology
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Applications of DOLCE (2)Core Ontologies
based on DOLCE, D&S, and OntoWordNet
• Core ontology of plans and guidelines• Core ontology of (Web) services• Core ontology of service-level agreements• Core ontology of (bank) transactions (anti-money-
laundering)• Core ontology for the Italian legal lexicon• Core ontology of regulatory compliance• Core ontology of fishery (FAO's Agriculture Ontology
Service)• Core ontology of biomedical terminologies (cf. UMLS)
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Alignment of Service Ontologies
• Web Services are central to the Semantic Web architecture
• More general problem of service methodology• Diverse standards, developed by heterogeneous
communities– DAML/OWL-S, W3C-WSA, ISO quality, Workflow community
• Semantics must be enhanced– Confusion around definitions – a problem for humans– Poor axiomatization – a problem for machines
• Problematic issues in DAML-S1. Missing semantics (not even explained in text)2. Missing axiomatization (explained, but not formalized)3. Loose design4. Narrow scope (e.g. service views, real world services)
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
Interaction with other WPs
• Foundational ontologies implementation– Expressivity issues -> WP1
• Remodelling of automatically created ontologies -> WP2
• Role of versioning, modularization, merging, and collaborative development of foundational ontologies -> WP4
• Possible extra work on tool for guided use of foundational distinctions in ontology building -> WP2
• Ontology of component integration -> WP1
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST-2001-330522nd Review Meeting, 11 March, 2004.
DOLCE acceptance- Berlin-Brandeburgische Akademie der Wissenshaften (Christiane Fellbaum)
- BioImage Database Development, Dept. of Zoology, University of Oxford, UK (Chris Catton)
- CIDOC-CRM, ISO/CD 21127 (Martin Doerr)
- IEEE Standard Upper Ontology initiative
- W3C Semantic-Web Best Practices and Deployment (SWBPD) Working Group
- ELSAG SpA, Roma (Giovanni Siracusa)
- UN/FAO Agricultural Ontology Service (Johannes Keizer)
- IBM Software Group Rome Lab (Guido Vetere)- IBM Watson Research Center (Chris Welty)- University of Leeds, Dept. of Computer Science (Tony Cohn)
- University of Leipzig, Institute for Formal Ontology and Medical Information Systems (Barry Smith);
-University of Leipzig, Dept. of Computer Science (Heinrich Herre)
- Institute of Legal Information Theory and Technologies, CNR, Pisa
- Language and Computing, Belgium (Werner Ceusters)
- Nomos SpA, Milano (Massimo Soroldoni)
- Ontology Works (Bill Andersen)
- Selesta SpA, Roma
- University of Amsterdam (Joost Breuker)
- University of Bremen (John Bateman, Christian Freksa)
- University of Queensland (Robert Colomb, Peter Eklund)
- University of Torino, Dept. of Computer Science (Leonardo Lesmo)
- University of Picardie Jules Verne, Paris (Gilles Kassel)
- University of Geneva (Luc Schneider)