Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

How Description Logic Ontologies Benefit from Formal Concept Analysis Barış Sertkaya SAP Research Center Dresden Germany.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "How Description Logic Ontologies Benefit from Formal Concept Analysis Barış Sertkaya SAP Research Center Dresden Germany."— Presentation transcript:

1 How Description Logic Ontologies Benefit from Formal Concept Analysis Barış Sertkaya SAP Research Center Dresden Germany

2 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 2 FCA and DLs, what are they? Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) field of mathematics based on lattice theory analyze data and derive a conceptual structuring medicine, psychology, ontologies, linguistic databases, software engineering, musicology, … Description Logics (DLs) logical languages that are fragments of First Order Logic represent conceptual knowledge of an application domain semantic web, ontologies, life sciences, bio-medical computer science, software engineering, … Concept: collection of objects sharing certain properties

3 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 3 FCA vs. DLs Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) data algorithms formal concepts: concept lattice Description Logics (DLs) atomic concepts, roles: logical constructors: concept descriptions: classification algorithm subsumption hierarchy abc 1X 2XX 3XX 4XX

4 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 4 FCA vs. DLs DLs intensional definition of a concept given independent of a specific domain rich language for describing concepts (negation, exists, forall, number restrictions…) individuals partially described (open world semantics) FCA intensional knowledge derived from the extensional knowledge concept definitions are conjunctions of atomic concepts (attributes) objects fully described (closed world semantics)

5 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 5 Knowledge Representation (KR) Develop formalisms for representing conceptual knowledge of an application domain, that have a well-defined syntax, formal, unambigious semantics, and practical methods for reasoning / efficient implementations. Conceptual Knowledge Classes: country, ocean-country, … Relations: has border to, has neighbor, … Individuals: Spain, Mediterranean, Atlantic, …

6 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 6 Description Logics (DLs) family of logic-based knowledge representation formalisms describe an application domain in terms of concepts (classes): like Country, Ocean, … roles (relations): like hasBorderTo, hasNeighbour, … individuals like Spain, Atlantic, … logical constructors: well-defined formal semantics, decidable fragments of First Order Logic

7 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 7 The DL : The smallest propositionally closed description logic atomic concepts: A, B, … (unary predicates) atomic roles: r, s, … (binary predicates) constructors: (negation) (conjunction) (disjunction) (existential restriction) (value restriction) Examples:

8 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 8 Semantics of Based on interpretation consisting of: a domain (a non-empty set), and an interpretation function Concept and role names: (concept names interpreted as subsets of the domain) (role names interpreted as binary relations) Complex concept descriptions: is a model of if

9 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 9 Example of an interpretation Interpretation domainConcept names BodyOfWater Sea Ocean Individual names Mediterranean Atlantic Country OceanCountry Roles hasBorderTo hasNeighbour Pacific Spain Portugal Austria LandlockedCountry Interpretation function

10 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 10 Example of an interpretation Interpretation domain Ocean Atlantic Country hasBorderTo hasNeighbour Spain Portugal

11 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 11 Reasoning Main reasoning task: Concept subsumption: Is subsumed by ? (written ) (Does hold for all ) Concept subsumption for computing the subsumption hierarchy (classification) BodyOfWater Ocean Sea LandMass Country OceanCountryLandLockedCountry Reasoner

12 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 12 DL Knowledge Bases (Ontologies) DL Knowledge Base (Ontology) = TBox + ABox TBox defines the terminology of the application domain ABox states facts about a specific world TBox: a set of concept definitions ABox: concept and role assertions General TBox: General concept inclusion axioms

13 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 13 Bridging the gap between FCA and DLs Existing work mainly under 2 categories: 1. enriching FCA by borrowing constructors from DLs theory-driven logical scaling [Prediger,Stumme’99] terminological attribute logic [Prediger’00] relational concept analysis [Rouane,Huchard,Napoli,Valtchev’07] logical concept analysis [Ferré, Ridoux’01] 2. employing FCA methods in DL knowledge bases Computation of an extended subsumption hierarchy [Baader’95] Subsumption hierarchy of conjunctions and disjunctions of DL concepts [Stumme’96] Subsumption hierarchy of least common subsumers [Baader,Molitor’00] Relational exploration [Rudolph’04,06] Supporting bottom-up construction of DL knowledge bases [Baader,Turhan,Sertkaya’07] Knowledge Base Completion [Baader,Ganter,Sattler,Sertkaya’07] Role assertion analysis [Coulet, Smail-Tabbone, Napoli, Devignes’08] Exploring finite models [Baader,Distel’08,09]

14 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 14 Extended Subsumption Hierarchy of DL Concepts traditional TBox classification: subsumption hierarchy of concepts not sufficient in some settings: interaction between defined concepts not visible consider the concepts,, and no subsumption relation between these three concepts but, subsumed by not visible from the subsumption hierarchy! hierarchy of conjunctions of defined concepts enables faster inferences. precompute and store it. how? Using attribute exploration define a formal context whose concept lattice represents this hierarchy

15 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 15 Extended Subsumption Hierarchy of DL Concepts Formal context s.t. the concept lattice is isomorphic to the hierarchy of conjunctions of DL concepts [Baader’95] : … X X … … … … and, but, which is not visible in the usual hierarchy implication questions are subsumption tests a DL reasoner can act as an expert a modified DL reasoner is needed for providing countexamples

16 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 16 Contributions to bridging the gap: 1) supporting bottom-up construction of KBs traditional way of creating ontologies: (top-down manner) 1. define concepts 2. specify properties of individuals using them not always adequate which concepts are relevant? how to define them correctly? alternative: bottom-up construction of ontologies ABox 1. User selects similar ABox individuals 2. Individuals automatically generalized into concept descriptions (MSC computation) 3. Commonalities automatically extracted (LCS computation) 4. The LCS inspected/modified by the ontology engineer and added to the ontology

17 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 17 Supporting bottom-up construction of KBs subsumption hierarchy of conjunctions of concept names and their negations needed for computing LCS requires subsumption tests for a TBox containing concept names each subsumption test computationally expensive computing the hierarchy smartly without checking all pairs? using attribute exploration Again define an appropriate formal context DL reasoner can answer implication questions Use background knowledge – – implies – implies on the FCA side

18 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 18 Bridging the gap: 2) Ontology completion Existing ontology tools support: 1. Detecting inconsistencies 2. Inferring consequences 3. Finding reasons for them Quality dimesion of soundness What about completeness? are there missing relations between classes? missing individuals? if so how to extend the ontology appropriately?

19 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 19 Ontology Completion ABox AsianEUmemberEuropeanMediterranean Russia +??? China +--? Montenegro ??+? Germany -++- Italy -+++ TBox All European countries EU members? All EU members that have a border to Mediterranean have territories in Europe?

20 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 20 The Phosphatese Ontology OWL Ontology for human protein phosphatese family [Wolstencroft, Brass, Horrocks, Lord, Sattler, Turi, & Stevens (2005)] developed based on peer-reviewed publications detailed knowledge about different classes of such proteins TBox: classes of proteins, relations among these classes ABox: large set of human phospthateses identified and documented by expert biologists Given this ontology, the biologist wants to know: 1. Are there relations that hold in the real world, but that do not follow from the TBox? 2. Are there phospthateses that are not represented in the ABox, or even that have not yet been identified?

21 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 21 When is an ontology (formally) complete? is complete w.r.t. the intended application domain if these are equivalent: ( and are sets of concept names) 1. is satisfied by 2. follows from 3. does not contain a counterexample to Cannot be achieved by an automated tool alone, a domain expert needed! questions ( the number of concept names) Many of them redundant Do not bother the expert unnecessarily A smart way to get answers to these questions: attribute exploration!

22 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 22 Attribute Exploration for DL Ontologies Extension for open-world semantics of DL ABoxes Attribute exploration for partial/incomplete formal contexts Already existing approaches [Burmeister & Holzer 2005] – the resulting knowledge is incomplete (certain implications, uncertain implications) In contrast we want to have complete knowledge at the end Our expert has / can access to complete knowledge But he should be able to give partial descriptions of objects during exploration Proved termination, correctness, minimum number of questions An ABox is a partial context Integrated a DL reasoner for avoiding questions Improved usability. The expert can: Skip questions Stop exploration, see previous answers, undo previous actions, See why an implication automatically was accepted

23 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 23 Ontology Completion When a question is asked: first check if it follows from the ontology if not ask the expert if the expert confirms, add a new axiom to the TBox if the expert rejects, get a new ABox assertion as counterexample

24 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 24 Summary: How DLs benefit from FCA? Mainly 2 categories: using concept lattice to detect implicit relations between classes Extended subsumption hierarchy (of conjunctions of concepts) Subsumption hierarchy of least common subsumers Supporting bottom-up construction using attribute exploration to complete knowledge Knowledge base completion

25 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 25 FCA at SAP Research The Aletheia Project Obtaining product information through the use of semantic technologies FCA used for requirement analysis sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Partners: SAP AG, ABB, BMW Group, Deutsche Post, OntoPrise, Otto, TU Dresden, FU Berlin, HU Berlin, Frauenhofer IIS, TecO, Giesecke & Devrient, Eurolog, New project CUBIST (Combining and Uniting Business Intelligence with Semantic Technologies) FCA used for visual analytics on top of business intelligence Partners: SAP AG, Sheffield Halam University, Heriot-Watt University, Innovantage, Ontotext Lab, Centrale Rechereche S.A. (CRSA) – Laboratoire MAS, Space Applications Services NV Academic articles at ICCS, ICFCA on Role Based Access Control for Ontologies, …

26 Thank you

27 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 27 Early Days of KR PieceOfLand Ocean OceanCountry Country BodyOfWater IslandCountry is a hasBorderTo Semantic Networks [Quilian 1967] nodes represent classes links represent relations hasBorderTo : does it mean there exists a border, or for all borders? ambigious semantics! KL-ONE [Brachman & Levesque 1985] logic-based semantics

28 ©2010 SAP AG. All rights reserved. / Page 28 No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without the express permission of SAP AG. The information contained herein may be changed without prior notice. Some software products marketed by SAP AG and its distributors contain proprietary software components of other software vendors. Microsoft, Windows, Excel, Outlook, and PowerPoint are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. IBM, DB2, DB2 Universal Database, System i, System i5, System p, System p5, System x, System z, System z10, System z9, z10, z9, iSeries, pSeries, xSeries, zSeries, eServer, z/VM, z/OS, i5/OS, S/390, OS/390, OS/400, AS/400, S/390 Parallel Enterprise Server, PowerVM, Power Architecture, POWER6+, POWER6, POWER5+, POWER5, POWER, OpenPower, PowerPC, BatchPipes, BladeCenter, System Storage, GPFS, HACMP, RETAIN, DB2 Connect, RACF, Redbooks, OS/2, Parallel Sysplex, MVS/ESA, AIX, Intelligent Miner, WebSphere, Netfinity, Tivoli and Informix are trademarks or registered trademarks of IBM Corporation. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries. Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, PostScript, and Reader are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries. Oracle is a registered trademark of Oracle Corporation. UNIX, X/Open, OSF/1, and Motif are registered trademarks of the Open Group. Citrix, ICA, Program Neighborhood, MetaFrame, WinFrame, VideoFrame, and MultiWin are trademarks or registered trademarks of Citrix Systems, Inc. HTML, XML, XHTML and W3C are trademarks or registered trademarks of W3C®, World Wide Web Consortium, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Java is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc. JavaScript is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc., used under license for technology invented and implemented by Netscape. SAP, R/3, SAP NetWeaver, Duet, PartnerEdge, ByDesign, Clear Enterprise, SAP BusinessObjects Explorer and other SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and other countries. Business Objects and the Business Objects logo, BusinessObjects, Crystal Reports, Crystal Decisions, Web Intelligence, Xcelsius, and other Business Objects products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP France in the United States and in other countries. All other product and service names mentioned are the trademarks of their respective companies. Data contained in this document serves informational purposes only. National product specifications may vary. The information in this document is proprietary to SAP. No part of this document may be reproduced, copied, or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without the express prior written permission of SAP AG. This document is a preliminary version and not subject to your license agreement or any other agreement with SAP. This document contains only intended strategies, developments, and functionalities of the SAP® product and is not intended to be binding upon SAP to any particular course of business, product strategy, and/or development. Please note that this document is subject to change and may be changed by SAP at any time without notice. SAP assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in this document. SAP does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links, or other items contained within this material. This document is provided without a warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. SAP shall have no liability for damages of any kind including without limitation direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages that may result from the use of these materials. This limitation shall not apply in cases of intent or gross negligence. The statutory liability for personal injury and defective products is not affected. SAP has no control over the information that you may access through the use of hot links contained in these materials and does not endorse your use of third-party Web pages nor provide any warranty whatsoever relating to third-party Web pages. © 2010 SAP AG. All Rights Reserved


Download ppt "How Description Logic Ontologies Benefit from Formal Concept Analysis Barış Sertkaya SAP Research Center Dresden Germany."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google