Distributed Instance Retrieval over Heterogeneous Ontologies Andrei Tamilin (1,2) & Luciano Serafini (1) (1) ITC-IRST (2) DIT - University of Trento Trento,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TU e technische universiteit eindhoven / department of mathematics and computer science Modeling User Input and Hypermedia Dynamics in Hera Databases and.
Advertisements

OWL - DL. DL System A knowledge base (KB) comprises two components, the TBox and the ABox The TBox introduces the terminology, i.e., the vocabulary of.
An Introduction to Description Logics
1June 7, 2004Ontologies for interoperability1 Ontology-based data integration Maurizio Lenzerini Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica “A. Ruberti”
The International RuleML Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications Local and Distributed Defeasible Reasoning in Multi-Context Systems Antonis Bikakis,
C-OWL: contextualizing ontologies Fausto Giunchiglia October 22, 2003 Paolo Bouquet, Fausto Giunchiglia, Frank van Harmelen, Luciano Serafini, and Heiner.
Jérôme Euzenat 655 avenue de l’Europe, Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France Enabling technologies for semantic interoperability.
A Probabilistic Framework for Information Integration and Retrieval on the Semantic Web by Livia Predoiu, Heiner Stuckenschmidt Institute of Computer Science,
Project-Options 1.Fridge 2.Workbench with Toolbox 3.Playschool.
How can Computer Science contribute to Research Publishing?
11/8/20051 Ontology Translation on the Semantic Web D. Dou, D. McDermott, P. Qi Computer Science, Yale University Presented by Z. Chen CIS 607 SII, Week.
Audumbar Chormale Advisor: Dr. Anupam Joshi M.S. Thesis Defense
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Description Logics as query language.
Managing Large RDF Graphs (Infinite Graph) Vaibhav Khadilkar Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Dallas FEARLESS engineering.
Web Explanations for Semantic Heterogeneity Discovery Pavel Shvaiko 2 nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 1 June 2005, Crete, Greece work in collaboration.
Reasoning with context in the Semantic Web … or contextualizing ontologies Fausto Giunchiglia July 23, 2004.
Ontology Alignment/Matching Prafulla Palwe. Agenda ► Introduction  Being serious about the semantic web  Living with heterogeneity  Heterogeneity problem.
Ontology Development Kenneth Baclawski Northeastern University Harvard Medical School.
 Copyright 2005 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved. Towards Translating between XML and WSML based on mappings between.
An Introduction to Description Logics. What Are Description Logics? A family of logic based Knowledge Representation formalisms –Descendants of semantic.
Status report of : Framework for generating ontologies ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32/WG 2 Interim Meeting, Redwood City, USA, November 17, 2010 Dongwon Jeong,
Discussions for oneM2M Semantics Standardization Group Name: WG5 Source: InterDigital Communications Meeting Date: Agenda Item: WI-0005 ASN/MN-CSE.
Interoperability in Information Schemas Ruben Mendes Orientador: Prof. José Borbinha MEIC-Tagus Instituto Superior Técnico.
Semantic Interoperability and Retrieval Paradigms Paradigms and conceptual systems in KO February 23, 2010 – February 26, 2010 Prof. Winfried Gödert Felix.
Ming Fang 6/12/2009. Outlines  Classical logics  Introduction to DL  Syntax of DL  Semantics of DL  KR in DL  Reasoning in DL  Applications.
School of Computing FACULTY OF ENGINEERING Developing a methodology for building small scale domain ontologies: HISO case study Ilaria Corda PhD student.
MPEG-7 Interoperability Use Case. Motivation MPEG-7: set of standardized tools for describing multimedia content at different abstraction levels Implemented.
Ontology Summit 2015 Track C Report-back Summit Synthesis Session 1, 19 Feb 2015.
Metadata. Generally speaking, metadata are data and information that describe and model data and information For example, a database schema is the metadata.
Dimitrios Skoutas Alkis Simitsis
DRAGO: Distributed Reasoning Architecture for the Semantic Web Andrei Tamilin and Luciano Serafini Work is supported by 1 June 2005 Second European Semantic.
An Introduction to Description Logics (chapter 2 of DLHB)
Semantic web course – Computer Engineering Department – Sharif Univ. of Technology – Fall Description Logics: Logic foundation of Semantic Web Semantic.
Knowledge Representation of Statistic Domain For CBR Application Supervisor : Dr. Aslina Saad Dr. Mashitoh Hashim PM Dr. Nor Hasbiah Ubaidullah.
A Classification of Schema-based Matching Approaches Pavel Shvaiko Meaning Coordination and Negotiation Workshop, ISWC 8 th November 2004, Hiroshima, Japan.
Using Several Ontologies for Describing Audio-Visual Documents: A Case Study in the Medical Domain Sunday 29 th of May, 2005 Antoine Isaac 1 & Raphaël.
Updating ABoxes in DL-Lite D. Calvanese, E. Kharlamov, W. Nutt, D. Zheleznyakov Free University of Bozen-Bolzano AMW 2010, May 2010.
Metadata Schema for CERIF Andrei Lopatenko Vienna University of Technology
Ontology Mapping in Pervasive Computing Environment C.Y. Kong, C.L. Wang, F.C.M. Lau The University of Hong Kong.
Text Mining & NLP based Algorithm to populate ontology with A-Box individuals and object properties Alexandre Kouznetsov and Christopher J. O. Baker, University.
Issues in Ontology-based Information integration By Zhan Cui, Dean Jones and Paul O’Brien.
Specification of Policies for Web Service Negotiations Steffen Lamparter and Sudhir Agarwal Semantic Web and Policy Workshop Galway, November 7 th University.
Application Ontology Manager for Hydra IST Ján Hreňo Martin Sarnovský Peter Kostelník TU Košice.
Extending the MDR for Semantic Web November 20, 2008 SC32/WG32 Interim Meeting Vilamoura, Portugal - Procedure for the Specification of Web Ontology -
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Plenary and WGs Meetings Jeju, Korea, June 25, 2009 Jeong-Dong Kim, Doo-Kwon Baik, Dongwon Jeong {kjd4u,
Semantic Data Extraction for B2B Integration Syntactic-to-Semantic Middleware Bruno Silva 1, Jorge Cardoso 2 1 2
Luciano Serafini IRST Towards a Distributed Reasoning within Multiple Ontologies 2K* symposium September 6-9, 2004 Madonna di Campiglio Andrei Tamilin.
1 Instance Store Database Support for Reasoning over Individuals S Bechhofer, I Horrocks, D Turi. Instance Store - Database Support for Reasoning over.
Presented by Kyumars Sheykh Esmaili Description Logics for Data Bases (DLHB,Chapter 16) Semantic Web Seminar.
Semantic Interoperability in GIS N. L. Sarda Suman Somavarapu.
Scalable and E ffi cient Reasoning for Enforcing Role-Based Access Control Tyrone Cadenhead Advisors: Murat Kantarcioglu, and.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Description Logics: family of languages.
Ontology Technology applied to Catalogues Paul Kopp.
Of 24 lecture 11: ontology – mediation, merging & aligning.
Representing and Reasoning with Heterogeneous, Modular and Distributed ontologies UniTN/IRST contribution to KnowledgeWeb.WP 2.1.
1 Representing and Reasoning on XML Documents: A Description Logic Approach D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, M. Lenzerini Presented by Daisy Yutao Guo University.
OWL (Ontology Web Language and Applications) Maw-Sheng Horng Department of Mathematics and Information Education National Taipei University of Education.
Knowledge Representation Part II Description Logic & Introduction to Protégé Jan Pettersen Nytun.
Formal ontologies vs. triple based KR gap or convergence?
Jie Bao, Doina Caragea and Vasant G Honavar
Ontology Evolution: A Methodological Overview
Ontology.
Updating TBoxes in DL-Lite
Scalable and Efficient Reasoning for Enforcing Role-Based Access Control
Ontology.
Semantic Markup for Semantic Web Tools:
Scalable and Efficient Reasoning for Enforcing Role-Based Access Control
Scalable and Efficient Reasoning for Enforcing Role-Based Access Control
Semantic Interoperability and Retrieval Paradigms
CIS Monthly Seminar – Software Engineering and Knowledge Management IS Enterprise Modeling Ontologies Presenter : Dr. S. Vasanthapriyan Senior Lecturer.
Presentation transcript:

Distributed Instance Retrieval over Heterogeneous Ontologies Andrei Tamilin (1,2) & Luciano Serafini (1) (1) ITC-IRST (2) DIT - University of Trento Trento, 16 December, nd Italian Workshop on Semantic Web Applications and Perspectives

2/22 Outline Motivation and problem Distributed Description Logics (DDLs) with individuals Reasoning/Querying patterns in DDLs Instance retrieval in DDLs Implementing

3/22 Motivation: a step back Where we were: Steady ontology proliferation Heterogeneity is inevitable Problem: How to interoperate? Requirements: Semantic mappings Reasoning support Solution: Distributed Description Logics Distributed tableaux DRAGO reasoning system

4/22 Motivation: a step forth Where we are: Ontologies are populated Populations can be done in heterogeneous domains Problem: How to query such a system?

5/22 A toy example O DIT O UniTn PersonContact Classes, Relations, Axioms Instances … ? Retrieve all personal contacts In case of which semantic correspondences the query propagation should occur? How the individuals should be transformed?

6/22 Requirements / Our proposals Formal framework reflecting conceptual and individual heterogeneity –Extend Distributed Description Logics with individuals Define a suitable query answering procedure –Extend Distributed tableau algorithm Implement the querying procedure –Extend DRAGO reasoning system Requirements / Our proposals

7/22 DDLs in a nutshell Captures the case of multiple ontologies pairwise linked by semantic mappings Ontologies correspond to DL knowledge bases Mappings correspond to bridge rules

8/22 DDLs syntax DDL is a family of description logics {DL i } i  I A bridge rule from i to j is an expression of the form: where X and Y are concepts of DL i and DL j. A distributed T-box (DTB) is a pair  {T i } i  I, {B ij } i  j  I  where B ij is a collection of bridge rules from i to j i:X j:Y (into-bridge rule) i:X j:Y (onto-bridge rule)

9/22 DDLs syntax with individuals An individual correspondence from i to j is an expression of the form: where x and y are individuals of A i and A j. A distributed A-box (DAB) is a pair  {A i } i  I, {C ij } i  j  I  where C ij is a collection of individual correspondences from i to j A distributed knowledge base (DKB) is a pair  DTB, DAB  i:x j:y (individual correspondence)

10/22 DDLs semantics Assertions (A-boxes) Terminologies (T-boxes) DL i DL j {DL i } i  I {T i } i  I B ij C ij + {B ij } i  j  I DTB=  {T i } i  I, {B ij } i  j  I  {A i } i  I + {C ij } i  j  I DTA=  {A i } i  I, {C ij } i  j  I  Domains r ij {J i } i  I + {r ij } i  j  I DI=  {J i } i  I, {r ij } i  j  I 

11/22 Into-bridge rule r ij X r ij (X) Y IiIi IjIj i:X j:Y r ij (x I i )  Y I j DI

12/22 Onto-bridge rule r ij X r ij (X ) IiIi IjIj r ij (X I i )  Y I j i:X j:Y Y DI

13/22 Individual correspondence r ij x IiIi IjIj  x I i,y I j  r ij y DI i:x j:y

14/22 Terminological propagation T1T1 T2T2 A B H G isA G I 2  r 12 (A I 1 ) r 12 (B I 1 )  H I 2  DTB =  T 1, T 2, B 12  DTB

15/22 Assertion propagation T1T1 T2T2 BH isInstanceOf DKB =   T 1,A 1 ,  T 2,A 2 , B 12,C 12  DKB b h isInstanceOf A1A1 A2A2 h I 2 = r 12 (b I 1 ) r 12 (B I 1 )  H I 2 

16/22 Assertion propagation - II T1T1 T2T2 BH isInstanceOf DKB =   T 1,A 1 ,  T 2,A 2 , B 12,C 12  DKB f ij (b) isInstanceOf A1A1 A2A2 b f ij

17/22 Distributed instance retrieval Instance retrieval: finding all individuals that instantiate a given concept Both propagation aspects should be taken into account

18/22 D1D1 D2D2 D3D3 i2i2 i1i1 i3i3 Retrieve instances of D 1  i 1, i 2 Local taxonomy Local individuals

19/22 D1D1 D2D2 D3D3 i2i2 i1i1 i3i3 Retrieve instances of D 1  i 1, i 2, i 3 Bridge rules Distributed taxonomy (terminological propagation matters) Local individuals

20/22 D1D1 D2D2 D3D3 i2i2 i1i1 i3i3 Retrieve instances of D 1  i 1, i 2, i 3, i’ 2 Bridge rules i’ 2 Distributed taxonomy (terminological propagation matters) Local individuals Distributed individuals (transformed via individual correspondences) Individual correspondences

21/22 Implementation On top of DRAGO distributed terminological reasoner DRAGO is a peer-to-peer network of communicating reasoners that handle OWL ontologies coupled with C-OWL mappings For the instance retrieval the possibility to specify instance transformations has been added

22/22 Conclusions and Outlook We addressed the problem of retrieving individuals over heterogeneous ontologies which are instantiated in semantically related domains We extended DDLs framework with individual correspondences and discussed how this enables the propagation of assertions over ontologies Implemented a simple querying prototype on top of DRAGO reasoner

23/22 Thank you