ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Artificial Intelligence
Advertisements

Computer Science CPSC 322 Lecture 25 Top Down Proof Procedure (Ch 5.2.2)
CH-4 Ontologies, Querying and Data Integration. Introduction to RDF(S) RDF stands for Resource Description Framework. RDF is a standard for describing.
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.
Rigorous Software Development CSCI-GA Instructor: Thomas Wies Spring 2012 Lecture 11.
Answer Set Programming Overview Dr. Rogelio Dávila Pérez Profesor-Investigador División de Posgrado Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara
Of 27 lecture 7: owl - introduction. of 27 ece 627, winter ‘132 OWL a glimpse OWL – Web Ontology Language describes classes, properties and relations.
1 Ontology Language Comparisons doug foxvog 16 September 2004.
AI - Week 13 Knowledge Representation, Logic, Semantic Web Lee McCluskey, room 2/07
CPSC 322, Lecture 23Slide 1 Logic: TD as search, Datalog (variables) Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 23 (Textbook Chpt 5.2 & some basic concepts from.
CPSC 322, Lecture 23Slide 1 Logic: TD as search, Datalog (variables) Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 23 (Textbook Chpt 5.2 & some basic concepts from.
Knowledge Representation I (Propositional Logic) CSE 473.
Modelling Conceptual Knowledge using Logic - Week 6 Lee McCluskey Department of Computing and Mathematical Sciences University of Huddersfield.
Semantic Web and its Logical Foundations Serguei Krivov, Ecoinformatics Collaboratory Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, UVM.
DEDUCTIVE DATABASE.
Ming Fang 6/12/2009. Outlines  Classical logics  Introduction to DL  Syntax of DL  Semantics of DL  KR in DL  Reasoning in DL  Applications.
Building an Ontology of Semantic Web Techniques Utilizing RDF Schema and OWL 2.0 in Protégé 4.0 Presented by: Naveed Javed Nimat Umar Syed.
1 Knowledge Based Systems (CM0377) Lecture 4 (Last modified 5th February 2001)
Declarative vs Procedural Programming  Procedural programming requires that – the programmer tell the computer what to do. That is, how to get the output.
Pattern-directed inference systems
Semantic Web Constraint Language complement and the editor development in Protégé Piao Guangyuan.
More on Description Logic(s) Frederick Maier. Note Added 10/27/03 So, there are a few errors that will be obvious to some: So, there are a few errors.
Visualizing SWRL Rules Using Grailog Frame Formulas Team 8 : Bo Yan Juyan Zhang Ismail Akbari Instructor: Harold Boley.
Of 33 lecture 1: introduction. of 33 the semantic web vision today’s web (1) web content – for human consumption (no structural information) people search.
DL Overview Second Pass Ming Fang 06/19/2009. Outlines  Description Languages  Knowledge Representation in DL  Logical Inference in DL.
For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.
For Friday Read chapter 8 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 2 and 10 Program 1, Milestone 2 due.
1 CSC384: Intro to Artificial Intelligence Lecture 5.  Knowledge Representation.
DEDUCTION PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES FOR SEMANTIC WEB Chain resolution and its fuzzyfication Dr. Hashim Habiballa University of Ostrava.
Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham September 18, 2006 Building Trustworthy Semantic Webs Lecture #9: Logic and Inference Rules.
Marcelo Tallis and Robert M. Balzer USC/ISI and Teknowledge Corp.
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
SWRL Semantic Web Rule Language Susana R. Novoa UNIK4710.
1 Nov. 2, 2005 Design and Application of Rule Based Access Control Policies Huiying Li, Xiang Zhang, Honghan Wu & Yuzhong Qu Dept. Computer.
Of 35 lecture 17: semantic web rules. of 35 ece 627, winter ‘132 logic importance - high-level language for expressing knowledge - high expressive power.
The International RuleML Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications Visualization of Proofs in Defeasible Logic Ioannis Avguleas 1, Katerina Gkirtzou.
Albert Gatt LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 3. Aims This lecture is divided into two parts: 1. We make our first attempts at formalising the notion of.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Lecture 2 Propositional Calculus.
1 First Order Logic CS 171/271 (Chapter 8) Some text and images in these slides were drawn from Russel & Norvig’s published material.
OWL, DL and Rules Based on slides from Grigoris Antoniou, Frank van Harmele and Vassilis Papataxiarhis.
Of 29 lecture 15: description logic - introduction.
Rules in SW Semantic Web - Spring 2008 Computer Engineering Department Sharif University of Technology.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation ClassL (part 1): syntax and semantics.
BBY 464 Semantic Information Management (Spring 2016) Ontologies and OWL: Web Ontology Language Yaşar Tonta & Orçun Madran [yasartonta,
Knowledge Representation Lecture 2 out of 5. Last Week Intelligence needs knowledge We need to represent this knowledge in a way a computer can process.
OWL, DL and rules Based on slides from Grigoris Antoniou, Frank van Harmele and Vassilis Papataxiarhis.
Logic: TD as search, Datalog (variables)
OWL, DL and Rules Based on slides from Grigoris Antoniou, Frank van Harmele and Vassilis Papataxiarhis.
Knowledge Representation using First-Order Logic
Reasoning with Rules SWRL as Example
Knowledge Representation Part II Description Logic & Introduction to Protégé Jan Pettersen Nytun.
Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 20
Propositional Calculus: Boolean Functions and Expressions
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Using Rules with Ontologies in the Semantic Web
Rules, RIF and RuleML.
Ontology.
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Logic: Top-down proof procedure and Datalog
CPSC 322 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Back to “Serious” Topics…
Ontology.
Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 20
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Scalable and Efficient Reasoning for Enforcing Role-Based Access Control
Deniz Beser A Fundamental Tradeoff in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Hector J. Levesque and Ronald J. Brachman.
Representations & Reasoning Systems (RRS) (2.2)
A Tutorial Summary of Description Logic and Hybrid Rules
Presentation transcript:

ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond lecture 17: semantic web rules

logic importance high-level language for expressing knowledge high expressive power well-understood formal semantics precise notion of logical consequence systems that can automatically derive statements syntactically from a set of premises ece 720, winter ‘12

logic importance (2) proof systems for which semantic logical consequence coincides with syntactic derivation within the proof system soundness & completeness predicate logic is unique in the sense that sound and complete proof systems do exist not the case for more expressive logics (higher-order logics) ece 720, winter ‘12

logic importance (3) trace the proof that leads to a logical consequence logic can provide explanations for answers by tracing a proof ece 720, winter ‘12

specializations of logic RDF and OWL RDF/S and OWL (Lite and DL) are specializations of predicate logic – they correspond (roughly) to a description logic they define reasonable subsets of logic trade-off between the expressive power and the computational complexity (the more expressive the language, the less efficient the corresponding proof systems) ece 720, winter ‘12

specializations of logic Horn logic a rule has the form: A1, . . ., An  B Ai and B are atomic formulas ece 720, winter ‘12

specializations of logic Horn logic there are two ways of reading such a rule deductive if A1,..., An are known to be true, then B is also true reactive if the conditions A1,..., An are true, then carry out the action B ece 720, winter ‘12

logic: description vs Horn OWL vs rules it is impossible to assert that a person X who is brother of Y is uncle of Z (where Z is child of Y) in OWL this can be done easily using rules: brother(X,Y), childOf(Z,Y)  uncle(X,Z) ece 720, winter ‘12

logic: description vs Horn OWL vs rules (2) rules cannot assert the information that a person is either a man or a woman this information is easily expressed in OWL using disjoint union OWL needs rules !!! ece 720, winter ‘12

rule languages rule languages define how to synthesize new facts form those stored in the knowledge base rule markup language – RuleML semantic web rule language - SWRL ece 720, winter ‘12

rule markup language RuleML effort to standardize inference rules RuleML is a markup language for publishing and sharing rule bases on the World Wide Web focus is on rule interoperation between industry standards provides an XML syntax for Datalog clauses ece 720, winter ‘12

rule markup language Datalog its alphabet is a set of predicate symbols, constants, and variables atom – is an expression of the form P(t1, t2, … , tn), where P is an n-ary predicate symbol and t1, …, tn are terms term – is a variable or constant ece 720, winter ‘12

rule markup language Datalog – examples (1): book(“Semantic Web”, “U.K.”, “2007”) (2): book(title, counry, “2005”) ece 720, winter ‘12

rule markup language Datalog – clause clause is either a fact or a rule fact is an expression of the form B where B is a variable-free atom rule is an expression of the form A1, …, Am  C where A1, …, Am atoms are called antecedents, C atom is called the consequent or head ece 720, winter ‘12

rule markup language Datalog – example (3): book(x, “U.K.”, y)  UKbook(x) ece 720, winter ‘12

rule markup language RuleML – example (1) book(“Semantic Web”, “U.K.”, “2007”) <Atom> <Rel>book</Rel> <Ind>Semantic Web</Ind> <Ind>U.K.</Ind> <Ind>2007</Ind> </Atom> ece 720, winter ‘12

rule markup language RuleML – example (2) book(tilte, country, “2005”) <Atom> <Rel>book</Rel> <Var>title</Var> <Var>country</Var> <Ind>2007</Ind> </Atom> ece 720, winter ‘12

rule markup language RuleML – example (3) book(x, “U.K.”, y)  UKbook(x) <Implies> <head> <Atom> <Rel>UKbook</Rel> <Var>x</Var> </Atom> </head> ece 720, winter ‘12

rule markup language RuleML – example (3) continuation <body> <Atom> <Rel>book</Rel> <Var>x</Var> <Ind>U.K.</Ind> <Var>y</Var> </Atom> </body> </Implies> ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL SWRL is an acronym for Semantic Web Rule Language SWRL is intended to be the rule language of the Semantic Web SWRL is based on OWL: all rules are expressed in terms of OWL concepts (classes, properties, individuals, literals...). ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL atoms (predicates) C(x) C is an OWL class P(x,y) P is an OWL predicate sameAs(x,y) sameAs belongs to the OWL differentFrom(x,y) differentFrom belongs to the OWL vocabulary builtIn(r,x,…) r is a built-in relation x,y – are either variables, individuals, or data values ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL example (1) from Datalog book(“Semantic Web”, “U.K.”, “2007”) Book(B) title(B,”Semantic Web”) countryOfPub(B,”U.K”) yearOfPub(B,”2007”) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL atoms (predicates) differences to Datalog atoms are only unary or binary predicates (no restrictions in RuleML) OWL class descriptions can be viewed as unary predicates (nothing like that in RuleML) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL atoms (predicates) – 1 C(x) C is an OWL class holds iff x is an individual of the class description or data range C Person(John) Person(?x) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL atoms (predicates) – 2 P(x,y) P is an OWL predicate holds iff x is related to y by property P hasBrother(John, Bill) hasBrother(John, ?y) hasBrother(?x, ?y) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL atoms (predicates) – 3 sameAs(x,y) sameAs belongs to the OWL vocabulary holds iff x is interpreted as the same object y sameAs(?x, ?y) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL atoms (predicates) – 4 differentFrom(x,y) differentFrom belongs to the OWL vocabulary holds iff x and y are interpreted as different objects differentFrom(?x, ?y) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL atoms (predicates) – 5 builtIn(r,x,…) r is a built-in relation holds iff the built-in relation r holds for the interpretations of the arguments swrlb:greaterThan(?x,?y) (builtIn(greaterThan,?x,?y)) swrlb:startsWith(?x, "+") ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL rule example – reclassification Man(?m) → Person(?m) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL rule example – property value assignment Person(?p) hasSibling(?p, ?s) Man(?s) hasBrother(?p, ?s) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL rule example – named individuals Person(Fred) hasSibling(Fred, ?s) Man(?s) hasBrother(Fred, ?s) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL rule example – with individuals & literals Person(Fred) hasSibling(Fred, ?s) Man(?s) hasAge(?s, 40) has40YearOldBrother(Fred, ?s) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL rule example – with built-ins hasBrother(?x1,?x2) hasAge(?x1,?age1) hasAge(?x2,?age2) swrlb:greaterThan(?age2,?age1) hasOlderBrother(?x1,?x2) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL rule example – with built-ins (2) hasBrother(?x1,?x2) hasAge(?x1,?age1) hasAge(?x2,?age2) swrlb:subtract(10,?age2,?age1) hasDecadeOlderBrother(?x1,?x2) ece 720, winter ‘12

SWRL characteristics W3C Submission in 2004 http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/ rules saved as part of ontology increasing tool support: Bossam, R2ML, Hoolet, Pellet, KAON2, RacerPro, SWRLTab can work with reasoners ece 720, winter ‘12