1 / 59

OWL-Gres vs Quonto

OWL-Gres vs Quonto. Angela Alvarez Rubio. Introduction. Using ontologies as a conceptual point of view on repositories of data is increasingly. These ontologies deal with large amounts of data. Most important parameter on computational complexity of reasoning. Data size.

adelle
Download Presentation

OWL-Gres vs Quonto

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. OWL-Gres vs Quonto Angela Alvarez Rubio

  2. Introduction • Using ontologies as a conceptual point of view on repositories of data is increasingly • These ontologies deal with large amounts of data • Most important parameter on computational complexity of reasoning • Data size • We will want a polynomial reasoning! • And we want can do complex questions

  3. Introduction • 2 stapes: • 1. Perfect reformulation: taking into account the TBOX T, the q query is reformulated in a new query • On a DL-Lite • Conjunctive query is a union of conjunctive wich size does not depend on A • We can evaluate it with LOGSPACE on the ABOX size

  4. Introduction • 2 stapes: • 2. Query Evaluation: the new query is evaluated only in the ABox to produce the answer • The ABox, is maintained through a RDBMS (Data management systems relational) in the secondary storage to control a large data number • Because is the unique tecnology • The evaluation of the query can be delegated to an engine SQL database with optimization of querys strategies

  5. Introduction • We presented two systems to work with large amounts of data: • OWL-Gres • Quonto

  6. Introduction • Targets • Discover the DL-Lite fragment in which is based in OWL_Gres • Compare the OWL-Gres system with Quonto system

  7. Quonto • Is a tool that implements the DL-Lite query answering algorithm • Delegates to a RBDMS the storing of the ABOX • Is capable of answering questions about ABOXes wich containing millions of assertions • Their limitations will depend of the single engine DBM

  8. Quonto: DL-Lite A+ • Is the fragment DL-Lite largest known in order to obtain LOGSPACE data complexity • Represents the domain in terms of concepts, sets of objects, and roles and permets: • Value-Domains: domains that denote specific sets of values (data) • Concept attributes: binary relations between objects and values • Role attributes: ternary relations between pairs of objects and value • Enjoys FOL-rewritability • Allows for functionality assertions and role inclusion assertions, but with some restrictions: • No functional role or attribute can be specialized by using it in the right-hand side of a role or attribute inclusion assertions

  9. Quonto: DL-Lite A+ • Concept inclusion assertion: B ⊑ C The knowledge base (KB) is formed by: • Attribute inclusion assertion: U ⊑ V • T: TBOX to represent intensional knowledge • Value-domain inclusion assertion: E ⊑ F • Role inclusion assertion: Q ⊑ R • Attribute functionality assertion: funct U • Role functionality assertion: funct Q • Attribute Role: funct R K=<T, A> • A: ABOX to represent extensional knowledge • Member Assertions A(c), P(c; c0), UC(c; d) UR(a, b, c)

  10. Quonto:Query answering • Query conjunctive in a KB K: • Union of conjunctive queries (UCQ): • x: Distinguished variables • y: Non-distinguished variables • conj (x, y): atoms: • A(xo) • P(xo, yo) • D(xv) • UC(xo,xv) • UR(xo,y0 xv) q(x) ←y. conj(x,y) • xo, yo are variables in x and y or constants in ГO • xv is a variable in x and y a constant in ГV Certain answers all tuples t of elements of ГV ГO such that, when substituted to x in q(x), we have that K |= q(t) q(x) ←Viyi. conj(x,y)

  11. Firs Target • On what DL-Lite fragment is based OWL-Gres? • See the characteristics of potential fragments and differentiate it • 2 steps: • Java Program • See if OWL-Gres accept this characteristics • Protege tool

  12. First Target: Fragments

  13. First Target: Fragments

  14. First Target: Fragments

  15. First Target: Fragments

  16. First Target: Fragments

  17. First Target: Fragments

  18. First Target: Fragments

  19. First Target: Search • We use a TBOX based in the university hierarchy:

  20. First Target: Search • Initially our TBOX is compatible with OWL-Gres: C:\Documents and Settings\Propietario\workspace\OwlGres 21-jul-2008 12:54:42 org.coode.owl.rdfxml.parser.OWLRDFConsumer endModel INFO: Total number of triples: 617 21-jul-2008 12:54:42 org.coode.owl.rdfxml.parser.OWLRDFConsumer endModel INFO: Loaded http://semantics.crl.ibm.com/univ-bench-dl.owl The TBox is compatible with DL-Lite

  21. First Target: Search • We verify for DL-Lite F:

  22. First Target: Search • We verify for DL-Lite F: C:\Documents and Settings\Propietario\workspace\OwlGres 21-jul-2008 12:57:25 org.coode.owl.rdfxml.parser.OWLRDFConsumer endModel INFO: Total number of triples: 618 21-jul-2008 12:57:25 org.coode.owl.rdfxml.parser.OWLRDFConsumer endModel INFO: Loaded http://semantics.crl.ibm.com/univ-bench-dl.owl FRAGMENT ERROR: No support for axiom OWLFunctionalObjectPropertyAxiom On OWL Axiom: FunctionalObjectProperty(takesCourse) The TBox is not compatible with DL-Lite The TBos is not compatible with DL-Lite FR or DL-Lite A DL-Lite F DL-Lite FR DL-Lite A DL-Lite R

  23. First Target: Search • We verify for DL-Lite R:

  24. First Target: Search • We verify for DL-Lite R: C:\Documents and Settings\Propietario\workspace\OwlGres 21-jul-2008 12:58:45 org.coode.owl.rdfxml.parser.OWLRDFConsumer endModel INFO: Total number of triples: 619 21-jul-2008 12:58:45 org.coode.owl.rdfxml.parser.OWLRDFConsumer endModel INFO: Loaded http://semantics.crl.ibm.com/univ-bench-dl.owl The TBox is compatible with DL-Lite OWL-Gres is based on DL-Lite R

  25. First Target: Search • But… • We have concept attributes… • IS-A for concept attribuites? • Range(Uc) IS-A Datatype NO • Person IS-A domain(Uc) assertion NO

  26. First Target: Conclusions • OWL-Gres is based on: • DL-Lite R • Concept attribuites • IS-A for concept attribuites

  27. Second Target:Preliminary notes edgeR-⊑Node edgeR ⊑Node edgeB-⊑Node edgeB ⊑Node NodeRB ⊑ edgeR NodeRB ⊑edgeB edgeB(a,a) NodeRB(a) ABOX TBOX q(x) ← y, z, w. edgeB(x,y)  edgeR(x,z)  edgeR(y,z) {a} • Standard 2 types of semantic q(x) ← y, z, w. edgeB(x,y)  edgeR(x,z)  edgeR(y,z) • Ground {} q(x,y,z) ← y, z, w. edgeB(x,y)  edgeR(x,z)  edgeR(y,z) {}

  28. Second Target:Preliminary notes q(x) ← hasSameHomeTownWith(x,y)  isMemberOf(y,z)  hasMember(z,t) isCrazyAbout(t,w)  isCrazyAbout(x,w) Let’s consider the query 15: isMemberOf Y Z hasMember The query is designed on purpose to establish if a reasoner is able to answer according to the standard conjunctive query semantic: Quonto gives out 94 answers OWLGres gives out 89 answers, like Racer, Pellet, etc.. hasSameHomeTownWith T isCrazyAbout X W isCrazyAbout

  29. Second Target:Experiment conditions • We have made two comparisons: • Without optimizations • Keep the reasoners near as much as possible from the optimizations point of view • With optimizations • What are they?

  30. Second Target:Experiment conditions Optimizations

  31. Second Target:Experiment conditions Semantic conjunctive query minimization q(x) :- PeopleWithHobby(x), like(x,y) PeopleWithHobby ⊑  like Quonto q(x) :- PeopleWithHobby(x) Quonto q(x) :- PeopleWithHobby(x), like(x,y)  like⊑PeopleWithHobby OWL-Gres q(x) :- like(x,y)

  32. Second Target:Experiment conditions Optimizations

  33. Second Target:Experiment conditions Query containment We considered: q(x):- A(x)  q(x) :- A(x),B(x) We can send to evaluate q(x):- A(x) ONLY in Quonto

  34. Second Target:Experiment conditions Optimizations

  35. Second Target:Experiment conditions In-expansion optimizations q(x):-Man(x),Woman(x) Consistent Ontology answer {} Man ⊑ ¬Woman ONLY in Quonto

  36. Second Target:Experiment conditions Optimizations

  37. Second Target:Experiment conditions Auxiliar role optimization • For A ⊑R.C Quonto and OWL-Gres • It’s introduced an auxiliar role • But has no membership assertion • We delete all querys with an auxiliar role

  38. Second Target:Experiment conditions Optimizations

  39. Second Target:Experiment conditions Selectivity optimization ONLY in OWL-Gres • A concept, role or concept attribute has no membership assertions • We delete all the conjunctive queries with this element • It’s correct ?

  40. Second Target: First Comparison

  41. Second Target:First Comparison

  42. Second Target:First Comparison

  43. Second Target:First Comparison

  44. Second Target: QuontoAbox BaseballFanConcept:

  45. Second Target: QuontoAbox iscrazyabout Role:

  46. Second Target: QuontoAbox e-mail attribute of concept:

  47. Second Target: OWL-GresAbox TBOX_name:

  48. Second Target: OWL-GresAbox TBOX_Concept_inclusion :

  49. Second Target: OWL-GresAbox Individual_name :

  50. Second Target: OWL-GresAbox Concept_assertion :

More Related