1 / 31

THIS SLIDE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

THIS SLIDE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. DAML+OIL Schema Parameter Interface Format. I H M C. DAML+OIL has no natural role for variables, and no variable binders. This may well be seen as an advantage: (subclass A B) <==> (forall (?x)(implies (A ?x)(B ?x)))

bishop
Download Presentation

THIS SLIDE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

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. THIS SLIDE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

  2. DAML+OIL Schema Parameter Interface Format I H M C DAML+OIL has no natural role for variables, and no variable binders. This may well be seen as an advantage: (subclass A B) <==> (forall (?x)(implies (A ?x)(B ?x))) P is restriction of Q on R to S <==> (forall (?x) (iff (P ?x)(and (Q ?x)(exists (?y)(and (R ?x ?y) (S ?y))))))

  3. DAML+OIL Schema Parameter Interface Format I H M C However, many uses of, and likely future extensions to, DAML+OIL require the use of variables to allow pattern-matching: 1. allowing external software to bind values to parameters (CoABS policy tool; DAML-S applications) 2. syntax for atomic component of 'rules' and queries 3. controlling use of URL's across networks (as in HORUS)

  4. DAML+OIL Schema Parameter Interface Format I H M C Changing DAML to include variables raises a host of semantic issues which we propose to completely avoid. This is a purely syntactic proposal. No semantics is provided for the variables until they have been completely instantiated. In logical terms, these are schematic (not quantified) variables; in programming language terms, they are macros. To avoid confusion we call them parameters. DAML+OIL distinguishes two kinds of 'name': URIs and literals. The proposal is an extended notation in which URI's may be replaced by URI parameters and literals by literal parameters.

  5. DAML+OIL Schema Parameter Interface Format I H M C Uri-parameter ::= ?word / Literal-parameter ::= ??word / word ::= [^< > ? / space ]+ <Or some other syntax would do> A URI [literal] term is either a URI [literal] or a URI [literal] parameter. A substitution is a sequence of substitution pairs consisting of a URI [literal] parameter and a URI [literal] term.

  6. DAML+OIL Schema Parameter Interface Format <daml:Class rdf:ID=“?actionType/” > <rdfs:label>?actionType/</rdfs:label> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Ordinary Action"/> <rdfs:subClassOf> <daml:Restriction daml:Cardinality="1”> <daml:onProperty rdf:resource="#performedBy"/> <daml:toClass rdf:resource="?performer/"/> </daml:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> </daml:Class> I H M C

  7. DAML+OIL Schema Parameter Interface Format <daml:Class rdf:ID=“?actionType/” > <rdfs:label>?actionType/</rdfs:label> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Ordinary Action"/> <rdfs:subClassOf> <daml:Restriction daml:Cardinality="1”> <daml:onProperty rdf:resource="#performedBy"/> <daml:toClass rdf:resource=”?performer/"/> </daml:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> </daml:Class> ?actionType/ #DelegateAction ?performer/ #Domain_Manager ?actionType/ #Multi_Actor_Action ?performer/ #ActorGroup I H M C

  8. A more compact notation (with Frank v. Harmelen) <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="elephant"> <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#animal"/> </rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:subClassOf> <daml:Restriction> <daml:onProperty rdf:resource="#eats"/> <daml:toClass> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#plant"/> </daml:toClass> </daml:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:subClassOf> <daml:Restriction> <daml:onProperty rdf:resource="#colour"/> <daml:hasValue> <daml:ConcreteTypeExpression>EQUAL ``grey'' </daml:ConcreteTypeExpression> </daml:hasValue> </daml:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> </rdfs:Class> I H M C Class elephant SubClassOf #animal [which #eats #plant; which #color EQUAL `grey’]

  9. A more compact notation (with Frank v. Harmelen) I H M C <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="herbivore"> <daml:intersectionOf> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#animal"/> <daml:Restriction> <daml:onProperty rdf:resource="#eats"/> <daml:toClass> <rdfs:Class> <daml:unionOf> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#plant"/> <daml:Restriction> <daml:onProperty rdf:resource="#is_part_of"/> <daml:hasValue> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#plant"/> </daml:hasValue> </daml:Restriction> </daml:unionOf> </rdfs:Class> </daml:toClass> </daml:Restriction> </daml:intersectionOf> </rdfs:Class> Class herbivore IntersectionOf [#animal which #eats UnionOf [#plant; which #is_part_of hasValue #plant] ]

  10. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C A brief essay inspired by conversations with Lynn Stein Bill Andersen Jim Hendler Adam Pease Jerry Hobbs and others too numerous to mention

  11. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf =http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# xmlns:a =http://someplace.org/this_ontology# xmlns:b=http://some_other_place.gov/that_ontology# <daml:Class rdf:ID=”Barble"> <rdfs:subClassOf> <daml:Restriction> <daml:onProperty rdf:resource=”a#foodle"/> <daml:toClass rdf:resource=”b#bazset"/> </daml:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> </daml:Class>

  12. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C If I use a term from your ontology, how much of your ontology am I assuming?

  13. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C If I use a term from your ontology, how much of your ontology am I assuming? A1: Only the parts that I explicitly endorse or include

  14. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C If I use a term from your ontology, how much of your ontology am I assuming? A1: Only the parts that I explicitly endorse or include A2: Enough to establish the intended meaning of the term

  15. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C If I use a term from your ontology, how much of your ontology am I assuming? A1: Only the parts that I explicitly endorse or include A2: Enough to establish the intended meaning of the term A3: All of it

  16. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C If I use a term from your ontology, how much of your ontology am I assuming? A1: Only the parts that I explicitly endorse or include A2: Enough to establish the intended meaning of the term A3: All of it A4: None of it

  17. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C If I use a term from your ontology, how much of your ontology am I assuming? Wrong answer: The question doesn’t arise since we are all basically part of One World Wide Ontology

  18. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C OK, at least we are using the same notation, which is a good start.

  19. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C OK, at least we are using the same notation, which is a good start. BUT if you are using a closed world assumption and I am not, we will misunderstand one another.

  20. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C OK, at least we are using the same notation, which is a good start. BUT

  21. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C You say… Employees are a subclass of persons I say… Employment is a property some people have

  22. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C You say… Things are physical objects I say… Things include ideas, integers, intentions, states of mind, The Grinch…

  23. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C You say… Things are physical objects I say… Things include ideas, integers, intentions, states of mind, The Grinch, fluents, tropes, eventualities, ways of being, possible worlds, whatever

  24. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C You say… Things are physical objects I say… Things are physical objects

  25. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C You say… Things are physical objects I say… Things are physical objects BUT You say… Physical objects retain their identity through time and change their properties I say… Physical objects have temporal parts which have timeless properties

  26. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C You say… Things are physical objects I say… Things are physical objects BUT You say… Physical objects retain their identity through time and change their properties I say… Physical objects have temporal parts which have timeless properties

  27. Describing events/actions/processes/occurrents/happenings… Things change…so need to make assertions relative to times TrickleDown: push temporal parameters as deep into the expression as they need to go (but no further). R(a,b,c) + T [R(a,b,c),T] simple proposition true at time [R,T](a,b,c) time-indexed relation (eg position) R(a,b,c,[T]) time-relative assertion R([a,T],b,[c,T]) dynamic entities Often most natural language for humans Corresponds to linguistic analyses Often most effective for action planning Often most effective for automatic reasoning about complex domain

  28. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C You say… holes are physical things, and holes can only be whole I say… holes are spatio-temporal but not physical, and can have parts He says… holes aren’t physical, but are necessarily located in physical things and cannot have parts And he says… holes don’t exist as entities, but are locations which are empty.

  29. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C Which ontology should be chosen/adopted/made into the standard?

  30. Collide ! When Ontologies I H M C Which ontology should be chosen/adopted/made into the standard? WRONG QUESTION ! All these viewpoints have their uses, are internally coherent and are legitimate points of view. There is no single best answer.

  31. Collide When Ontologies I H M C we need Long Term Ways to broker meanings between different ontological perspectives (translation techniques, known safe routes, neutral ontological territory.) Medium Term Ways to SAY what parts of one ontology are being included into another, and to analyze the consequences. Short Term Agree that there is a problem to be solved. LUNCH

More Related