1 / 14

OWL and SDD

OWL and SDD. Dave Thau University of Kansas thau@learningsite.com. OWL in Context. W3C Standard Web Ontology Language OWL builds on RDF and RDFS Much like DAML+OIL (2001) Which grew out of Description Logic Description logics are variants of predicate logic. Example Ontology. Person.

ford
Download Presentation

OWL and SDD

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 and SDD Dave Thau University of Kansas thau@learningsite.com

  2. OWL in Context • W3C Standard Web Ontology Language • OWL builds on RDF and RDFS • Much like DAML+OIL (2001) • Which grew out of Description Logic • Description logics are variants of predicate logic

  3. Example Ontology Person hasChild (1, NIL) Female Parent Ontologies have: Concepts Instances Properties Woman Mother • Mother(VERA) • hasChild(VERA, DAVE) • Is Mother a subclass of Person? • Is Dave an instance of Person?

  4. Some SDD and OWL Similarities

  5. Other Similarities • Metadata, including versioning information • Supports multiple languages • You can import ontologies into each other • Properties are not imbedded in concepts

  6. OWL – The Assembly Language of Knowledge Representation • Relationships between classes • equivalentClass • subClassOf • Intersection, union, complement, disjunction • Relationships between instances • sameAs, differentFrom • Properties of properties • Domain, Range • Cardinality • Transitive, Symmetric • allValuesFrom, someValuesFrom • Functional, InverseFunctional • Relationships between properties • subPropertyOf • inverseOf

  7. Simple Example <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [ <!ENTITY food "http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine#”> ]> <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.ku.edu/kansas_wines#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:owl=http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#” xmlns:wine=“&wine;”> <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""> <owl:versionInfo xml:lang="en">v 1.17 2003/02/26 12:56:51 thau </owl:versionInfo> <rdfs:comment>This is about wines available in kansas</rdfs:comment> <owl:imports rdf:resource= “http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine” /> </owl:Ontology> <owl:Class rdf:ID=“KansasWine"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&wine;Wine"/> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">kansas wine</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">vin du kansas</rdfs:label> </rdfs:subClassOf> </owl:Class> </rdf:RDF>

  8. SDD and OWL • What does OWL get you? • Access to inference engines • Access to ontology tools • Defined vocabulary • What are the risks? • Creating DL compliant ontologies non-trivial • Inference engines may not scale • How do you tie SDD XML entities to OWL classes?

  9. OWL DL vs OWL Full • OWL Full is very expressive – but reasoning can be intractable • Reasoning in OWL DL is tractable, but it has many restrictions • Biggest restriction – something can’t be both an instance AND a class • Implication 1 – Relations between classes are restricted to the small set of OWL relations • Implication 2 – You REALLY need to know what your instances are and what your classes are.

  10. partOf • In the glossary of SDD there is one partOf element. What does it mean? • X is a component of Y (a leaf of a plant) • X is a member of Y (one zebra in a herd) • X is a quantity of Y (a sample of sap) • Does the whole’s existence depend on the part? • Does the part’s existence depend on the whole? • Does the part inherit properties of the whole?

  11. The traditional partOf types • hasDComponent • hasDMember • hasDSegment • hasDQuantity • hasDStuff • hasDIngredient

  12. A tree hasComponent trunk • Define a property called hasDComponent – the D means direct • IsDComponentOf = (inverse hasDComponent) • hasComponent = (hasDComponent)+ • trunkOf isa isDComponentOf • hasTrunk = (inverse trunkOf) • Tree isa Plant • Trunk isa (the trunkOf Tree) and (the hasCondition Condition) • BrokenTrunk isa Trunk and hasCondition hasValue BROKEN • BrokenTree isa Tree and the hasTrunk BrokenTrunk • Condition(BROKEN) • Condition(WHOLE) • Trunk(THIS_TRUNK).hasCondition(BROKEN) • Tree(MY_TREE).hasTrunk(THIS_TRUNK)

  13. Transforming SDD -> OWL? • DL is possible as long as • Definitions are complete enough (what do you mean by partOf? Synonym?) • Entities involved in hierarchical relationships don’t have other relationships • Full is possible more easily

  14. Conclusions • SDD could use ideas from OWL • Separate class hierarchy and property hierarchy • Multiple types of partOf • It would be interesting to translate part of an SDD document into OWL for reasoning • What class is this thing? • What happens to my ability to classify something if two species are combined?

More Related