1 / 17

Dynamic Ontologies on the Web

Dynamic Ontologies on the Web. Jeff Heflin, James Hendler. Motivation of SHOE. The World Wide Web is mostly inaccessible to machines No facilities for formalizing the meaning of web languages An XML syntax is not sufficient for traditional KR The dynamic and distributed nature of the Web.

major
Download Presentation

Dynamic Ontologies on the Web

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. Dynamic Ontologies on the Web Jeff Heflin, James Hendler

  2. Motivation of SHOE • The World Wide Web is mostly inaccessible to machines • No facilities for formalizing the meaning of web languages • An XML syntax is not sufficient for traditional KR • The dynamic and distributed nature of the Web

  3. Overview of SHOE • Extends HTML with a set of knowledge oriented tags • Associates meaning by making each web page commit to ontologies • Defined as an application of SGML to achieve compatibility with existing web standards • Its simplicity makes it easy for users to understand and tool developers to implement • It is possible to develop numerous tools and architecture for processing

  4. Language Features of SHOE • SHOE ontologies build on or extend other ontologies, inherit all of the components present in their ancestors (interoperable) • Extending general ontologies to create more specific ontologies. (reuse) • An ontology can define categories, relations, and other components with corresponding tags • It can specify a local name for a concept from other extended ontology

  5. Language Features of SHOE (cont) • SHOE uses inference rules which consists of a body and a head consisting of one or more subclauses (<INF-IF> and <INF-THEN>) • Three subclauses: category relation comparison

  6. Mapping SHOE to FOL • Horn clause • <V, A> • <USE-ONTOLOGY> • <DEF-RELATION> • <DEF-CATEGORY> • <DEF-INFERENCE> • <DEF-RENAME>

  7. Mapping SHOE to FOL (cont) • A formula F is well-formed with respect to O if : 1) F is an atom of the form p(t1,…,tn) where p is a n-ary predicate symbol such that p V 2) F is a Horn clause • An ontology is well-formed if every axiom in the ontology is well-formed with respect to the ontology

  8. Mapping SHOE to FOL (cont) • Introduces a perspective P=<S,O> as a data source S=<Os,Ds> viewed in the context of O=<V,A> • Let Ws be the subset of Ds that is well-formed with respect to O, then P results will be T=WsA

  9. The necessity of revision • Previous assumptions: static or isolation environment changes without side effects • The changes of ontologies correct errors accommodate new information adjust the representation of a particular domain

  10. Effects of revisions • Removal of categories or relations from original ontology may result in fewer answers to a given query • Addition of categories or relations can maintain the same perspective on all legacy data sources

  11. Versioning of SHOE • Copies the original ontology file, assigns it a new version number, and adds or removes elements as needed • It can specify that it is compatible with previous versions • Be cautious of malicious revisions

  12. Ontology Integration • It is inevitable that new concepts will be defined while existing ones still can be used • Four types of domain differences: • Terminology • Scope • Encoding • context • OI typically involves identifying the correspondence between two ontologies, determining the differences in definitions, and creating a new ontology that resolves these differences.

  13. Three suggested ways to incorporate the results of OI

  14. Related work • Ontobroker (Fensel et al. 1998) • OML and CKML (Kent 1999) • RDF • Ontolingua Server

  15. Conclusions • Pros • Analyzes the problems of ontologies in a dynamic, distributed and heterogeneous environment • Be compatible with existing web standards • Simplicity of SHOE • Prevent logical inconsistency • Cons • Disjunction? • Class hierarchy?

More Related