1 / 33

INTO: A way to represent institutional knowledge base

INTO: A way to represent institutional knowledge base. by Biswanath Dutta e-mail: dutta2005@gmail.com Documentation Research and Training Centre Indian Statistical Institute Bangalore- 560 059. Workshop on Ontology, 19 th – 21 st March 2008. DRTC, ISI, Bangalore. Introduction.

nikita
Download Presentation

INTO: A way to represent institutional knowledge base

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. INTO: A way to represent institutional knowledge base by Biswanath Dutta e-mail: dutta2005@gmail.com Documentation Research and Training Centre Indian Statistical Institute Bangalore- 560 059 Workshop on Ontology, 19th – 21st March 2008. DRTC, ISI, Bangalore

  2. Introduction • Today “I am feeling lucky”! • Oh… my God!! “What is this?” • Why cannot you give me the desired document?? • Oh… I got it. Ontology is great.

  3. But,…Why Ontology?? • To share common understanding of the structure of information among people or software agents (Musen 1992; Gruber 1993) • To enable reuse of domain knowledge • To make domain assumptions explicit • To analyze domain knowledge

  4. Objective…To • To show how the knowledge of an informal domain can be organized and retrieve them meaningfully to serve our various purposes • To show how the traditional classification system can be put in use for organizing the Web information

  5. Methodology • Derived a set of potential questions (what do you want?) • Analysed the questions • Categorised them • Identified and collected the concepts and built relations • Followed controlled vocabularies for standardization • Applied classification principles (faceted) • Modelled the Ontology using OWL-DL • Integrated with SW browser (faceted web browser)

  6. Languages and Tools Used • OWL-DL • Protégé 3.4 beta – a free, open source ontology editor and knowledge-base framework • Pellet reasoner: open-source java based OWL-DL Reasoner (http://www.mindswap.org/2003/pellet/) • SPARQL (SPARQL Protocol And RDF Query Language) • Colon Classification (7th ed.) Scheme • Longwell faceted web browser

  7. Few Queries • Who are the experts on ontology in ISI along with their publications, home page (if any) and their e-mail addresses? • What are the different courses offered by ISI centre wise? • Who are the faculty members of a (particular) unit? • Is Dr. Prasad of DRTC earlier worked for some other organization? If yes how many years he worked there and what was his job profile? • Currently who is the head of DRTC and his contact details? • etc,…

  8. Methodology • Derived a set of potential questions (what do you want?) • Analysed the questions • Categorised them • Identified and collected the concepts and built relations • Followed controlled vocabularies for standardization • Applied classification principles • Modelled the Ontology using OWL-DL • Integrated with SW browser (faceted web browser)

  9. Ontology Metrics Figure: showing metrics of classes and properties

  10. Teacher and Student Class

  11. Instance Tree 1 2

  12. Example Query: Who are the experts on ontology in ISI along with their publications, home page (if any) and their e-mail addresses?

  13. Analysis of the Query To identify the experts, we tried to search for those people who are working on/or has research interest on Ontology along with their publication related to ontology (optional). Publication might provide their expertise in that area. Some other factors might also be considered, such as what events/ conference/ workshop they attended in recent past, etc.

  14. SPARQL: SPARQL Protocol And RDF Query Language • SPARQL is a query language • It is a protocol for accessing RDF (Resource Description Framework) data • It is designed by the W3C RDF Data Access Working Group • SPARQL builds on previous RDF query languages such as rdfDB, RDQL, and SeRQL • Further information is available in: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/

  15. Query using SPARQL PREFIX a: <http://localhost/Institute#> SELECT ?Topic ?Name ?Publication ?Homepage ?email WHERE { ?person a:researchInterestIn ?ResearchInterest . ?ResearchInterest a:title ?Topic . FILTER regex(?Topic, "ontology", "i") . ?person a:name ?Name OPTIONAL { ?person a:publication ?Publication ; a:homepage ?Homepage } ?person a:email ?email } ORDER BY ?Name

  16. Result from Pellet Reasoner

  17. ?? • But…, is it possible for end users to form such type of query (SPARQL query, etc.) ? • If no, what would be the possible solution?

  18. Longwell • Longwell is a web-based RDF-powered highly-configurable faceted browser • It is the part of SIMILE project of MIT • It mixes the flexibility of the RDF data model with the effectiveness of the faceted browsing UI paradigm • It enables to visualize and browse any arbitrarily complex RDF dataset • It allows to build a user-friendly web site out of our data within minutes and without requiring any code at all • More information available on: http://simile.mit.edu/wiki/Longwell

  19. “INTO” with Longwell • Easy to integrate OWL Ontology with Longwell Web Browser • Knowledge base is easy to update • Capable of loading files that end with .rdf, .rdfs, .owl, .n3 and rss (Longwell assumes RSS 1.0 which is RDF; other versions will generate errors)

  20. Longwell Faceted Web Browser

  21. Longwell Faceted Web Browser

  22. Longwell Faceted Web Browser

  23. Observation • It is always better to go for modular based ontology • Conceptually draw your model first and then go for building ontology • Building ontology is quite expensive • No two ontologies designed by different people would be the same • There is no standard practice for building ontology • It's a biggest challenge to provide user friendly semantic search interface to end users

  24. Wrap-up • Problems • Way to solve the problems • Why Ontology? • Methodology • Searching • Integration of INTO with a faceted web browser • Observations • Application

  25. Reference (1) • Gruber, T.R. (1993). A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specification. Knowledge Acquisition 5: 199-220 • Ranganathan, S. R. (1967). Prolegomena to library classification. Ed 3. Asia Pub House, Bombay • Ranganathan, S. R. (1987). Colon classification. SRELS, Bangalore • Bhattacharyya, G. (1979). POPSI: Its fundamentals and procedure based on a general theory of subject indexing language. Library Science with Slant to Documentation. V 16 (1) • Musen, M.A. (1992). Dimensions of knowledge sharing and reuse. Computers and Biomedical Research 25: 435-467

  26. Reference (2) • Noy, N. F. and McGuinness, D. L. Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. http://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html • Protege (2000). The Protege Project. http://protege.stanford.edu • Flamenco. http://flamenco.berkeley.edu/

More Related