"An ontology defines the terms used to describe and represent an area of knowledge. … Ontologies include computer-usable definitions of basic concepts in the domain and the relationships among them."
– from OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements. W3C Recommendation (10 February 2004). Jeff Heflin, editor.
The need for a massive symbolic artificial intelligence project of this ilk was born in the early 1980s out of a large number of experiences early AI researchers had, in the previous 25 years, wherein their AI programs would generate encouraging early results but then fail to "scale up"--fail to cope with novel situations and problems outside the narrow area they were conceived and engineered to cope with. Douglas Lenat and Alan Kay publicized this need, and organized a meeting at Stanford in 1983 to consider the problem; the back-of-the-envelope calculations by them and colleagues including Marvin Minsky, Allen Newell, Edward Feigenbaum, and John McCarthy indicated that that effort would require between 1000 and 3000 person-years of effort, hence not fit into the standard academic project model. Fortuitously, events within a year of that meeting enabled that Manhattan-Project-sized effort to get underway. The project was started in July,1984 as the flagship project of the 400-person Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, a research consortium started by two dozen large United States based corporations "to counter a then ominous Japanese effort in AI, the so-called "fifth-generation" project." The US Government reacted to the Fifth Generation threat by passing the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984, which for the first time allowed US companies to "collude" on long-term high-risk high-payoff research, and MCC and Sematech sprang up to take advantage of that ten-year opportunity.
Ontology mapping plays an important role in interoperability over ontologies. Many researchers have proposed algorithms and tools for (semi-)automatically mapping one concept to another concept. Among them, WordNet is widely used as the domain knowledge support in the mapping process. To our knowledge, however, most of them only use synonym, hypernym and hyponym relations in WordNet and the actual meanings provided in natural English (as gloss) are often ignored. In this paper, we treat the concepts(c) as English words (w) and propose an ontology mapping technique where we use the meanings of the words as given in Wordnet (in English) for semantic mapping by constructing their parse trees first and simplifying them for computing similarity measures. Our experimental results show that our method performs better in Recall and F1-Measure than many techniques reported in the literature.
We present a work in the field of formal ontologies, notion taken from the knowledge representation community. What we study is the concept of time and aspect described and conceptualized from linguistics. Our aim is thus to propose a formal ontology of time and aspect considering temporal concepts introduced in a formal way.
Ontology alignment is widely-used to find the correspondences between different ontologies in diverse fields.After discovering the alignments,several performance scores are available to evaluate them.The scores typically require the identified alignment and a reference containing the underlying actual correspondences of the given ontologies.The current trend in the alignment evaluation is to put forward a new score(e.g., precision, weighted precision, etc.)and to compare various alignments by juxtaposing the obtained scores. However,it is substantially provocative to select one measure among others for comparison.On top of that, claiming if one system has a better performance than one another cannot be substantiated solely by comparing two scalars.In this paper,we propose the statistical procedures which enable us to theoretically favor one system over one another.The McNemar's test is the statistical means by which the comparison of two ontology alignment systems over one matching task is drawn.The test applies to a 2x2 contingency table which can be constructed in two different ways based on the alignments,each of which has their own merits/pitfalls.The ways of the contingency table construction and various apposite statistics from the McNemar's test are elaborated in minute detail.In the case of having more than two alignment systems for comparison, the family-wise error rate is expected to happen. Thus, the ways of preventing such an error are also discussed.A directed graph visualizes the outcome of the McNemar's test in the presence of multiple alignment systems.From this graph, it is readily understood if one system is better than one another or if their differences are imperceptible.The proposed statistical methodologies are applied to the systems participated in the OAEI 2016 anatomy track, and also compares several well-known similarity metrics for the same matching problem.
The question whether an ontology can safely be replaced by another, possibly simpler, one is fundamental for many ontology engineering and maintenance tasks. It underpins, for example, ontology versioning, ontology modularization, forgetting, and knowledge exchange. What safe replacement means depends on the intended application of the ontology. If, for example, it is used to query data, then the answers to any relevant ontology-mediated query should be the same over any relevant data set; if, in contrast, the ontology is used for conceptual reasoning, then the entailed subsumptions between concept expressions should coincide. This gives rise to different notions of ontology inseparability such as query inseparability and concept inseparability, which generalize corresponding notions of conservative extensions. We survey results on various notions of inseparability in the context of description logic ontologies, discussing their applications, useful model-theoretic characterizations, algorithms for determining whether two ontologies are inseparable (and, sometimes, for computing the difference between them if they are not), and the computational complexity of this problem.
We present an ontology for representing workflows over components with Read-Write Linked Data interfaces and give an operational semantics to the ontology via a rule language. Workflow languages have been successfully applied for modelling behaviour in enterprise information systems, in which the data is often managed in a relational database. Linked Data interfaces have been widely deployed on the web to support data integration in very diverse domains, increasingly also in scenarios involving the Internet of Things, in which application behaviour is often specified using imperative programming languages. With our work we aim to combine workflow languages, which allow for the high-level specification of application behaviour by non-expert users, with Linked Data, which allows for decentralised data publication and integrated data access. We show that our ontology is expressive enough to cover the basic workflow patterns and demonstrate the applicability of our approach with a prototype system that observes pilots carrying out tasks in a mixed-reality aircraft cockpit. On a synthetic benchmark from the building automation domain, the runtime scales linearly with the size of the number of Internet of Things devices.
In ontology-based data access (OBDA), the classical database is enhanced with an ontology in the form of logical assertions generating new intensional knowledge. A powerful form of such logical assertions is the tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs), also called existential rules, where Horn rules are extended by allowing existential quantifiers to appear in the rule heads. In this paper we introduce a new language called loop restricted (LR) TGDs (existential rules), which are TGDs with certain restrictions on the loops embedded in the underlying rule set. We study the complexity of this new language. We show that the conjunctive query answering (CQA) under the LR TGDs is decid- able. In particular, we prove that this language satisfies the so-called bounded derivation-depth prop- erty (BDDP), which implies that the CQA is first-order rewritable, and its data complexity is in AC0 . We also prove that the combined complexity of the CQA is EXPTIME complete, while the language membership is PSPACE complete. Then we extend the LR TGDs language to the generalised loop restricted (GLR) TGDs language, and prove that this class of TGDs still remains to be first-order rewritable and properly contains most of other first-order rewritable TGDs classes discovered in the literature so far.
In this paper we introduce a new class of tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs) called triangularly-guarded TGDs, which are TGDs with certain restrictions on the atomic derivation track embedded in the underlying rule set. We show that conjunctive query answering under this new class of TGDs is decidable. We further show that this new class strictly contains some other decidable classes such as weak-acyclic, guarded, sticky and shy, which, to the best of our knowledge, provides a unified representation of all these aforementioned classes.
Conjunctive query answering over expressive Horn Description Logic ontologies is a relevant and challenging problem which, in some cases, can be addressed by application of the chase algorithm. In this paper, we define a novel acyclicity notion which provides a sufficient condition for termination of the restricted chase over Horn-SRIQ TBoxes. We show that this notion generalizes most of the existing acyclicity conditions (both theoretically and empirically). Furthermore, this new acyclicity notion gives rise to a very efficient reasoning procedure. We provide evidence for this by providing a materialization based reasoner for acyclic ontologies which outperforms other state-of-the-art systems.
We study the complexity of ontology-mediated querying when ontologies are formulated in the guarded fragment of first-order logic (GF). Our general aim is to classify the data complexity on the level of ontologies where query evaluation w.r.t. an ontology O is considered to be in PTime if all (unions of conjunctive) queries can be evaluated in PTime w.r.t. O and coNP-hard if at least one query is coNP-hard w.r.t. O. We identify several large and relevant fragments of GF that enjoy a dichotomy between PTime and coNP, some of them additionally admitting a form of counting. In fact, almost all ontologies in the BioPortal repository fall into these fragments or can easily be rewritten to do so. We then establish a variation of Ladner's Theorem on the existence of NP-intermediate problems and use this result to show that for other fragments, there is provably no such dichotomy. Again for other fragments (such as full GF), establishing a dichotomy implies the Feder-Vardi conjecture on the complexity of constraint satisfaction problems. We also link these results to Datalog-rewritability and study the decidability of whether a given ontology enjoys PTime query evaluation, presenting both positive and negative results.