Artificial intelligence is a modern technology that is utilized in various fields of medicine [1-3]. At the meantime, Chinese Traditional Medicine (TCM) is now widely considered as a promising alternative medicine for complementary treatment in cancers or chronic diseases due to the effective methodology practically developed by generations of doctors for almost 4000 years [4]. Based on previous verification, it is undeniable that there are many correlations between the TCM syndromes and western diseases, turning out novel approaches for enhancing the treatment efficiency and developing medicines regarding with TCM methodologies [5]. Unfortunately, hindered by the remarkable gap between the modern informatics and the fundament of TCM: antient Chinese philosophy, such correlations are still too elusive to be formulated precisely. Therefore, recently, in order to figure out the deep connection between modern science and TCM, the research combining TCM with AI for valid knowledge acquisition and mining attracts extremely attention, and hereby, leading to many profound works, such as ontology information system design [6], latent tree models design [7], TCM warehouse for AI application [8], and digital knowledge graph development [2]. On the other hand, researchers face, however, many difficulties in setting up AI for TCM in terms of directly interpreting TCM semantic system (almost recorded by ancient Chinese doctrines) into structured database. Because in this way, considerable workload must be undertaken by limited numbers of experts who are proficient in both AI and TCM to translate the TCM terminologies and then formulate the modern model thereof. In contrast, as shown in Figure 1, the digestion of using TCM methodology in dealing with issues of modern science, new medicine design for example, is relatively lacking and thus of significant worth to explore.

Multiple logic-based reconstruction of conceptual data modelling languages such as EER, UML Class Diagrams, and ORM exists. They mainly cover various fragments of the languages and none are formalised such that the logic applies simultaneously for all three modelling language families as unifying mechanism. This hampers interchangeability, interoperability, and tooling support. In addition, due to the lack of a systematic design process of the logic used for the formalisation, hidden choices permeate the formalisations that have rendered them incompatible. We aim to address these problems, first, by structuring the logic design process in a methodological way. We generalise and extend the DSL design process to apply to logic language design more generally and, in particular, by incorporating an ontological analysis of language features in the process. Second, availing of this extended process, of evidence gathered of language feature usage, and of computational complexity insights from Description Logics (DL), we specify logic profiles taking into account the ontological commitments embedded in the languages. The profiles characterise the minimum logic structure needed to handle the semantics of conceptual models, enabling the development of interoperability tools. There is no known DL language that matches exactly the features of those profiles and the common core is small (in the tractable $\mathcal{ALNI}$). Although hardly any inconsistencies can be derived with the profiles, it is promising for scalable runtime use of conceptual data models.

Populating ontology graphs represents a long-standing problem for the Semantic Web community. Recent advances in translation-based graph embedding methods for populating instance-level knowledge graphs lead to promising new approaching for the ontology population problem. However, unlike instance-level graphs, the majority of relation facts in ontology graphs come with comprehensive semantic relations, which often include the properties of transitivity and symmetry, as well as hierarchical relations. These comprehensive relations are often too complex for existing graph embedding methods, and direct application of such methods is not feasible. Hence, we propose On2Vec, a novel translation-based graph embedding method for ontology population. On2Vec integrates two model components that effectively characterize comprehensive relation facts in ontology graphs. The first is the Component-specific Model that encodes concepts and relations into low-dimensional embedding spaces without a loss of relational properties; the second is the Hierarchy Model that performs focused learning of hierarchical relation facts. Experiments on several well-known ontology graphs demonstrate the promising capabilities of On2Vec in predicting and verifying new relation facts. These promising results also make possible significant improvements in related methods.

This paper argues that certain ontology design problems are profitably addressed by treating ontologies as theories and by defining a set of operations that create new ontologies, including their constraints, out of other ontologies. The paper first shows how to use the operations in the context of ontology reuse, how to take advantage of the operations to compare different ontologies, or different versions of an ontology, and how the operations may help design mediated schemas in a bottom up fashion. The core of the paper discusses how to compute the operations for lightweight ontologies and addresses the question of minimizing the set of constraints of a lightweight ontology. Finally, the paper describes an implementation of the operations, as a Prot\'eg\'e plug-in.

I have been in the space of artificial intelligence for a while and am aware that multiple classifications, distinctions, landscapes, and infographics exist to represent and track the different ways to think about AI. However, I am not a big fan of those categorization exercises, mainly because I tend to think that the effort of classifying dynamic data points into predetermined fixed boxes is often not worth the benefits of having such a "clear" framework (this is a generalization of course as sometimes they are extremely useful). I also believe this landscape is useful for people new to the space to grasp at-a-glance the complexity and depth of this topic, as well as for those more experienced to have a reference point and to create new conversations around specific technologies. What follows is then an effort to draw an architecture to access knowledge on AI and follow emergent dynamics, a gateway of pre-existing knowledge on the topic that will allow you to scout around for additional information and eventually create new knowledge on AI. I call it the AI Knowledge Map (AIKM).

It has been argued that it is much easier to convey logical statements using rules rather than OWL (or description logic (DL)) axioms. Based on recent theoretical developments on transformations between rules and DLs, we have developed ROWLTab, a Protege plugin that allows users to enter OWL axioms by way of rules; the plugin then automatically converts these rules into OWL 2 DL axioms if possible, and prompts the user in case such a conversion is not possible without weakening the semantics of the rule. In this paper, we present ROWLTab, together with a user evaluation of its effectiveness compared to entering axioms using the standard Protege interface. Our evaluation shows that modeling with ROWLTab is much quicker than the standard interface, while at the same time, also less prone to errors for hard modeling tasks.

Tavi Truman, CTO and chief architect at RocketUrBiz, delves further into data ontology and artificial intelligence in the second part of the ICSF Hacker Connect session, "Living in a world without silos: Data ontology vs. machine learning and AI."

In our experience, some ontology users find it much easier to convey logical statements using rules rather than OWL (or description logic) axioms. Based on recent theoretical developments on transformations between rules and description logics, we develop ROWL, a Protege plugin that allows users to enter OWL axioms by way of rules; the plugin then automatically converts these rules into OWL DL axioms if possible, and prompts the user in case such a conversion is not possible without weakening the semantics of the rule.

Once the conceptual overview, in terms of a somewhat informal class diagram, has been designed in the course of engineering an ontology, the process of adding many of the appropriate logical axioms is mostly a routine task. We provide a Protege plugin which supports this task, together with a visual user interface, based on established methods for ontology design pattern modeling.

I have been in the space of artificial intelligence for a while and am aware that multiple classifications, distinctions, landscapes, and infographics exist to represent and track the different ways to think about AI. However, I am not a big fan of those categorization exercises, mainly because I tend to think that the effort of classifying dynamic data points into predetermined fixed boxes is often not worth the benefits of having such a "clear" framework (this is a generalization of course as sometimes they are extremely useful). I also believe this landscape is useful for people new to the space to grasp at-a-glance the complexity and depth of this topic, as well as for those more experienced to have a reference point and to create new conversations around specific technologies. What follows is then an effort to draw an architecture to access knowledge on AI and follow emergent dynamics, a gateway of pre-existing knowledge on the topic that will allow you to scout around for additional information and eventually create new knowledge on AI. I call it the AI Knowledge Map (AIKM).