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).

We provide a detailed example for modular ontology modeling based on ontology design patterns. It is similar to the Chess Ontology tutorial in [6], which we suggest to read first. We will be less verbose in this tutorial; we provide it because additional examples should be helpful for those interested in adopting the modular ontology modeling methodology - see [6] and the book [2] in which it is contained. We assume that the reader is familiar with the Web Ontology Language OWL [5, 4]. Before we dive into the actual modeling, let us present the general workflow which we recommend for ontology modeling, and which is the same as in [6]. The steps of this workflow are laid out in Figure 1. We will refer to these steps, and explain them in more detail, as we advance through the tutorial. Every ontology is designed for a purpose; this purpose may be defined by a use case, or by a set of use cases, or possibly by a set of potential use cases, which may include the future extensions or refinements of the ontology, and future reuse of the ontology by others. How specific should a use case be? Conventional wisdom may suggest that it is always better to be more specific. However, in the context of ontology modeling the case is not as clear-cut. A very specific use case may give rise to an ontology which is very specialized, i.e. modeling choices (so-called ontological commitments) may be made which fit only the very specific and detailed use case. As a consequence, later modifications, e.g. by widening the scope of the application (and therefore of the underlying ontology) become very cumbersome as they may conflict with ontological commitments made earlier.

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).

Data Science architecture is bringing ideas together that transforms data into actionable knowledge. The excitement in this is the ability to make more decisions that solve business revenue problems. To engage semantic SEO, it is necessary to have a strategy, tactics, and the right tools for a structured approach to data. The modern web demands connected content is based on the context of the user, the recognition of related data entities, and how they are connected to the searches made. An understanding of Natural Language, users, KPI's, and your structured data architecture is fundamental to generating better search results. By gaining a deeper knowledge about a web site's core UX architecture, you can use it to store and analyze data, specifically structured data. Create a clear business strategy for how to use Google analytics data to compete and deploy the right UX, technology, and information architecture to drive user engagement. Adjusting your business culture to create digital content that drives mobile search results and conversions requires a multifaceted approach. Ask any successful digital marketer as to what they regard as core prerequisites for a successful SEO marketing campaign or your paid search investment, and undoubtedly most responses will say something about obtaining or making wise integrations from data points.