"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.
In this article, we develop a framework for comparing ontologies and place a number of the more prominent ontologies into it. We have selected 10 specific projects for this study, including general ontologies, domain-specific ones, and one knowledge representation system. The comparison framework includes general characteristics, such as the purpose of an ontology, its coverage (general or domain specific), its size, and the formalism used. It also includes the design process used in creating an ontology and the methods used to evaluate it. Characteristics that describe the content of an ontology include taxonomic organization, types of concept covered, top-level divisions, internal structure of concepts, representation of part-whole relations, and the presence and nature of additional axioms.
One of the most important goals of digital humanities is to provide researchers with data and tools for new research questions, either by increasing the scale of scholarly studies, linking existing databases, or improving the accessibility of data. Here, the FAIR principles provide a useful framework as these state that data needs to be: Findable, as they are often scattered among various sources; Accessible, since some might be offline or behind paywalls; Interoperable, thus using standard knowledge representation formats and shared vocabularies; and Reusable, through adequate licensing and permissions. Integrating data from diverse humanities domains is not trivial, research questions such as "was economic wealth equally distributed in the 18th century?", or "what are narratives constructed around disruptive media events?") and preparation phases (e.g. data collection, knowledge organisation, cleaning) of scholars need to be taken into account. In this chapter, we describe the ontologies and tools developed and integrated in the Dutch national project CLARIAH to address these issues across datasets from three fundamental domains or "pillars" of the humanities (linguistics, social and economic history, and media studies) that have paradigmatic data representations (textual corpora, structured data, and multimedia). We summarise the lessons learnt from using such ontologies and tools in these domains from a generalisation and reusability perspective.
Explainability has been an important goal since the early days of Artificial Intelligence. Several approaches for producing explanations have been developed. However, many of these approaches were tightly coupled with the capabilities of the artificial intelligence systems at the time. With the proliferation of AI-enabled systems in sometimes critical settings, there is a need for them to be explainable to end-users and decision-makers. We present a historical overview of explainable artificial intelligence systems, with a focus on knowledge-enabled systems, spanning the expert systems, cognitive assistants, semantic applications, and machine learning domains. Additionally, borrowing from the strengths of past approaches and identifying gaps needed to make explanations user- and context-focused, we propose new definitions for explanations and explainable knowledge-enabled systems.
Interest in the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence has been growing for decades, and has accelerated recently. As Artificial Intelligence models have become more complex, and often more opaque, with the incorporation of complex machine learning techniques, explainability has become more critical. Recently, researchers have been investigating and tackling explainability with a user-centric focus, looking for explanations to consider trustworthiness, comprehensibility, explicit provenance, and context-awareness. In this chapter, we leverage our survey of explanation literature in Artificial Intelligence and closely related fields and use these past efforts to generate a set of explanation types that we feel reflect the expanded needs of explanation for today's artificial intelligence applications. We define each type and provide an example question that would motivate the need for this style of explanation. We believe this set of explanation types will help future system designers in their generation and prioritization of requirements and further help generate explanations that are better aligned to users' and situational needs.
A key capability required by service robots operating in real-world, dynamic environments is that of Visual Intelligence, i.e., the ability to use their vision system, reasoning components and background knowledge to make sense of their environment. In this paper, we analyze the epistemic requirements for Visual Intelligence, both in a top-down fashion, using existing frameworks for human-like Visual Intelligence in the literature, and from the bottom up, based on the errors emerging from object recognition trials in a real-world robotic scenario. Finally, we use these requirements to evaluate current knowledge bases for Service Robotics and to identify gaps in the support they provide for Visual Intelligence. These gaps provide the basis of a research agenda for developing more effective knowledge representations for Visual Intelligence.
This study considers the expressiveness (that is the expressive power or expressivity) of different types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and discusses its potential to be machine-processable in the context of the Semantic Web. For this purpose, the theoretical foundations of KOS are reviewed based on conceptualizations introduced by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS); natural language processing techniques are also implemented. Applying a comparative analysis, the dataset comprises a thesaurus (Eurovoc), a subject headings system (LCSH) and a classification scheme (DDC). These are compared with an ontology (CIDOC-CRM) by focusing on how they define and handle concepts and relations. It was observed that LCSH and DDC focus on the formalism of character strings (nomens) rather than on the modelling of semantics; their definition of what constitutes a concept is quite fuzzy, and they comprise a large number of complex concepts. By contrast, thesauri have a coherent definition of what constitutes a concept, and apply a systematic approach to the modelling of relations. Ontologies explicitly define diverse types of relations, and are by their nature machine-processable. The paper concludes that the potential of both the expressiveness and machine processability of each KOS is extensively regulated by its structural rules. It is harder to represent subject headings and classification schemes as semantic networks with nodes and arcs, while thesauri are more suitable for such a representation. In addition, a paradigm shift is revealed which focuses on the modelling of relations between concepts, rather than the concepts themselves.
Knowledge Graphs (KGs) represent real-world noisy raw information in a structured form, capturing relationships between entities. However, for dynamic real-world applications such as social networks, recommender systems, computational biology, relational knowledge representation has emerged as a challenging research problem where there is a need to represent the changing nodes, attributes, and edges over time. The evolution of search engine responses to user queries in the last few years is partly because of the role of KGs such as Google KG. KGs are significantly contributing to various AI applications from link prediction, entity relations prediction, node classification to recommendation and question answering systems. This article is an attempt to summarize the journey of KG for AI.
Question answering (QA) in natural language (NL) has been an important aspect of AI from its early days. Winograd's ``councilmen'' example in his 1972 paper and McCarthy's Mr. Hug example of 1976 highlights the role of external knowledge in NL understanding. While Machine Learning has been the go-to approach in NL processing as well as NL question answering (NLQA) for the last 30 years, recently there has been an increasingly emphasized thread on NLQA where external knowledge plays an important role. The challenges inspired by Winograd's councilmen example, and recent developments such as the Rebooting AI book, various NLQA datasets, research on knowledge acquisition in the NLQA context, and their use in various NLQA models have brought the issue of NLQA using ``reasoning'' with external knowledge to the forefront. In this paper, we present a survey of the recent work on them. We believe our survey will help establish a bridge between multiple fields of AI, especially between (a) the traditional fields of knowledge representation and reasoning and (b) the field of NL understanding and NLQA.
Large ontologies still pose serious challenges to state-of-the-art ontology alignment systems. In this paper we present an approach that combines a neural embedding model and logic-based modules to accurately divide an input ontology matching task into smaller and more tractable matching (sub)tasks. We have conducted a comprehensive evaluation using the datasets of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative. The results are encouraging and suggest that the proposed method is adequate in practice and can be integrated within the workflow of systems unable to cope with very large ontologies.
The notions of distance and similarity play a key role in many machine learning approaches, and artificial intelligence (AI) in general, since they can serve as an organizing principle by which individuals classify objects, form concepts and make generalizations. While distance functions for propositional representations have been thoroughly studied, work on distance functions for structured representations, such as graphs, frames or logical clauses, has been carried out in different communities and is much less understood. Specifically, a significant amount of work that requires the use of a distance or similarity function for structured representations of data usually employs ad-hoc functions for specific applications. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to provide an overview of this work to identify connections between the work carried out in different areas and point out directions for future work.