1 / 33

Ontology Evolution Under Semantic Constraints

Ontology Evolution Under Semantic Constraints. Bernardo Cuenca Grau , Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz Computer Science Department, University of Oxford Evgeny Kharlamov, Dmitriy Zheleznyakov KRDB research centre , Free University of Bozen -Bolzano KR 2012, Rome. Ontologies: schema + data.

melody
Download Presentation

Ontology Evolution Under Semantic Constraints

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. Ontology EvolutionUnder Semantic Constraints Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ernesto Jiménez-RuizComputer Science Department, University of Oxford Evgeny Kharlamov, DmitriyZheleznyakovKRDB research centre, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano KR 2012, Rome

  2. Ontologies: schema + data • Schema provide • standard vocabularies for data • classes (concepts) • properties (roles) • a way to structure data • means for machines to be able to understand data • Data is a collections of facts • Instantiations of classes • Instantiations of properties

  3. Domain Ontologies • Goal: to provide standard vocabularies to communities • Clinical sciencesontologies: • SNOMED CT: Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms • > 311k concepts • NCIt: National CancerInstitute thesaurus • ~ 89k concepts, 200m cross links between them [NCI] • FMA: Foundational Model of Anatomy • 75k classes, 168k relations, 120k terms, 3.1m relat. inst.

  4. Evolution of Domain Ontologies • Evolution of SNOMED: • 5 geographically distributed teams making modifications • every 2 weeks the main team integrates changes, resolves conflicts • from 2002 to 2008 SNOMED went from 278k to 311k concepts [SM-1] • Evolution of NCIt: • 20 full time editors for NCI • Developers of NCI do over 900 monthly changes [HKR’08] • Evolution of FMA: • FMA “is an evolving computer-based knowledge source ...” [FMA]

  5. Evolution of Domain Ontologies • At the high level ontologies are changed by • addition of information • usually referred as revision or update • deletion of information • usually referred as contraction • Evolution may affect both • schema level • data level • A natural requirement: principle of minimal change; changes should minimally affect ontology • structure • semantics

  6. Languages for Domain Ontologies • Evolution of ontologies is a classical problem in KR • intensively studied for propositional logic • there are different semantics for evolution • many complexity results • very few results beyond “propositional paradise” • Ontology Web Language: OWL 2 – W3C standard • OWL 2 (based on SROIQ) • OWL 2 QL (based on DL-Lite) • OWL 2 EL (based on EL, EL++) • e.g. SNOMED these are not propositional

  7. Basic DLs EL & FL0

  8. Outline • Existing approaches to evolution • Syntactic approach • Deductive approach • Our approach: evolution under constraints • Conclusion & directions

  9. SA: Evolution Process • add/delete • minimal change(syntactic) processing • ontologyin L • evolvedontologyin L • operator • newinfo either axioms to add or axioms to delete E.g., contraction operator: takes a maximal subset (w.r.t. set inclusion) of the original ontology which does not entail axioms to be deleted

  10. Syntactic Approach to Evolution • In the ontology: • “Oenophiles are gourmets” • “Oenophiles are not koalas” • To delete: “Oenophiles are gourmets” • To this end it is enough to delete [HS’05] [KPSCG’06] [JRGHB’11] and • In the resulted ontology: • “Oenophiles are not gourmets” • “Oenophiles are not koalas” is lost OK Not desirable

  11. Outline • Existing approaches to evolution • Syntactic approach • Deductive approach • Our approach: evolution under constraints • Conclusion & directions

  12. DA: Evolution Process • add/delete • minimal change represent expand processing processing • evolvedclosurein L • ontologyin L • closurein L • evolvedontologyin L • operator • newinfo either axioms to add or axioms to delete E.g., contraction operator: takes a maximal subset (w.r.t. set inclusion)of the ontology deductive closure which does not entail axioms to be deleted

  13. What Is Known? • DA have been studied for propositional logic • WIDTIO • Cross-product • … • What about ontologies? • Practical extensions of SA to preserve certain inference • [JRGHB’11] implemented in ContentCVS • “Manchester” grammar [GPS’12]: extension of [JRGHB’11]with combination of sub-concepts of the ontology axiom  A ⊑ B | A ⊑ ¬ B | A ⊑ ∃ R.B | A ⊑ ∀ R.B

  14. Syntactic Approach to Evolution • In the resulted ontology: • “Oenophiles are not gourmets” • “Oenophiles are not koalas” is lost • ContentCVS & “Manchester” grammar allow to restore the missing disjointness OK Not desirable

  15. Outline • Existing approaches to evolution • Syntactic approach • Deductive approach • Our approach: evolution under constraints • Conclusion & directions

  16. Our Proposal in a Nutshell • Generalization of SA and DA under a common framework • Our view of principle of minimal change • maximize preservation of ontology structure • maximize preservation of ontology entailments • Preservation language (LP) tells us which class of entailments should be maximized • ContentCVS & “Manchester grammar” are instantiations for particular “finite” LP

  17. Syntactic-Deductive Approach SA DA

  18. Evolution Process • add/delete • minimal change represent expand processing • sub-ontologyin L • sub-ontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • evolvedclosurein L • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • ontologyin L • closurein L • evolvedontologyin L • evolvedontologyin LO • operator • newinfo either axioms to add or axioms to delete

  19. Evolution under Semantic Constraints processing • sub-ontologyin LO • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • operator • evolvedontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • semanticconstraints • (C+,C-) • C+: axioms that should be present in the result • C−: axioms that should be absent in the result • General evolution encompasses both • contraction via C− • revision via C+

  20. Example: Contraction processing • sub-ontologyin LI • Task: delete an axiom A1 ⊑ A2 from an LI-ontology K • LO-ontology K’is a contraction of an LI-ontology Kw.r.t. A1 ⊑ A2 if: • K’⊭ A1 ⊑ A2 • K⊨ K’ • Contraction may not be optimal • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • operator • evolvedontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • semanticconstraints • (∅,C-) LI: input lang. LO: output lang. LP: preservation lang.

  21. Example: Contraction processing • sub-ontologyin LI • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • operator • evolvedontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • semanticconstraints • (∅,C-) • newdta LI: input lang. LO: output lang. LP: preservation lang. • Task: delete an axiom A1 ⊑ A2 from and LI-ontology K • AcontractionK’ of K isoptimalw.r.t. LP if it maximally preserves: • structure of KK’ ∩ K⊄ K’’∩ Kfor every contr. K’’ • LP-entailments of Knot true: if K’⊨α then K’’⊨α for every contr. K’’

  22. Example: Contraction Delete: Gourmet ⊑ French Contraction Optimal ✔ ✘ ✔ Contraction Optimal ✔

  23. Evolution with Finite LP processing • sub-ontologyin LO • Ontology language Lover a finite signatureΣisfinite if there are finitely many non-equivalent L-formulas over Σ • Examples of LP: • ContentCVS &”Manchester” grammars finite • OWL 2 QL (DL-Lite) finite • OWL 2 EL (EL, EL++, FL0) infinite • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • operator • evolvedontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • semanticconstraints • (C+,C–)

  24. Evolution with Finite LP processing • sub-ontologyin LO • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • operator • evolvedontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • semanticconstraints • (C+,C–) always exists finite LP Theorem: If the preservation language LP is finite, then • an optimal evolution always exists (provided an evolution exists) • both O and LP-closure of O are finite  we can simply write the result

  25. Evolution with Infinite LP processing • sub-ontologyin LO • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • operator • evolvedontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • semanticconstraints • (C+,C–) finite representationmay not exist infinite LP • What if LP is infinite? • We have a problem! • Optimal evolution may not exist!

  26. Evolution with Infinite LP processing • sub-ontologyin LO • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • operator • evolvedontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • semanticconstraints • (C+,C–) FL0 EL FL0 EL EL FL0 Theorem: • If FL0 setting optimal evolution does not exist in general • If EL setting optimal evolution does not exist in general • complex interaction of cycles and recursions

  27. Infinite LP: Exponential Case processing • sub-ontologyin LO • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • operator • evolvedontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • semanticconstraints • (∅,C-) acyclic EL acyclic EL chain EL cyclic • ChainEL consists of inclusion assertions • A1⊑ ∃R1…Rn.A2or • ∃R1…Rn.A1 ⊑ A2 • It is a simple infinite language to study expressibility • An acyclic ontology has acyclic canonical model • SNOMED and NCItare acyclic • opt. contraction always exists • EXP time computation

  28. Infinite LP: Polynomial Case processing • sub-ontologyin LO • ontologyin LI • closurein LP • operator • evolvedontologyin LO • evolvedclosurein LP • semanticconstraints • (∅,C-) non-rec EL non-rec EL chain EL non-recursive • An ontology is non-recursiveif concepts of the form ∃R.C donot appear at the left-hand side of axioms • Simplest non-recursive EL sub-language • opt. contraction always exists • PTimecomputation

  29. Summary ruled out by LP

  30. Outline • Existing approaches to evolution • Syntactic approach • Deductive approach • Our approach: evolution under constraints • Conclusion & directions

  31. Conclusion & Directions • We introduced SDA: • a novel framework for ontology evolution • SDA generalizes: • syntactic approaches and • deductive approaches • it provides flexible means to navigate between SA and DA We studied 4 settings for SDA: • Directions: • extend the current results to richer LP: chain EL  ? • evolution beyond EL

  32. Thank you!

  33. References • [HKR’08] Hartung, M.; Kirsten, T.; and Rahm, E. 2008. Analyzing the evolution of life science ontologies and mappings. In Proc. of DILS, 11–27. • [SM-1] http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/snomed-ct0/adoption-of-snomed-ct/ • [FMA] http://sig.biostr.washington.edu/projects/fm/AboutFM.html • [NCI] https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/EVS/NCI+Thesaurus+versus+NCI+Metathesaurus • [HS’05]Haase, P., Stojanovic, L.: Consistent evolution of OWL ontologies. In: ESWC. (2005) • [KPSCG’06] Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Grau, B.C.: Repairingunsatisfiableconcepts in OWL ontologies. In: ESWC. (2006) 170–184 • [JRCGHB’11] Jimenez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Berlanga, R.: Supporting concurrent ontology development: Framework, algorithms and tool. DKE. 70:1 (2011) • [GPS’12]: Rafael S. Gonçalves, BijanParsia, Ulrike Sattler. 2012. Concept-based semantic difference in expressive description logics. In Proc. of DL

More Related