1 / 15

Imposing Restrictions Over Temporal Properties in OWL: A Rule Based Approach

Imposing Restrictions Over Temporal Properties in OWL: A Rule Based Approach. Sotiris Batsakis Euripides G.M. Petrakis Technical university of crete Intelligent systems laboratory. Introduction. Temporal Properties are not binary Representation in OWL involves additional objects

nona
Download Presentation

Imposing Restrictions Over Temporal Properties in OWL: A Rule Based Approach

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. Imposing Restrictions Over Temporal Properties in OWL: A Rule Based Approach Sotiris Batsakis Euripides G.M. Petrakis Technical university of crete Intelligent systems laboratory

  2. Introduction • Temporal Properties are not binary • Representation in OWL involves additional objects • Cardinality restrictions over temporal properties cannot apply directly • A rule based approach is proposed • Two different interpretations of restrictions over temporal properties Technical University of Crete

  3. Motivation • OWL property semantics • Domains, Ranges, Subproperty, Equivalence, Symmetric, Assymetric, Functional, Inverse Functional, Reflexive, Irreflexive, Disjoint, Transitive • OWL property restrictions • All values from, Some Values From, Intersection , Union, Min Cardinallity, Max Cardinality, Exact Cardinality • Representation of temporal properties affects their semantics and restrictions Technical University of Crete

  4. Temporal Representation (N-ary) Professor Course teaches Course Professor Teaching Interval Technical University of Crete

  5. Temporal Representation (4D-fluents) Professor Course teaches Professor Course timesliceOf timesliceOf teaches Professor TimeSlice Course Timeslice Interval interval interval Technical University of Crete

  6. Property Restrictions & Semantics • Domains-Ranges are adjusted • Domain timesliceOf Professor • Range timesliceOf Course • Property Semantics Retained • Symmetric, Equivalent, Reflexive, Subproperty Course Professor Interval Professor Timeslice Course TimeSlice teaches Technical University of Crete

  7. Property Restrictions Problems • Cardinality Restrictions (min, max, exact) • Imposing cardinality on “new” property affects meaning (many timeslices, perhaps for overlapping intervals exist) • Imposing restriction on property chains is not supported because it leads to undecidability (Horrocks et.al. “Practical Reasoning for Expressive Description Logics” , 1999). Professor Course Interval Professor TimeSLice Course TimeSlice Technical University of Crete

  8. Imposing Cardinality Restrictions • SWRL DL safe rules are applied • Decidability is retained, supported by reasoners (e.g. Pellet) • Rules apply only on named individuals (ABox) and not class descriptions (TBox) into the ontology • Open world assumption is adopted, thus min cardinality restrictions cannot be directly applied. • Restrictions have two different interpretations • On the entire existence of the object • On every specific temporal interval Technical University of Crete

  9. First Interpretation-entire existence • A professor can’t teach more than n different courses in his career: Professor(x) ⋀ (timesliceOf(x1, x) ⋀ … ⋀timesliceOf(xn+1,x) ⋀ teaches(x1, y1) ⋀ teaches(xn+1, yn+1) ⋀ timesliceOf(y1 ,z1)… ⋀timesliceOf(yn+1, zn+1) ⋀ Alldifferent(z1, z2,…, zn+1) ⋀ Course(z1)… error(x, z1) • Rule directly detects inconsistencies for max cardinality • For min cardinality a similar rule asserts which individuals are related with more than n objects, and a SPARQL query detects individuals without the assertion. Technical University of Crete

  10. Second Interpretation-every interval • A professor can’t teach more than n different courses simultaneously : Professor(x) ⋀ (timesliceOf(x1, x) ⋀ … ⋀timesliceOf(xn+1,x) ⋀ teaches(x1, y1) ⋀ teaches(xn+1, yn+1) ⋀ timesliceOf(y1 ,z1)… ⋀hasinterval(x1,w1)… ⋀ hasinterval(xn+1,wn+1) ⋀ timesliceOf(yn+1, zn+1) ⋀ Alldifferent(z1, z2,…, zn+1) ⋀pairwiseoverlapping(w1, …wn+1) ⋀ Course(z1)… error(x, z1) • Rule directly detects inconsistencies for max cardinality • Detecting overlapping intervals is achieved using temporal reasoning rules (S. Batsakis and E.G.M. Petrakis. “SOWL: A Framework for Handling Spatio-Temporal Information in OWL 2.0”, RuleML 2011) Technical University of Crete

  11. Temporal Reasoning • Implemented in SWRL • Applies on interval Allen’s relations (e.g., before, after, overlaps) • Based on Path Consistency • Intersects and composes existing relations until no rules apply or inconsistency is detected • Example Composition • During(x,y) ⋀ Meets(y,z) Before(x,z) • Example Intersection • (Before(x,y) OR Meets(x,y)) ⋀ Meets(x,y)Meets(x,y) • Tractable Sound and Complete for specific sets of temporal relations Technical University of Crete

  12. Additional Property Semantics • Functional and Inverse functional are handled as at most one cardinality restrictions • Asymmetric: This is handled as a cardinality restriction, where the same property cannot hold for interchanged subjects and objects for timeslices with overlapping intervals. • Irreflexive: This is handled as a cardinality restriction; two timeslices of an object cannot be related with the property. • Transitive: Fluent properties are declared transitive since related timeslices must have equal intervals (by the definition of the 4D-fluent model) and for these intervals transitivity is applied. Technical University of Crete

  13. Contributions and limitations • Contributions • Offer support for property restrictions and semantics over temporal representations in OWL • Rule based approach that retains decidability • Compliance with existing standards and tools (OWL, SWRL, Pellet) • Limitations • Applies only on named individuals • Exponential to the number of the cardinality restriction at hand (e.g. at most n rule is exponential to n) Technical University of Crete

  14. Future Work • Detecting the maximal decidable description logic that supports temporal cardinality restrictions • Optimize SWRL implementations of OWL reasoners • Optimize the rules Technical University of Crete

  15. Thank You Questions?

More Related