A Network of Semantically Structured Wikipedia to Bind Information

1
A Network of Semantically Structured Wikipedia to
Bind Information

• Dr Philippe Martin1,   Dr Michel Eboueya2,   Dr
  Michael Blumenstein1   and   A.Prof. Peter Deer1
• 1 Griffith University,   2 La Rochelle
  Universitye-mail pm at phmartin dot info

2
Plan

• Need for a semantic network

• Centralization and Distribution

• Semantically structured Wikipedia/courses/newsgr
  oups would be better

• Readable, Concise, Expressive and Normalising
  Notations

• Valuating contributions and contributors

• Ontologies

• Conclusion

3
Need for a semantic network
To support an efficient, precise, structured and
complete Information Retrieval,information has
to be organized into a semantic network a set of
relations between quantified conceptual
categories, that is, a set of statements (a set
of knowledge representations).
4
Need for a semantic network
Examples of information needs (during learning,
research, ...)

• What are the characteristics of the various
  theories and implemented parsers related to
  Functional Dependency Grammar and how do these
  theories and parsers respectively compare to
  each other?

• What are all the tasks that should be done in
  software engineering according to the
  various existing "traditional system development
  life cycle" models?

• What are the arguments and objections for the
  use of an XML-based format for the exchange
  of knowledge representations?

• What are the cheapest document editors having
  an English spell-checking feature and
  working on Mac OS/X?

Requirement a readable conceptual hierarchy or
semantic network must be shown and it should
support a direct navigation to precise
information (as in a decision tree). Informal
hierarchies (e.g., the topic hierarchies of
E-Bay/Yahoo/DMOZ) are insufficient. Example.
5
Centralization and Distribution
Semantic relations cannot (yet) be automatically
extracted from informal documents.
Setting semantic relations across documents
(formal or not) lead to very poor
semantic networks little guidance and checking
can be offered.
Ideal condition for a scalable semantic
organization a unique way and place to
add a precise category or statement (or
a set of equivalent ways and places)
Requirement 1 one well connected ontologygt a
cooperatively updated knowledge base (KB) with
editing protocols or a network of such KBs
linked by cross-references and replication
mechanisms gt it does not matter where
queries/updates are made first  gt in a
peer-to-peer network special replication
mechanisms   on the Web
piggy-backing. Principle any KB
contains all the knowledge related to its
"objects of interest". Thus,
centralisation and distribution can be combined.
6
Centralization and Distribution
A (consistent) KB can support people different
terminologies and different beliefs. Principles-
each category identifier is prefixed by the
identifier of its creator- each statement must
have a recorded source/creator (and source
interpreter)- redundancies and inconsistencies
must be removed using relations expressing a
correction and/or a specialization/generalization
, as in any bird is agent of a flight (John)
has for corrective_specialization most healthy
French birds are able to be agent of a flight
(Joe).
Requirement 2 a well organised initial lexical
ontology and domain ontology.
Requirement 3 the following of ontology design
principles, for example- never use
verb/adjective categories unless defined with
respect to noun categories- whenever possible,
use singular nouns- whenever possible, use
"subtype" relations instead of "instance"
relations- whenever possible, use basic
relations (especially transitive ones such as
"subtask")Relations such as "propose",
"proposed_by" and "has_definition" are typical of
small and un-scalable schemas.
7
Semantically structured Wikipedia/courses/newsgrou
ps
Some problems related to the lack of structure-
difficulty to understand how objects are related
and find related objects- necessity to make
choices about information ordering and levels of
detail- no update protocols, no valuation/voting
mechanisms, no semantic query/navigation/filteri
ng
Nowadays, Wikipedia, courses, learning objects
and domain repositories are not semantically
structured- Wikipedia has a minimal structure
it only permits to avoid many redundancies-
semantic wikis (e.g., Semantic MediaWiki) and
Wikipedia's extensions (person DTD, space-time
DTD, Metalingo) are insufficient- current
Learning Objects are informal packages of
relations, nor relations
The more structured/formal the information, the
better IR and KM can be.  However,- the more
precise the authors must be   (but shouldn't
they?)- the more time-consuming knowledge
entering is   (but no repetition/linearization)-
people are not trained to see and use semantic
relations and (semi-)formal notations
8
Semantically structured Wikipedia/courses/newsgrou
ps
Conclusion- more structure is worthwhile-
there is no alternative- the way forward
cooperatively-built repositories with a semantic
network structure where relations must be
formal but where nodes can be as small/large and
formal/informal as the users wish   (precise
metadata on documents can be re-used for
modelling relations).
Classic mistakes- allowing relation names to be
any linguistic expression (gt no ontological
principle),- restricting the expressivity of the
notations accepted by a "general" system- not
allowing users to add and use new
concept/relation types (predefined ontology)-
not allowing the insertion of formal statements
within informal nodes/documents
9
Readable, Expressive and Normalising Notations

• Readable, expressive and normalising textual
  notations are necessary for visualising,
• browsing and editing realistic amount of
  knowledge.
• Graphic interfaces are a good complement but
  visualising a small amount of knowledge.
• Most formal notations (KIF, RDF, ...) are not
  readable, expressive and normalising.
• Examples without information on the creators of
  categories and statements

En Any human_body is a body and has at most 2
arms, 2 legs and 1 head. Any arm, leg and
head belongs to at most 1 human body.
Male_body and female_body are exclusive subtypes
of human_body and so are juvenile_body and
adult_body. FE Any human_body is a body and has
for part ANDat most 2 arms, 1 head. Any
ORarm, head is part of at most 1 human body.
Human_body has for subtype
ANDmale_body, female_body, juvenile_body,
adult_body. Male_body has for exclusion
female_body. Juvenile_body has for exclusion
adult_body. FL human_body supertype body,
part arm 0..1,0..2 head 1,1,
subtype male_body female_bodyjuveni
le_body adult_body
10
Readable, Expressive and Normalising Notations

• Translation in KIF

(forall ((?b human_body)) (body ?b))(forall
((?b human_body)) (atMostN 2 '?a arm (part ?b
'?a)))(forall ((?a arm)) (atMostN 1 '?b
human_body (part '?b ?a)))(forall ((?b
human_body)) (atMostN 2 '?a leg (part ?b
'?a)))(forall ((?a head)) (atMostN 1 '?b
human_body (part '?b ?a)))(forall ((?b
male_body)) (and (human_body) (not
(female_body ?b))))(forall ((?b female_body))
(and (human_body) (not (male_body ?b))))(forall
((?b male_body)) (and (human_body) (not
(female_body ?b))))(forall ((?b
juvenile_body))(and (human_body) (not (adult_body
?b)))) (forall ((?b adult_body)) (and
(human_body) (not (juvenile_body
?b)))) (defrelation atMostN (?num ?var ?type
?predicate) (exists ((?s set)(?n)) (and
(size ?s ?n) (lt ?n ?num) (truth (forall
(,?var) (gt (member ,?var ,?s)
(and (,?type ,?var)
,?predicate)))))))
11
Readable, Expressive and Normalising Notations
Translation in RDFOWL
ltrdfProperty rdfID"armPart"gtltrdfssubPropertyOf
rdfresource"Part"/gt
ltowlinverseOf rdfID"armPartOf"/gt
ltrdfsrange rdfresource"Arm"/gtlt/rdfPr
opertygt ltowlClass rdfabout"HumanBody"gtltrdfssub
ClassOf rdfresource"Body"/gt
ltrdfssubClassOfgt ltowlRestrictiongtltowlonPro
perty rdfresource"armPart"/gt
ltowlmaxCardinality rdfdatatype"xsdnonNegative
Integer"gt2 lt/owlmaxCardinalitygtlt/owl
Restrictiongt lt/rdfssubClassOfgtlt/owlClassgt
ltowlClass rdfabout"Arm"gt ltrdfssubClassOfgt
ltowlRestrictiongtltowlonProperty
rdfresource"armPartOf"/gt
ltowlmaxCardinality rdfdatatype"xsdnonNegative
Integer"gt1 lt/owlmaxCardinality
gtlt/owlRestrictiongt lt/rdfssubClassOfgtlt/owlClas
sgt ltrdfProperty rdfID"armPart"gtltrdfssubPropert
yOf rdfresource"Part"/gt
ltowlinverseOf rdfID"armPartOf"/gt
ltrdfsrange rdfresource"Arm"/gtlt/rdfPr
opertygt
12
Readable, Expressive and Normalising Notations
ltowlClass rdfabout"HumanBody"gt
ltrdfssubClassOf rdfresource"Body"/gt
ltrdfssubClassOfgt ltowlRestrictiongtltowlonPro
perty rdfresource"armPart"/gt
ltowlmaxCardinality rdfdatatype"xsdnonNegative
Integer"gt2
lt/owlmaxCardinalitygtlt/owlRestrictiongt
lt/rdfssubClassOfgtlt/owlClassgt ltowlClass
rdfabout"MaleBody"gt ltrdfssubClassOf
rdfresource"Body"/gt ltowldisjointWith
rdfresource"FemaleBody"/gtlt/owlClassgt
ltowlClass rdfabout"FemaleBody"gtltrdfssubClassO
f rdfresource"Body"/gt ltowldisjointWith
rdfresource"MaleBody"/gtlt/owlClassgt ltowlClass
rdfabout"JuvenileBody"gt ltrdfssubClassOf
rdfresource"Body"/gt ltowldisjointWith
rdfresource"AdultBody"/gtlt/owlClassgt
ltowlClass rdfabout"AdultBody"gtltrdfssubClassOf
rdfresource"Body"/gt ltowldisjointWith
rdfresource"JuvenileBody"/gtlt/owlClassgt
13
Readable, Expressive and Normalising Notations
With information on creators
En According to Joe (who has for user id
"joe"), a body (as understood in WordNet
1.7) may have for part (as defined by "pm")
a leg (as understood by "fg") and exactly 1
head (as understood by "oc"). FE A wnbody has
for pmpart at least 1 fgleg and for
pmpart 1 ochead (joe). FL wnbody pmpart
fgleg (joe) ochead 1(joe) FCG wnbody,
pmpart at least 1 fgleg,
pmpart 1 ochead(joe) KIF (believer '(forall
((?b wnbody)) (atLeastN 1 '?l fgleg
(pmpart '?b ?l))) joe) (believer '(forall
((?b wnbody)) (exists1 '?h ochead
(pmpart '?b ?h))) joe)
14
Readable, Expressive and Normalising Notations
FL can also be used for structured discussions.
"XML is useless for knowledge representation,
exchange or storage" argument ("using XML
tools for KBSs is a useless additional task"
argument "KBSs do not use XML
internally" (pm, objection "XML
can be used for knowledge exchange
or storage" (joe,
objection "it is as easy to use other formats
for knowledge
exchange or storage" (pm),
objection "a KBS (also) has to use other
formats for
knowledge exchange or storage" (pm)))
)(pm)
15
Readable, Expressive and Normalising Notations
"XML can be used for knowledge exchange or
storage" argument - "an XML notation permits
classic XML tools (parsers, XSLT,
...) to be re-used" (pm) - "classic
XML tools are usable even if a
graph-based model is used" (pm), argument of
("a KRL should (also) have an XML notation",
specialization "the Semantic Web
KRL should
have an XML notation" (pm),
specialization of "a KRL can have an
XML notation" (pm)
)(pm)
16
Valuating contributions and contributors
For each statement and user of a repository, it
is possible to come up with a value
forits/his/her "usefulness" (a value
representing its interest, popularity,
originality, etc.) based on- the existence (or
not) of arguments/objections/corrections for each
statement,- who authored which statements and
argued for/against which statements, and- who
voted on which statements and how.
This value can be used for highlighting or
filtering out some statements, and for valuating
research outputs more accurately than by counting
the number of publications.Such a measure should
often be user-defined the article for a
base/default algorithm.
Advantages- enhancing information retrieval and
the evaluation of researchers, teachers and
students- removing the reliance on committees or
other users to judge what is of interest or not-
encouraging authors to be precise and original-
training and evaluating critical thinking.
17
Ontologies

• The default ontology proposed by WebKB-2
  (known as the M.S.O. by the IEEE SUO any Web
  user can extend via WebKB-2) is a
  transformation of WordNet 1.7 into a genuine
  lexical ontology and an integration of
  integration of various top-level ontologies, e.g.
  from Sowa, Dolce, the SUMO, the Lifecycle
  Integration Schema, the Natural Semantic
  Metalanguage, OWL, DAMLOIL, KIF and the Dublin
  Core.

• Representation of 3 courses (Introduction to
  Multimedia, Systems Analysis Design and
  Workflow Management) and beginning of the
  representation of Knowledge Management Resources
  (data structures, processes, techniques, tools,
  ...), first focusing on CG-related resources
  (e.g., classification of 7 CG tools according
  to 160 features).

18
Conclusion
Minimal requirements elements for efficient
knowledge sharing and retrieval- readable,
concise, expressive and normalising notations-
large multi-source ontology, edition protocols,
knowledge/creator valuation- various mechanisms
for querying/comparing knowledge - various
mechanisms for generating querying/entering forms
Not sufficient but one complement to other works
in knowledge sharing and retrieval,learning
constructivist approaches, learning objects,
learning grids and semantic grids.
Researchers, teachers and students are ideal
users for this precision-oriented approach.
19
Annex 1 Querying
Category querying WebKB permits to find
categories (types or instances) according to
their names, creators, relations connected to
them, and permits to display all the objects
(categories and statements) directly or
indirectly connected to them on a single screen.
Most other tools impose much more browsing to
access information and hence make itdifficult to
retrieve and compare information in any realistic
amount of knowledge.
Category comparison WebKB permits to find which
relations exist between two given categories
(this feature is sometimes useful but not very
common).
Statement querying FCG (instead of FL) can be
used to express and retrieve statements that are
more complex than relations between categories.
Various search operators are provided "spec",
"gen", "?" (a combination of "spec" and "gen"),
etc. ? a person, agent of a sell Ned, agent
of (a sell, object a car)(pm, 21/2/2001) 3
cars, object of (2 sells, agent Ned,
time21/1/2001)(pm,12/7/2005) John, believer
of not Ned, agent of a sell(jj,3/12/2004)
20
Annex 2 Comparing statements in a scalable way

• compare pmWebKB-2 kmOntolingua on
• (support of a isIR_task, output_language
  a kmKR_notation,
• part a isuser_interface), maxdepth 5
• 
  WebKB-2 Ontolingua
• support of
• isIR_task
  
• islexical_search
  
• isregular_expression_based_search
  .
• kmknowledge_retrieval_task
  .
• kmgeneralization_structural_retrieval
  .
• output_language
• kmKR_notation
  
• (expressivity kmFOL)
  
• kmFCG
  .
• kmKIF .
  
• kmXML-based notation
  .
• kmRDF
  -