Formal versus Material Ontologies for Information Systems Interoperation in the Semantic Web - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 26
About This Presentation
Title:

Formal versus Material Ontologies for Information Systems Interoperation in the Semantic Web

Description:

Ordinary Object. Mental Object. Feature. Relevant Part. Place. Occurrence. State. Process ... Physical object/ qualities to inspection system ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:225
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 27
Provided by: nicol166
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Formal versus Material Ontologies for Information Systems Interoperation in the Semantic Web


1
Formal versus Material Ontologies for Information
Systems Interoperation in the Semantic Web
  • Work in progress
  • R. Colomb
  • School of ITEE, The University of Queensland
  • 20 August, 2002

2
Outline
  • Ontologies, upper ontologies,and semantic
    heterogeneity
  • Sample of upper ontology efforts
  • Semantic heterogeneity
  • The synthetic a priori of Kant
  • Application to the ontologies
  • So what?

3
Ontologies, upper ontologies,and semantic
heterogeneity
  • Application-specific - SIC, SNOMED
  • Upper ontologies application-independent
  • what we now refer to as philosophical ontology
    has sought the definitive and exhaustive
    classification of entities in all spheres of
    being including the types of relations by which
    entities are tied together
  • Heterogeneity - enemy target example

4
Sample of upper ontology efforts
  • Cyc
  • SUMO
  • OntoClean
  • GOL
  • Bunge-Wand-Weber (BWW)
  • WordNet

5
Cyc
  • Transaction - The collection of actions performed
    by two or more agents cooperating (willingly)
    under some agreement wherein each agent performs
    actions in exchange for the actions of the
    other(s). Note that a case of attack-and-counterat
    tack in warfare is not a Transaction nor is
    fortuitous cooperation without agreement (e.g.
    where a group of investors who, unknown to each
    other, all buy the same stock almost at once,
    thereby driving up its price). For transactions
    involving an exchange of user rights (to goods
    and/or money) between agents, see the
    specialization of ExchangeOfUserRights
  • Subtype of PurposefulAction, CooperativeEvent

6
SUMO
  • Transaction - The subclass of ChangeOfPossession
    where something is exchanged for something else.
    subclass of ChangeOfPossession
  • ChangeOfPossession - The Class of Processes where
    ownership of something is transferred from one
    Agent to another. subclass of SocialInteraction
  • SocialInteraction - The subclass of
    IntentionalProcess that involves interactions
    between CognitiveAgents. subclass of
    IntentionalProcess
  • IntentionalProcess- A Process that is
    deliberately set in motion by a CognitiveAgent.
    subclass of Process

7
OntoClean
  • Quality
  • Quality Region
  • Aggregate
  • Amount of matter
  • Arbitrary Collection
  • Object
  • Physical Object
  • Body
  • Ordinary Object
  • Mental Object
  • Feature
  • Relevant Part
  • Place
  • Occurrence
  • State
  • Process
  • Accomplishment

8
GOL
  • Entity
  • Set
  • Extension
  • Urelement
  • Individual
  • Chronoid (temporal duration)
  • Topoid (spatial region)
  • Substance
  • Moment
  • Quality
  • Relational Moment
  • Universal
  • Relational Universal

9
Bunge-Wand-Weber (BWW)
  • Thing
  • Property and Attribute
  • State of a Thing at a point in time, the
    attributes of a thing have values.
  • Event change of state in a thing.
  • History of a Thing a sequence of events in a
    thing.
  • Type/Class and Subtype/Subclass
  • Composite thing is composed of (made up of)
    things other than itself. Things in the
    composite are part-of the composite.

10
WordNet
  • Abstraction
  • Act (human)
  • Entity
  • Event
  • Group
  • Phenomenon
  • Possession
  • Psychological Feature
  • State

11
Semantic heterogeneity
  • Structural
  • Can be overcome with more or less elaborate views
  • vs Fundamental
  • The words mean something a little different in
    the two systems

12
Transaction examples
  • the interaction with Amazon.com resulting in the
    placing of an order and the supply of credit card
    details.
  • the subsequent packing and shipping of the order,
    its receipt by the purchaser in good condition,
    and the acceptance of the credit card charge by
    Visa.
  • the interaction with Medline resulting in the
    placing of a query and the return of a collection
    of abstracts
  • the borrowing and ultimate return of a book by
    the University of Queensland library from the
    University of Sydney library (interlibrary loan),
    on behalf of an academic (who must also borrow
    and return the book from the University of
    Queensland library).
  • the interaction between the 2002 Salt Lake City
    Winter Olympics results processing agent and the
    agents responsible for the maintenance of results
    on multiple web sites ultimately completing with
    the information that the medal results for ice
    hockey have been recorded on all sites.

13
Searles Institutional Facts
  • Brute fact X counts as institutional fact Y in
    context C
  • Eg Marriage, naming, buying
  • Result of speech act
  • Information systems concerned mostly with
    institutional facts
  • Institutional facts need background for
    interpretation

14
Background
  • Searle The literal meaning of any sentence can
    only determine its truth conditions or other
    conditions of satisfaction against a background
    of capacities, dispositions, know-how, etc.,
    which are not themselves a part of the semantic
    content of the sentence.
  • Eg our expectation of the behaviour of objects in
    our environment, and of how various kinds of
    situations are supposed to develop.

15
Institutional facts immanent
  • Nature of institutions means new institutional
    facts easily created
  • eg UQITEE-funded travel
  • Transcendent system (rules of chess) give global
    shape
  • Permit ontology of openings, end games, etc
  • Rule change part of game makes system immanent,
    lose ontology.

16
Institutional Facts Immanent
  • Only local warrant needed for creation of new
    institutional fact
  • Institutional facts are in complex contexts, but
    ultimately immanent
  • So no reason to expect an a priori ontology

17
Synthetic a priori
  • We can know a priori only how we represent
    knowledge, not what we can know

18
Synthetic a priori
  • Space is the form of all appearances of outer
    sense, i.e.. the subject condition of
    sensibility, under which alone outer intuition is
    possible for us
  • Includes identification of objects

19
Synthetic a priori
  • Time is the form of inner sense, i.e., of the
    intuition of our self and our inner state
  • the possibility of either simultaneity or
    succession in the perception of objects.

20
Synthetic a priori
  • Quantity unity, plurality, and totality
  • Also number
  • Quality reality, negation and limitation
  • Modality possibility impossibility, existence
    non-existence, necessity contingency
  • Relation inherence and subsistence, causality and
    dependence, and community (reciprocity between
    agent and patient)

21
Elements of formal ontology
  • From space identity
  • From time sequence
  • From quantity representation structures, the
    part/whole relationship, arithmetic
  • From quality negation, unity, identity of
    complex objects
  • From modality formal logic
  • From community entities and attributes,
    dependence, causality, mutual exclusion and
    complex objects

22
Formal vs material ontology
  • Formal
  • GOL
  • Ontoclean
  • BWW
  • Material
  • WordNet
  • Mixed
  • Cyc
  • SUMO

23
formal ontologies lt- knowledge representation
  • Programs algorithms data structures
  • KR systems follow the categories
  • Not so well as humans
  • Formal ontologies add richness
  • But are not qualitatively different
  • A tsunami is not a partial differential equation

24
So what?
  • Material ontologies fail due to semantic
    heterogeneity
  • Formal ontologies are neutral wrt content
  • More limited aim
  • Provide rich abstract data types
  • Do not resolve semantic heterogeneity

25
Final thought
  • Same entity can be represented differently for
    different purposes. Eg, aircraft might be
  • Part/whole to manufacturer (bill of materials)
  • Set/instance to airline (seats)
  • Process/accomplishments to production scheduling
  • Physical object/ qualities to inspection system
  • But one view might incorporate elements of all of
    these

26
Final thought
  • Formal ontologies not content
  • Formal concepts should not be at top of
    subsumption structures
  • A tsunami is not a partial differential equation
  • A bill of materials is not a part-whole system
  • But using schemas/ variable instantiation
  • Separate formal and material as facets
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com