Advanced Knowledge Modeling
This document explores sophisticated knowledge modeling techniques to enhance domain knowledge sharing and reuse. It addresses the need for multiple sub-type hierarchies and introduces flexible task methods and viewpoints to represent complex concepts, such as infections in medicine. By utilizing methodologies akin to UML dimensions, it advocates for the development of ontologies that enable representational promiscuity across various applications. The work also examines constraints in rule representation, emphasizing the importance of clarity in knowledge sharing across distributed systems.
Advanced Knowledge Modeling
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Advanced Knowledge Modeling Additional domain constructs Domain-knowledge sharing and reuse Catalog of inferences Flexible use of task methods
Viewpoints • need for multiple sub-type hierarchies • sub-type-of = "natural" sub-type dimension • typically complete and total • other sub-type dimensions: viewpoint • represent additional ways of "viewing" a certain concept • similar to UML "dimension" • helps to introduce new vocabulary through multiple specialization ("inheritance")
Viewpoint specification concept infection; super-type-of: meningitis, pneumonia; viewpoints: time-factor: acute-infection, chronic-infection; causal-agent: viral-infection, bacterial-infection; end concept infection; concept acute-viral-meningitis; sub-type-of: meningitis, acute-infection, viral-infection; end concept acute-viral-meningitis;
Expressions and Formulae • need for expressing mathematical models or logical formulae • imported language for this purpose • Neutral Model Format (NMF) • used in technical domains • see appendix
Rule instance format • See appendix for semi-formal language • Guideline: use what you are comfortable with • May use (semi-)operational format, but for conceptual purposes! • Implicit assumption: universal quantification • person.income < 10.000 suggests loan.amount < 1.000 • “for all instances of person with an income less than 10.00 the amount of the loan should not exceed 1.000
Inquisitive versus formal rule representation Intuitive rule representation residence-application.applicant.household-type = single-person residence-application.applicant.age-category = up-to-22 residence-application.applicant.income < 28000 residence-application.residence.rent < 545 INDICATES rent-fits-income.truth-value = true; Formal rule representation FORALL x:residence-application x.applicant.household-type = single-person x.applicant.age-category = up-to-22 x.applicant.income < 28000 x,residence.rent < 545 INDICATES rent-fits-income.truth-value = true;
Using variables in rules to eliminate ambiguities /* ambiguous rule */ employee.smoker = true AND employee.smoker = false IMPLIES-CONFLICT smoker-and-non-smoker.truth-value =true; /* use of variables to remove the ambiguity */ VAR x, y: employee; x.smoker = true AND y.smoker = false IMPLIES-CONFLICT smoker-and-non-smoker.truth-value =true;
Constraint rules • Rules about restrictions on a single concept • No antecedent or consequent
Knowledge sharing and reuse: why? • KE is costly and time-consuming • general reuse rationale: quality, etc • Distributed systems • knowledge base partitioned over different locations • Common vocabulary definition • Internet search, document indexing, …. • Cf. thesauri, natural language processing • Central notion: “ontology”
The notion of ontology • Ontology = explicit specification of a shared conceptualization that holds in a particular context” (several authors) • Captures a viewpoint an a domain: • Taxonomies of species • Physical, functional, & behavioral system descriptions • Task perspective: instruction, planning
Ontology should allow for “representational promiscuity” ontology parameter constraint -expression mapping rules viewpoint knowledge base B knowledge base A parameter(cab.weight) parameter(safety.weight) cab.weight + safety.weight parameter(car.weight) rewritten as = car.weight: constraint-expression( cab.weight + safety.weight cab.weight < 500: = car.weight) constraint-expression( cab.weight < 500)
Ontology types • Domain-oriented • Domain-specific • Medicine => cardiology => rhythm disorders • traffic light control system • Domain generalizations • components, organs, documents • Task-oriented • Task-specific • configuration design, instruction, planning • Task generalizations • problems solving, e.g. UPML • Generic ontologies • “Top-level categories” • Units and dimensions
Using ontologies • Ontologies needed for an application are typically a mix of several ontology types • Technical manuals • Device terminology: traffic light system • Document structure and syntax • Instructional categories • E-commerce • Raises need for • Modularization • Integration • Import/export • Mapping
Domain standards and vocabularies as ontologies • Example: Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) • Contain ontological information • AAT: structure of the hierarchy • Ontology needs to be “extracted” • Not explicit • Can be made available as an ontology • With help of some mapping formalism • Lists of domain terms are sometimes also called “ontologies” • Implies a weaker notion of ontology • Scope typically much broader than a specific application domain • Example: domain glossaries, WordNet • Contain some meta information: hyponyms, synonyms, text
Ontology specification • Many different languages • KIF • Ontolingua • Express • LOOM • UML • ...... • Common basis • Class (concept) • Subclass with inheritance • Relation (slot)
Additional expressivity (1 of 2) • Multiple subclasses • Aggregation • Built-in part-whole representation • Relation-attribute distinction • “Attribute” is a relation/slot that points to a data type • Treating relations as classes • Sub relations • Reified relations (e.g., UML “association class”) • Constraint language • First-order logic • Second-order statements
Additional expressivity (2 of 2) • Class/subclass semantics • Primitive vs. defined classes • Complete/partial, disjoint/overlapping subclasses • Set of basic data types • Modularity • Import/export of an ontology • Ontology mapping • Renaming ontological elements • Transforming ontological elements • Sloppy class/instance distinction • Class-level attributes/relations • Meta classes
Priority list for expressivity • Depends on goal: • Deductive capability: “limit to first-order logic” • Maximal content: “as much as (pragmatically) possible” • My priority list (from a “maximal-content” representative) • Multiple subclasses • Reified relations • Import/export mechanism • Sloppy class/instance distinction • (Second-order) constraint language • Aggregation
Art & Architecture Thesaurus Used for indexing stolen art objects in European police databases
The AAT ontology description object universe instance of 1+ 1+ description dimension class of object type object class in dimension 1+ value set 1+ 1+ has descriptor descriptor descriptor value set descriptor 1+ value has feature value class constraint
Top-level categories:many different proposals Chandrasekaran et al. (1999)
Catalog of inferences • Inferences are key elements of knowledge models • building blocks • No theory of inference types • see literature • CommonKADS: catalog of inferences used in practice • guideline: maintain your own catalog
Catalog structure • Inference name • Operation • input/output features • Example usage • Static knowledge • features of domain knowledge required • Typical task types • in what kind of tasks can one expect this inference
Catalog structure (continued) • Used in template • reference to template in the CK book • Control behavior • does it always produce a solution? • can it produce multiple solutions? • Computation methods • typical algorithms for realizing the inference • Remarks
Inference “abstract” • Operation: input =data set, output= new given • Example: medical diagnosis: temperature > 38 degrees is abstracted to “fever” • Static knowledge: abstraction rules, sub-type hierarchy • Typical tasktypes: mainly analytic tasks • Operational behavior: may succeed more than once. • Computational methods: Forward reasoning, generalization • Remarks:. Make sure to add any abstraction found to the data set to allow for chained abstraction.
Inference “cover” • Operation: given some effect, derive a system state that could have caused it • Example: cover complaints about a car to derive potential faults. • Static knowledge: uses some sort of behavioral model of the system being diagnosed. A causal network is most common. e. • Typical task types: specific for diagnosis. • Control behavior: produces multiple solutions for same input. • Computational methods: abductive methods, ranging from simple to complex, depending on nature of diagnostic method • Remarks: cover is an example of a task-specific inference. Its use is much more restricted than, for example, the select inference.
Multiple methods for a task • Not always possible to fix the choice of a method for a task • e.g. choice depends on availability of certain data • Therefore: need to model dynamic method selection • Work-around in CommonKADS • introduce method-selection task
Strategic knowledge • Knowledge about how to combine tasks to reach a goal • e.g. diagnosis + planning • If complex: model as separate reasoning process! • meta-level planning task