1 / 15

Using Rules with Ontologies in the Semantic Web

Using Rules with Ontologies in the Semantic Web. Chimezie Ogbuji Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Cleveland Clinic Foundation. July 25 th , 2006 Presented to W3C HCLSIG ACPP Group. Rule Languages. RuleML SWRL Notation 3 (N3). Semantic Web Reasoners. Closed World Machine (CWM) Euler

snow
Télécharger la présentation

Using Rules with Ontologies in the Semantic Web

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. Using Rules with Ontologies in the Semantic Web Chimezie OgbujiThoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryCleveland Clinic Foundation July 25th, 2006 Presented to W3C HCLSIG ACPP Group

  2. Rule Languages • RuleML • SWRL • Notation 3 (N3)

  3. Semantic Web Reasoners • Closed World Machine (CWM) • Euler • Pychinko • RDFEngine • Jena

  4. Using Rules to Describe Rules • A Rule consists of a body (antecedent) and a head (consequent) • In N3: • {?X :has ?body. ?X :has ?head. :body log:implies :head } => {?X a :Rule } • In SWRL’s abstract syntax: • Implies(Antecedent(has(I-variable(X), I-variable(body) has(I-variable(X), I-variable(head)) log:Implies(I-variable(body), I-variable(head))) Consequent(Rule(I-variable(X)))

  5. Origin / Background of Rules • Logic Programming • Production systems (RETE, etc.) • Prolog • SQL • Horn-clause Logic • Efficient theorem proving, and reasoning

  6. Complexity and Abstraction • Kurt Cagle • “You can never eliminate complexity from a system, you can only move it from place to place” • Important point regarding how / why rules are used with ontology languages

  7. DL Semantics as Analogy for Rules • Description Logics (DL) • Strict subset of FOL with decidability in mind • DL are more palatable and (therefore) more ubiquitous • Ontology language constructs correspond to DL constructs • Some DL (ontology) reasoning can be done via explicit rules

  8. Some DL Semantics as N3 Rules • Transitive Roles • {?P a owl:TransitiveProperty. ?X ?P ?Y. ?Y ?P ?Z } => {?X ?P ?Z} • Class inclusion • {?B rdfs:subClassOf ?C. ?A rdfs:subClassOf ?B} => {?A rdfs:subClassOf ?C}. • Inverse Roles • {?P owl:inverseOf ?Q. ?S ?P ?O} => {?O ?Q ?S}. • Functional Restrictions • {?P a owl:FunctionalProperty. ?S ?P ?X. ?S ?P ?Y} => {?X owl:sameAs ?Y}.

  9. Restriction on Expressivenes • Certain implications cannot be expressed in DL: • “Individuals who live and work at the same location are ‘Home Workers’” • In N3: • {?X :work ?Y. ?X :live ?Z. ?Z :located ?W. ?Y :located ?Y} => {?X a :HomeWorker}

  10. Restriction on Expressiveness (Cont.) • Specific logical restrictions (Horn logic) make it difficult to express certain statements: • “Every person has a father (known or unknown)” • However, this is straight forward in OWL (and Description Logics): • :Person a owl:Class; rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction; owl:onProperty :father; owl:cardinality “1”. ]

  11. Rule Inference Methods • Given: • Set of rules • Set of facts • Backward chaining is goal-oriented: • Question: can a fact be inferred from the rules and existing facts? • Forward chaining exhaustively infers new facts from the rules • The resulting facts combined with the original facts are often referred to as the ‘closure’

  12. Concerns with Reasoning • Logic Programming reasoners and algorithms are more mature • RETE algorithm for production (forward chaining) systems • Euler cycle detection for backward chaining inference • Logic Programming systems are at the mercy of the explicit rules

  13. Complexity and Abstraction (Revisited) • Kurt Cagle • “You can never eliminate complexity from a system, you can only move it from place to place” • DL abstracts Knowledge Representation at the expense of the reasoning mechanism. • DL reasoners are implemented to support only a limited kind of inference: class subsumption and consistency detection.

  14. Compromise • Use DL semantics where the domain falls nicely into Categories / Roles and decidability is an issue • Use rules everywhere else • The combination covers the full spectrum of expressiveness and decidability • Including both in the thought process improves Knowledge Engineering • Some DL semantics can be expressed as rules to take advantage of efficient pattern matching algorithms

  15. References • Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic • http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/grosof03description.html • Description Logic Complexity Navigator • http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~ezolin/logic/complexity.html • Web Ontology Reasoning with Logic Databases • http://www.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/vvv/2004/wiwi/2/2.pdf • Euler’s RDF Plus OWL N3 Rules • http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rpo-rules.n3 • Description Logics as Ontology Languages for the Semantic Web • http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/baader03description.html

More Related