[email protected] jérôme euzenat 655 avenue de l’europe, 38330 montbonnot...
TRANSCRIPT
Jérôme Euzenat
655 avenue de l’Europe, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France
Enabling technologies for semantic interoperability
semanticThe web
The semantic webs
Query
Conceptual graphs
Description logics
Object-based KR language
Escrire (INRIA)(with Orpailleur and Acacia projects)
Reasons for heterogeneity
• Language suitability (expressiveness…)
• Preferences
• Legacy knowledge
• Techno-diversity is good!
• Are the languages really mature?
Some reasons are arguable but some are good
Knowledge (ontology) representation language
OntologyLanguage
reasonner
semantics
Description
Meaning preservation
T()
KRL1
KRL
, T()|=KRL T() |=KRL1
, |=KRL1 T() |=KRL T()
T
Solutions
• Pivot languages
• Modular family of languages
• Transformation and properties
• Pattern-based language construction
Pivot language
• In the line of the Web: the HTML of knowledge
• Which one?
• Not problem free: loss of knowledge, confusion… (no round trip).
The modular semantic way
L1
r1
s1
Ln
rn
sn
L=ƒl(L1,…Ln)
r=ƒr(r1,…rn)
s =ƒs(s1,…sn)
This have been done in DLML for syntax and semantics andmainly in description logics for reasonners
Elementary operators
DLML: features
Modular conception of DL descriptions:
• Description (DTD,DSD) of 40+ constructors
• Automatic generation of 25+ logics by assembling constructors
• Compatible DTD for all logics.
Note: inference rules could be described the same way.
DLML: transformations
From logic specification to DTD and DSD
From logic to LaTeX
From ALC to ALUE
From ALC to AL
From FaCT to ALUNI and back
From Syllogistic to AL and back
The semantic-driven transformation
L1 Lp
L
r1
s1
rp
sp
Tp = ƒt(Lp,sp/L,s)
r
s
T1 = ƒt(L1,s1/L,s)
L1 Lp
L
r1
s1
rp
sp
Tp = ƒt(Lp,sp/L,s)
r
s
T1 = ƒt(L1,s1/L,s)
The semantic-driven transformation
ont1 ontp
Ont =T1(ont1)+Tp(ontp)
This is easily doable when LiL but can become really hard
DSD: principles
Coded by using MathML and Xpath conventions
Require the interpretation of the language.
I(CLASS) D I(@specialises )
i D; I( f@name)(i) I( f.DESCRIPTOR )
f FIELD
DSD: example…
<dsd:interpretation match="CLASS"/>
<subset/>
<apply><intersect/>
<dsd:domain name="D"/>
<dsd:apply-interpretation select="@superclass"/>
<dsd:apply-interpretation select="FIELD"/>
</apply>
</dsd:interpretation>
<dsd:interpretation match="FIELD">
<equal/>
<apply><intersect/>
<dsd:apply-interpretation select="*"/>
</apply>
</dsd:interpretation>
…
DSD: purpose
• pretty-printing semantics (XSLT);
• documenting a format;
• computing base interpretation (XSLT);
• proof-checking transformations;
• assisted proof (properties of transformations);
• automatic proof (p.o.t.);
• …
The ontology-pattern way(with Heiner Stuckenschmidt, TZI-Bremen)
L1
r1
s1
Ln
rn
sn
L=ƒl(L1,…Ln)
r =ƒr(r1,…rn)
s =ƒs(s1,…sn)
ƒr(.)
ƒs(.)ƒl(.)
DLML as a pattern?
ƒs(.)=the interpretation of a term is still the intersection of the interpretation of the constructors
ƒl(.)=the entry for roles must accept the constructor with its own syntax
Adding a role constructor
This is still part of the easy things to do…because DL have been neatly designed
The pattern-based transformation
ont1 ontp
’
’-1
ƒ(’-1 )
Conclusion
The interoperability issue is a serious problem at the web-scale.
There are many useful, doable, reasonable techniques (e.g. DLML);
The general case is difficult
