skos - university of manchesterstudentnet.cs.manchester.ac.uk/ugt/comp34512/slides/day21.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
SKOSCOMP34512
Sebastian Brandt (Slides by from Sean Bechhofer)
[email protected]@manchester.ac.uk
Friday, 2 May 2014
Terminology Management• Consider our original use case
– Building an index for a children’s book on animals– Target: Hierarchical controlled vocabulary
• I.e., a taxonomy• We used an ontology as the development KR
– Terms mapped to classes– The hierarchical relations were mapped to
subsumption– The fully classified class graph == the taxonomy
• Is this representationally adequate– For all controlled vocabularies?– For our index?
2
Friday, 2 May 2014
A typical index
3http://www.anindexer.com/samples/captive/captive1.html
There is hierarchy
Are these subsumptions?
Friday, 2 May 2014
Non-hierarchal relations!
4http://www.anindexer.com/samples/captive/captive1.html
“Related” terms.
Redirect
Friday, 2 May 2014
Redirect?
5http://www.anindexer.com/samples/captive/captive1.html
Note that this relation is hierarchal!
Friday, 2 May 2014
Terminology Management• Not all terminologies are the same!
– Data oriented• Intended to feed into databases• Intended to support statistical analysis• Logic seems to do rather well there
– Linguistically oriented• Mapping linguistic relations (WordNet)• Not very logical!
– E.g., terms have multiple senses– Navigationally oriented
• E.g., the Dewey decimal system• Cognitively salient relations
• Many terminologies serve multiple purposes6
Friday, 2 May 2014
Navigation vs. Subsumption• Subsumption
– Based on the way the world is/model theoretic– Strict inclusion– Amenable to a logical treatment
• In particular, derivable from features of relational structures
• Navigation– Based on “how we think”– Associative
• Associations may be “hierarchal” (in some sense) or not– Generally “brute,” vague, & informal
• Derivable from patterns of behavior (sometimes)• Cognitive cow paths 7
Friday, 2 May 2014
Desire Paths
8http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdunnette/6432035825/
Friday, 2 May 2014
9
Catalogue
Terms/glossary
Thesauri
Informal is-a
Formal is-a
Frames
ValueRestrictions
ExpressiveLogics
A Spectrum of Representation
• Formal representations are not always the most appropriate for applications
Friday, 2 May 2014
10
SKOS• SKOS: Simple Knowledge Organisation Scheme• Used to represent term lists, controlled vocabularies
and thesauri• Lexical labelling• Simple broader/narrower hierarchies,
no formal semantics• W3C Recommendation
Friday, 2 May 2014
11
Primary Use Cases/ScenariosA. Single controlled vocabulary used to index and
then retrieve objects• Query/retrieval may make use of some structure
in the vocabulary
B. Different controlled vocabularies used to index and retrieve objects• Mappings required between the vocabularies
• Also other possible uses (e.g. navigation)
Friday, 2 May 2014
12
SKOS Goals• to provide a simple, machine-understandable,
representation framework for Knowledge Organisation Systems (KOS)…
• that has the flexibility and extensibility to cope with the variation found in KOS idioms…
• that is fully capable of supporting the publication and use of KOS within a decentralised, distributed, information environment such as the world wide (semantic) web.
Friday, 2 May 2014
13
Concept Schemes• A concept scheme is a set of concepts, potentially
including statements about relationships between those concepts– Semantic Relationships
• Broader/Narrower Terms• Related Terms
– Lexical Labels• Preferred, alternative and hidden labels
– Additional documentation• Notes, comments, descriptions
Friday, 2 May 2014
SKOS Model
Friday, 2 May 2014
Labelling• Lexical Labels associated with
Concepts – Preferred: one per language– Alternate: variants, – Hidden: mis-spellings
• Labels pairwise disjoint.
Friday, 2 May 2014
Semantic Relations• Hierarchical and Associative• Broader/Narrower• Loose (i.e. no) semantics
– A publishing vehicle, not a set ofthesaurus construction guidelines
• broader/narrower not (inherently) transitive in SKOS
Friday, 2 May 2014
Not (necessarily?!) transitive?• But, surely
– if A is broader than B– and B is broader than C– that A is broader than C!– i.e., TRANSITIVE!?
• Consider the Library of Congress Subject Organization– Vehicles broader than
• Cars broader than– Wheels
– Is “Vehicles” necessarily broader than “Wheels”?• (Not all wheels are vehicular...spinning wheels, potter’s wheels)• We might “fix” this by implicitly making the Wheels, “car wheels”
• Definitely not subsumptions all the way!– Vehicle to Cars, yes– Cars to Wheels is partonomic 17
Friday, 2 May 2014
Mapping Relations• Subproperties of Semantic Relations• Intended for cross-scheme usage
• Although no formal enforcement• Usually there’s bespoke management code
• Or things are passed to the user
• exactMatch similar to EquivalentClasses• But again! Transitivity fail
• or transitivity “caution”
• broad- and narrowMatch• “like” subsumption
• Much more similar to “see”– or “see also”– The relationship isn’t reliable
• In the sense of having a semanticsFriday, 2 May 2014
19
SKOS and OWL• SKOS and OWL are intended for different (but
related) purposes• SKOS Concept schemes are not formal ontologies in
the way that, e.g. OWL ontologies are formal ontologies.
• There is no formal semantics given for the conceptual hierarchies (broader/narrower)represented in SKOS.
• Contrast with OWL subclass hierarchies which have a formal interpretation (in terms of sets of instances).
Friday, 2 May 2014
20
SKOS and OWL• SKOS Concepts not intended for instantiation in the same way
that OWL Classes are instantiated– Leo is an instance of Lion– Born Free is a book about Lions
• Concept Schemes allow us to capture general statements about things that aren’t necessarily strictly true of everything– It’s useful to be able to navigate from Cell to Nucleus, even
though it’s not the case that all Cells have a Nucleus– Relationships between Polio and Polio virus, Polio vaccine,
Polio disease…– Relationships between Accident and Accident Prevention,
Accidents in the Home, Radiation Accidents…• But we can’t necessarily draw the same kinds of inferences
about SKOS hierarchies. – Broader hierarchy is not transitive.
• Although mechanisms are available which allow us to query the transitive closure of the hierarchy.
Friday, 2 May 2014
21
AnnotationGeneral
• Labels– Human readable
• Textual Definitions– Scope notes
• DC style metadata– authorship
• Change History• Provenance information
Application Specific
• Entry points for forms• Driving User interaction• Hiding engineering
aspects of the model• Methodological support
Friday, 2 May 2014
22
SKOS as Annotation• SKOS labelling and documentation properties are
defined as OWL Annotation Properties– Preferred/Alternate/Hidden Labels– Documentation/Notes
• SKOS then provides a standardised vocabulary for annotating OWL ontologies
• Leverage existing tooling.– OWL API– Protégé
Friday, 2 May 2014
23
SKOS and OWL• SKOS and OWL are intended for different purposes.• OWL allows the explicit modelling/description of a
domain• SKOS provides vocabulary and navigational structure• Annotation mechanisms allow them to coexist
– And even interact– A key modelling technique is exploiting OWL
knowledge to support SKOS relations
Friday, 2 May 2014
24
Resources• SKOS:
– http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/– http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/– http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-skos-
primer-20090818/
Friday, 2 May 2014