07: Web Ontology Language: OWL Flashcards
A reasoner expands the ____ ____ ____ based on ____ like rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:range, rdfs:domain, etc.
A reasoner expands the number of triples based on relations like rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:range, rdfs:domain, etc.
Five Requirements of Any Ontology Language
- A well-defined syntax
- Efficient reasoning support
- A formal semantics
- Sufficient expressive power
- Convenience of expression
What is the tradeoff between expressive power and efficient reasoning support? What compromise must be taken?
the richer the language, the more inefficient the reasoning support
Compromise:
- on one hand, a language supported by reasonable efficient reasoners
- on the other hand, a language that can express large classes of ontologies and knowledge
Class Membership
(Reasoning About Knowledge in Ontology Languages)
If x is an instance of a class C, and C is a subclass of D, then we can infer that x is an instance of D
Equivalence of Classes
(Reasoning About Knowledge in Ontology Languages)
If class A is equivalent to class B, and class B is equivalent to class C, then A is equivalent to C, too
Consistency
(Reasoning About Knowledge in Ontology Languages)
X instance of classes A and B, but A and B are disjoint
* this is an indication of an error in the ontology
Classification
(Reasoning About Knowledge in Ontology Languages)
Certain property-value pairs are a sufficient condition for membership in a class A; if an individual x satisfies such conditions, we can conclude that x must be an instance of A
Uses for Reasoning
Reasoning support is important for:
- checking the consistency of the ontology and the knowledge
- checking for unintended relationships between classes
- automatically classifying instances in classes
Checks like the preceding ones are valuable for:
- designing large ontologies, where multiple authors are involved
- integrating and sharing ontologies from various sources
Reasoning Support for OWL
- Semantics is a prerequisite for reasoning support
-
Formal semantics and reasoning support are usually provided by
- mapping an ontology language to a known logical formalism
- using automated reasoners that already exist for those formalisms
OWL is (partially) mapped on a _____ logic, and makes use of reasoners such as ____ and ____.
OWL is (partially) mapped on a description logic, and makes use of reasoners such as FaCT and RACER.
Combining RDF Schema with ____ leads to uncontrollable ____ properties.
Combining RDF Schema with logic leads to uncontrollable computational properties.
The Five Major Limitations of the Expressive Power of RDF Schema in Comparison with OWL
- Local scope of properties
- e.g. cannot declare range restrictions that apply to some classes only like a cow can only eat plants, but other animals can eat meat too
- Disjointness of classes
- e.g. cannot disjoint classes, like graduate vs undergraduate
- Boolean combinations of classes
- e.g. cannot combine classes using union, intersection, complement
- Cardinality restrictions
- e.g. cannot state a person has exactly two parents, or a course has exactly one lecturer
- Special characteristics of properties
- e.g. cannot state transitive, unique, or inverse properties
Three Species of OWL
- OWL Full
- OWL DL
- OWL Lite
OWL Full
(Three Species of OWL)
- Uses all the OWL languages primitives
- Allows the combination of these primitives in arbitrary ways with RDF and RDF Schema
- Fully upward-compatible with RDF, both syntactically and semantically
- So powerful that it is undecidable
- No complete (or efficient) reasoning support
OWL DL
(Three Species of OWL)
- Sublanguage of OWL Full that restricts application of the constructors from OWL and RDF
- Application of OWL’s constructors to each other is disallowed
- Therefore it corresponds to a well studied description logic
- Permits efficient reasoning support
-
But we lose full compatibility with RDF:
- Not every RDF document is a legal OWL DL document.
- Every legal OWL DL document is a legal RDF document.
OWL Lite
(Three Species of OWL)
- An even further restriction limits OWL DL to a subset of the language constructors
- e.g. OWL Lite excludes enumerated classes, disjointness statements, and arbitrary cardinality.
- The advantages of this is a language that is easier to
- grasp, for users
- implement, for tool builders
- The disadvantage is restricted expressivity
Upward Compatibility between OWL Species
- Legal OWL Lite ontology = Legal OWL DL ontology
- Legal OWL DL ontology = Legal OWL Full ontology
- Valid OWL Lite conclusion = Valid OWL DL conclusion
- Valid OWL DL conclusion = Valid OWL Full conclusion