Bijan here!<\/p>\n
I’ll be liveblogging (as much as I can) the OWLED 2014 sessions in this post (so refresh often). Also trying to tweet it<\/a>.<\/p>\n I’m such a social media butterfly!<\/p>\n Check out the programme<\/a>! And the proceedings<\/a>.<\/p>\n ——-<\/p>\n Opening (Bijan) Session 1:<\/p>\n ——-<\/p>\n First talk, “Nicolas Matentzoglu and Bijan Parsia. The OWL Full\/DL gap in the field” (Nico presenting).<\/strong><\/p>\n Motivation: We were assembling a corpus for a(n OWL DL) reasoner competition. OWL Full is a “problem” for us.<\/p>\n (David: Current OBO is well within OWL DL now!)<\/p>\n Measuring the Gap: In our corpus: 81% OWL Full. <– prima facie odd! (For OWL DL folks :)) Procedure: Crawl based corpus. Load and get metrics (using OWL API profile check). Repair. Check metrics. Q&A<\/strong> ——-<\/p>\n David Carral, Adila Krisnadhi, Sebastian Rudolph and Pascal Hitzler. All But Not Nothing: Left-Hand Side Universals for Tractable OWL Profiles presented by Adila.<\/strong><\/p>\n Problems with universals (vacuous applicability). Can be added to OWL EL (and horn-SROIQ) without compromising polynomiality but only on LHSs. Proposed some syntax extensions. (This doesn’t work for OWL RL or QL.)<\/p>\n QA<\/strong><\/p>\n Question: Doesn’t this destroy the “arbitrary use of contructs property”? Yes, but we don’t know how this affect modellers. ——-<\/p>\n Nicolas Matentzoglu and Bijan Parsia. OWL\/ZIP: Distributing Large and Modular Ontologies presented by Nico<\/strong><\/p>\n How do we distribute large and modularised ontologies?<\/p>\n Even if people distribute ZIPPED archives…no standard “starting” point. Key results:<\/p>\n We want to standardise this sort of thing!<\/p>\n QA<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Question: Carole Goble has been working on Research Objects and packaging them together so maybe look at that? (Also, they go further with ) There are some binary formats like this one HDT for RDF that adds indexing. Nico: apt-get for ontologies (ont-get).<\/p>\n COFFEE!!!!<\/strong><\/p>\n ———-<\/p>\n David Osumi-Sutherland, Marta Costa, Robert Court and Cahir O\u2019Kane. Virtual Fly Brain \u2013 Using OWL to support the mapping and genetic dissection of the Drosophila brain. presented by David.<\/strong><\/p>\n Going to talk about the Fly Brain instead \ud83d\ude42 Neurons have many structural and behavioural properties used for classification.<\/p>\n Complicated literature for published neurone classes.<\/p>\n Drosophila anatomy ontology Following the Rector normalisation pattern.<\/p>\n Richly annotations and axiomatised. Imports a bit of GO. “Brain region classes are defined with reference to volumes in standard brain.”<\/p>\n “part of” not as helpful as “part in” for neurone (i.e., they have parts in lots of other things). Various specific specialisations of “overlaps”.<\/p>\n QUESTION: Michel had some issue with using role chains instead of generic part of (query issue).<\/p>\n Discussion of image queries (nested expressions! :))<\/p>\n Beyond EL!<\/p>\n “Complete knowledge of spatial information about neurone is common”<\/p>\n QA<\/strong><\/p>\n Question:<\/strong> Can you reconstruct the full neuron track information? Yes, we have all this low level microscopy and then [argble bio bargle]. ———<\/p>\n Chris Mungall, Heiko Dietze and David Osumi-Sutherland. Use of OWL within the Gene Ontology presented by David.<\/strong><\/p>\n Historic conception of GO\/OBO as DAG. Design patterns in GO (pre formalisation) which improved quality.<\/p>\n OBO(1.4) is OWL (yay!) Go comes in lots of versions and the default version is axiom-light.<\/p>\n TermGenie: Web based, templated term submission (with inference checking!) (Sounds supercool)<\/p>\n More about property chains and partonomy.<\/p>\n Nice discussion of “challenges of inputs”<\/p>\n OBO Relations Ontology<\/p>\n Spatial disjointness<\/p>\n Taxon constraints via macro expansions.<\/p>\n OBO format discussion: list of valuable properties (hackability important) Big ones: Readable diffs and easy stable VC.<\/p>\n QUESTION: What makes it VC friendly? Standard pretty printing of serialisation. R: So we could lift this to other syntaxes?<\/p>\n Moving all editing to Protege via plugins.<\/p>\n Managing inference. GO caches inferences in file. Very bad editing cycle at the moment. Smuggling a Little EL into databases! Class expressions for annotators.<\/p>\n Rise of the ABoxes (standard conversion of GO annotations to ABox individuals.) Having links of annotations to give fuller narratives.<\/p>\n QA<\/strong><\/p>\n Question: Are the annotation structures related to research object or micro-\/nano-publications? Offline! ——–<\/p>\n Keynote: Nicola Guarino. On the semantics of reified relationships<\/strong><\/p>\n The intro is a bit weird. If you are going to explain how you’re different from the OWL community to have a reasonable understanding of the OWL community, e.g., we just had a two talks on content!<\/p>\n Relations vs. Relationships. Reification of relationships. Facts (true propositions) vs. episodes (truth makers). How episodes and events relate.<\/p>\n Relation is a class of tuples. Relationship is a tuple. Common reifications: as assertions, as facts (situations\/true propositions), as perdurants (events)<\/p>\n Propositions are true or false at certain times. Facts are true propositions. Events are world-bits that exemplify or instantiate a propositions. Situations are kinds of events. Events are time localised.<\/p>\n Episodes. \u00a0Endurants (entities persisting in time) and perdurants (entities that happen in time). Person vs. a talk. Episode are perception relevant (context is perceptually bound).<\/p>\n Kinds of relationships (a rough taxonomy)<\/p>\n All temporary relationships\u00a0require an episode as their truth maker Whenever there’s a time varying property, consider putting truth-making episodes in domain of discourse.<\/p>\n Episodes are better than events because events are too limited?<\/p>\n ——<\/p>\n Matthew Horridge, Csongor I Nyulas, Tania Tudorache and Mark Musen. WebProt\u00e9g\u00e9: a Web-based Development Environment for OWL Ontologies presented by Matthew.<\/strong><\/p>\n Google Docs for OWL ontologies. “Horrified to find out that WebProtege has been around for quite a while.”<\/p>\n WebProtege 1.0 based on Protege 3. WebProtege 2 with new UI and based on the OWL API<\/strong>. Simplified UI plus better OWL 2 support for experts.<\/p>\n OpenSource usign GWT hosted on GitHub. Locally installable.<\/p>\n DEMO! (Which was AWESOME AND INTERESTING!)<\/p>\n (In particular the reasoning architecture is awesome.)<\/p>\n Simple profile coverage (i.e., what the simplified interface can handle)<\/p>\n Custom form editor!<\/p>\n GitHub integration as a future option.<\/p>\n ——-<\/strong><\/p>\n Ewa Kowalczuk, J\u0119drzej Potoniec and Agnieszka Lawrynowicz. Extracting Usage Patterns of Ontologies on the Web: a Case Study on GoodRelations Vocabulary in RDFa presented by Ewa.<\/strong><\/p>\n Analysis of GoodRelation annotations published on the web in RDFa.<\/p>\n Try to show a bunch of stuff, including OWL usage, that our pattern tool works, etc.<\/p>\n Used Web Data Commons extracted from Common Crawl.<\/p>\n Fr-ONT-Qu example.<\/p>\n over 2.6 billion quads<\/p>\n They used recursive concise bounded descriptions (haven’t seen those in AGES).<\/p>\n (Ooops, I got caught up with playing with WebProtege! Bad liveblogger!)<\/p>\n We’re in a discussion of good vs. bad \u00a0patterns (expressed as sparql queries) found.<\/p>\n The OWL pattern is a bit odd! Seems to reference without using the ontology.<\/p>\n Results are online: http:\/\/semantic.cs.put.poznan.pl\/~ekowalczuk\/OWLandGR\/<\/p>\n ——<\/p>\n POSTER PITCHES<\/strong><\/p>\n Alexander \u0160imko and Ondrej Zamazal. Towards Searching for Transformation Patterns in Support of Language Profiling<\/strong> Automating of Ontology Analsyis something something (not in programme!) Catalina Mart\u00ednez Costa and Stefan Schulz. An example of approximating DL reasoning by ontology-aware RDF querying Rafael Pe\u00f1aloza and Aparna Saisree Thuluva. COBRA, a Demo Zubeida Khan and C. Maria Keet. The ROMULUS resource for using foundational ontologies Bijan here! I’ll be liveblogging (as much as I can) the OWLED 2014 sessions in this post (so refresh often). Also trying to tweet it. I’m such a social media butterfly! Check out the programme! And the proceedings. ——- Opening … Continue reading
\nKey things:<\/p>\n\n
\nNice tour of how things can be OWL Full in a “silly” way (lack of declarations, sub property of rdfs:label) with concrete examples.
\nAfter fixing the “silly” violations, we end up 40% OWL Full (50% reduction).
\nDeclaration failures <– Ugh!
\nReserved vocabulary “misuse”: Subpropertying rdfs:label seems harmless. SubClassOf(A, rdf:type) less so.<\/p>\n
\n2\/3s of the violations are Declaration Failures!!
\n(Chitchat about reserved vocabulary)<\/p>\n
\nPoint: Old OBO translator is suboptimal. Update to the latest OWL API.
\nQuestion: Can I get the fixed versions? Sure!
\nQuestion: Versions in corpus? We didn’t sanitise it beyond some minor automated stuff.<\/p>\n
\nIf you say All X are Y, we normally assume that there’s at least one X.
\n“onlySome” R only C and R some C <–coupled! (Common “good practice”)
\nCalled “witnessed universal”<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nShown by a rewriting into ELH.<\/p>\n
\nQuestion: Can we use this with ELK? yes.
\nQuestion: What entailments does this support? In EL we can’t see any? Dunno! Good question.<\/p>\n
\nAutoModularized ontologies can have hundreds of modules.<\/p>\n\n
\nQuestion: What about versioning? Big general issue.
\nQuestion: Also collections.<\/p>\n
\n~200,000 neurons (5-10,000 types?)<\/p>\n
\n42% on the nervous system
\n50% of >10,000 classifications inferred.<\/p>\n
\nExpressiveness is ~EL without explicit nested class expressions.<\/p>\n
\nQuestion:<\/strong> Do you need negation or epistemic negation? Our closure works except for scaling and it uses e.g., our role chains etc.<\/p>\n
\nThen translation into FOL which was ditched.
\nNew version of the translation by Horrocks et al.<\/p>\n
\nRoundtripping is effective.<\/p>\n
\nPlans to speedup cycle.<\/p>\n
\nQuestion: What’s up with the properties? (loads of discussion)<\/p>\n
\nBoth relation and relationships \u00a0can be reified.
\nCardinality constraints are on relations.
\nWe might have constraints on relationships. [[BJP: I didn’t understand the example of at most 1 spouse\u00a0at a time<\/strong>]]<\/p>\n
\nOrdinary endurance are called objects
\nNo standard term for ordinary perdurants (event, happening, situation, etc.)
\nEpisode:\u00a0<\/strong>a large class of\u00a0relevant<\/em> perdurants.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nSome permanent relationships (extrinsic) require\u00a0\u00a0an episode as their truth maker<\/p>\n
\n10,000 projects; 300_ users<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/code.google.code\/p\/tpgen<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Ontology summaries, roughly. Ultimately determine relation between features in ints and aspects of tools.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Motivated by semantic interoperability problem in diagnosis support systems.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Sub-ontologies offered as views. Instead of materialising each subontologies, synthesise a single ontology. Context based stuff.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>FO are hard: philosophical notions, which one, link to which, scability.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"