Wondering about either OWL ontologies or SKOS vocabularies? You need both!

Similar documents
Vocabulary and Semantics in the Virtual Observatory

0.1 Knowledge Organization Systems for Semantic Web

Converting a thesaurus into an ontology: the use case of URBISOC

On practical aspects of enhancing semantic interoperability using SKOS and KOS alignment

Study and guidelines on Geospatial Linked Data as part of ISA Action 1.17 Resource Description Framework

Use of Ontology for production of access systems on Legislation, Jurisprudence and Comments

An Introduction to the Semantic Web. Jeff Heflin Lehigh University

A brief introduction to SKOS

Copyright 2012 Taxonomy Strategies. All rights reserved. Semantic Metadata. A Tale of Two Types of Vocabularies

Linguaggi Logiche e Tecnologie per la Gestione Semantica dei testi

SKOS. COMP62342 Sean Bechhofer

Ontologies SKOS. COMP62342 Sean Bechhofer

Things to consider when using Semantics in your Information Management strategy. Toby Conrad Smartlogic

Semantic Integration with Apache Jena and Apache Stanbol

The ISO D approach

The Emerging Data Lake IT Strategy

Semantic Technologies and CDISC Standards. Frederik Malfait, Information Architect, IMOS Consulting Scott Bahlavooni, Independent

AutoFocus, an Open Source Facet-Driven Enterprise Search Solution

Semantic Annotation, Search and Analysis

Semantiska webben DFS/Gbg

Copyright 2012 Taxonomy Strategies. All rights reserved. Semantic Metadata. A Tale of Two Types of Vocabularies

Semantic MediaWiki A Tool for Collaborative Vocabulary Development Harold Solbrig Division of Biomedical Informatics Mayo Clinic

The Semantic Web DEFINITIONS & APPLICATIONS

SWAD-Europe Deliverable 8.1 Core RDF Vocabularies for Thesauri

SKOS - Simple Knowledge Organization System

On Transformation from The Thesaurus into Domain Ontology

Semantics. Matthew J. Graham CACR. Methods of Computational Science Caltech, 2011 May 10. matthew graham

SADI Semantic Web Services

Web Ontology for Software Package Management

LINKING BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Vocabulary Alignment for archaeological Knowledge Organization Systems

Reasoning with the Web Ontology Language (OWL)

5 RDF and Inferencing

Metadata Standards and Applications. 6. Vocabularies: Attributes and Values

Terminologies, Knowledge Organization Systems, Ontologies

Eloquent WebSuite Planning Guide

Integration of the Semantic Web with Meta Object Facilities

GenTax: A Generic Methodology for Deriving OWL and RDF-S Ontologies from Hierarchical Classifications, Thesauri, and Inconsistent Taxonomies

Classification and reference vocabulary in Linked Environment Data

Controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, and thesauruses (and ontologies)

Publishing Vocabularies on the Web. Guus Schreiber Antoine Isaac Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

SKOS Standards and Best Practises for USING Knowledge Organisation Systems ON THE Semantic Web

ISSUES IN INFORMATION RETRIEVAL Brian Vickery. Presentation at ISKO meeting on June 26, 2008 At University College, London

Report from the W3C Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group

Information Retrieval and Knowledge Organisation

A Semantic MediaWiki-Empowered Terminology Registry

Introduction and background

OWL a glimpse. OWL a glimpse (2) requirements for ontology languages. requirements for ontology languages

Taking a view on bio-ontologies. Simon Jupp Functional Genomics Production Team ICBO, 2012 Graz, Austria

Ontology-based Virtual IoT Devices for Edge Computing

Pulling Together, or

JOHN SHEPHERDSON... AUTOMATIC KEYWORD GENERATION TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR UK DATA ARCHIVE UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX...

Contents. G52IWS: The Semantic Web. The Semantic Web. Semantic web elements. Semantic Web technologies. Semantic Web Services

The AGROVOC Concept Scheme - A Walkthrough

Taxonomy Tools: Collaboration, Creation & Integration. Dow Jones & Company

INF3580/4580 Semantic Technologies Spring 2017

Languages and tools for building and using ontologies. Simon Jupp, James Malone

Deep integration of Python with Semantic Web technologies

Today: RDF syntax. + conjunctive queries for OWL. KR4SW Winter 2010 Pascal Hitzler 3

Extracting Ontologies from Standards: Experiences and Issues

Mapping between Digital Identity Ontologies through SISM

Linking SharePoint Documents with Structured Data. Towards Unified Views of Business-critical Information. Andreas Blumauer Director PoolParty Ltd, UK

Ontology Summit2007 Survey Response Analysis. Ken Baclawski Northeastern University

TopBraid EVN. A Tour of Recent Enhancements. Copyright 2014 TopQuadrant Inc. Slide 1

Chapter 3 Research Method

Semantic challenges in sharing dataset metadata and creating federated dataset catalogs

Flexible Tools for the Semantic Web

Linked Data and RDF. COMP60421 Sean Bechhofer

THE GETTY VOCABULARIES TECHNICAL UPDATE

INF3580 Semantic Technologies Spring 2012

Library Technology Conference, March 20, 2014 St. Paul, MN

Falcon-AO: Aligning Ontologies with Falcon

Chapter 8: Enhanced ER Model

H1 Spring B. Programmers need to learn the SOAP schema so as to offer and use Web services.

The Semantic Web. Mansooreh Jalalyazdi

The P2 Registry

OpenPlant Accelerating ISO Adoption Through Open Applications.

Linked data and its role in the semantic web. Dave Reynolds, Epimorphics

Adding formal semantics to the Web

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM: CONCEPT AND SCOPE

Semantic Web Test

Scaling the Semantic Wall with AllegroGraph and TopBraid Composer. A Joint Webinar by TopQuadrant and Franz

Ontological Modeling: Part 7

The National Cancer Institute's Thésaurus and Ontology

Data Foundations & Terminology (DFT) WG/IG & VSIG

Fusing Corporate Thesaurus Management with Linked Data using PoolParty

Standards for classifying services and related information in the public sector

PoolParty. Thesaurus Management Semantic Search Linked Data. ISKO UK, London September 14, Andreas Blumauer

Enhancing information services using machine to machine terminology services

For many people it would appear that there is no difference between information and data.

A service based on Linked Data to classify Web resources using a Knowledge Organisation System

Knowledge Representations. How else can we represent knowledge in addition to formal logic?

Semantics and the Web: e-government Implications of some Emerging Technology Beyond W3C

ARKive-ERA Project Lessons and Thoughts

Enterprise Knowledge Map: Toward Subject Centric Computing. March 21st, 2007 Dmitry Bogachev

Towards Semantic IoT, onem2m Base Ontology

Making BioPAX SPARQL

Managing semantics with content using DITA XML

KDI OWL. Fausto Giunchiglia and Mattia Fumagallli. University of Trento

Semantic Web Company. PoolParty - Server. PoolParty - Technical White Paper.

Transcription:

Making sense of content Wondering about either OWL ontologies or SKOS vocabularies? You need both! ISKO UK SKOS Event London, 21st July 2008 bernard.vatant@mondeca.com

A few words about Mondeca Founded : 1999 Founder and CEO : Jean Delahousse Team : 15 persons, and steadily growing Tagline : «Making Sense of Content» Early adopter of Semantic Web languages and technologies Business view : Software and services allowing companies and communities to organize, leverage, integrate, augment, publish and otherwise manage their enterprise knowledge assets Flag product : ITM (Intelligent Topic Manager) Does what it says on the box : «Intelligent Topic Management» Quick demo, time permitting Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 2

What exactly is «Intelligent Topic Management»? A topic is any formal representation of a concept, thing, subject and generally of anything that is identified and described in a structured / formal way Some topic types you might want to manage intelligently if possible Classes and instances - as defined in ontologies and knowledge bases Concepts - as defined in thesauri and similar vocabularies Categories - as defined in classifications and taxonomies Named entities Topics are more or less explicitly defined in legacy Natural language concepts defined in vocabularies or found in documents Data at large a lot of implicit topics are trapped in data bases! There are many ways to represent topics! How do you know which kind of representation is «intelligent»? Depends on what you want to do! A «good» representation is a good balance between some a priori ontological status of the concept (the business view of the world) the intended functional use of the concept in the information system Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 3

OWL vs SKOS In SKOS The focus is the relation between resources and vocabulary A librarian view of the world Organising vocabulary helps find stuff based on «about-ness» Main topics are concepts : formal instances of the class «skos:concept» The main use of SKOS concepts is to index, classify, search and retrieve resources Based on a limited but extensible set of attributes and relationships Leveraging the documentation / library / thesaurus expertise legacy In OWL (Ontology Web Language) The focus is the description of things in a domain (business objects) A knowledge representation / artificial intelligence / logic view of the world The topics are classes, properties and individuals Linked by arbitrarily complex constraints The main use of OWL ontologies is to structure business objects and data Allowing consistency checking, interface control, inference Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 4

Librarian vs Logician Librarian : «SKOS is cool because it is simple. I don t care about complex ontologies, I don t need inference.» Some ontologies are very simple Some SKOS concept schemes can be highly complex Librarian should be aware of other things that documents and vocabulary Logician : «I don t understand what those SKOS concepts are. All concepts are classes. All I need is OWL.» Logician does not really care about documents, vocabulary, terminology Sometimes he does not even care about individuals But at some point he will need to find a document among tens of millions Actually you need both Logician and Librarian expertise But it might be tricky To have them sit at the same table To have them agree on a common language To have them listen to each other Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 5

So you need an ontology (OWL) when You deal with individual business objects Typically to manage a back-office knowledge base Restaurants, Hotels, Tourism Activities in Burgundy Olympic Games results You want to describe those business objects Using attributes specific to a class or generic to several classes Restaurants have geolocation, opening days and min/max menu prices Hotels have geolocation, opening days, category and number of rooms Competitions have discipline, participants, results, medals Using specific constraints on those attributes Allowing control of interfaces, control of integrity of data You want to use those descriptions To control consistency of data about your objects To perform formal queries on those data (of arbitrary complexity) Find a 3-Star camping site near a river in Burgundy, proposing fishing activity, and close to a winery producing Chardonnay Rouge. Find British athletes who got a gold medal in Athletics at Seoul Olympic Games Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 6

And you need a vocbulary (SKOS) when You have vocabulary legacy Architectural styles, hotel categories, olympic sports and disciplines You want to organize this vocabulary Using generic-specific and associative relationships Allowing synonyms and multiple languages You want to use this vocabulary To index, search and retrieve documents or any kind of resources Most of the time, you need both! You deal with business objects AND vocabulary concepts So you need an ontology (OWL) AND vocabularies (SKOS) Question : how do you use them together? Let s see some use cases and possible approaches Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 7

Use case #1 : Annuaire de l Administration Française Context : The directory of French Public Administration Notoriously of arbitrary complexity! User access requirements Navigation using both thematic and geographic «taxonomies» Standard Website navigation experience for general public end users No technical vocabulary here! Offices details are stored in a back-office knowledge base Based on a rather flat and simple ontology of the Who, What, Where Using a variety of authority lists > Presentation of the back-office ontology in an ontology editor Front publication uses a somewhat independent taxonomy > Presentation of the front Web http://lannuaire.service-public.fr/ Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 8

Use case #2 : The Olympic Games Context Federate knowledge bases of the International Olympic Committee Disciplines, competitions, ceremonies, athletes, results, medals Providing reference for consistent indexing of multimedia documents Olympic disciplines/events are business objects Each discipline has a date of introduction in Olympic Games, world olympic records Each discipline is organized with specific events Athletics > 100m Men > Final This organization may vary in Olympic games history Each event for specific Olympic Games has participants, results, medals You need an ontology of disciplines! Olympic disciplines as also indexing concepts Photograph : Start of the Men s 100-Metre Final, Seoul, 24 September, 1988 From left to right: Carl Lewis, Linford Christie, Calvin Smith and Ben Johnson. For indexing, a SKOS organisation of disciplines might be enough But the ontology can support consistent indexing! For example knowing the participants of the Seoul final Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 9

Some Business Objects are also Concepts (or the other way round) 1. Disciplines are concepts 2. Disciplines have specific business properties Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 10

OWL classes hierarchy vs SKOS concepts hierarchy Concept labels Concept class hierarchy Here be OWL! Concept hierarchy Here be SKOS! Concept hierarchy management Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 11

Looking at RDF triples Elements of the OWL ontology : SKOS classes + specific attributes :Discipline rdf:type owl:class :Event rdf:type owl:class :Discipline rdfs:subclassof skos:concept :Event rdfs:subclassof skos:concept :olympicsince rdfs:domain :Discipline :longname rdfs:subpropertyof skos:altlabel Instances description : SKOS concepts + specific attributes :AT rdf:type :Discipline :AT skos:preflabel Athletics @en :AT skos:preflabel Athlétisme @fr :ATM001 rdf:type :Event :ATM001 skos:preflabel 100m (M) @en :ATM001 skos:broader :AT :ATM001 :longname Athletics/100m(M) @en :AT :olympicsince 1896-04-06 Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 12

OWL hierarchy vs SKOS hierarchy - continued Beware of hierarchy mismatch! Discipline and Event are both subclasses of skos:concept The «broader» concept of an Event is a Discipline 100 m (H) BT Athletics But Event is not a subclass of Discipline! 100 m (H) IS NOT a Discipline Events do not inherit all properties of Disciplines SKOS applications can ignore the non-skos specific e.g., define a ConceptScheme including all instances of «Sports Concept» OWL-aware applications can implement stronger constraints An Event is a concept of which broader concept is a Discipline :Event owl:equivalentclass [ a owl:restriction; owl:onproperty skos:broader; owl:allvaluesfrom :Discipline ]; Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 13

Use case #3 : Classifying tourism offer In the back office we have (OWL-driven) Hotels with their category, labels, number of rooms Restaurants with their mini/maxi menu price, labels Shows with their category tarif mini/maxi In the front we have simple navigation categories (in SKOS) Travel budget Low budget Affordable First class Luxury The front categories are populated with rules such as Hotel AND 2star => Low budget Hotel AND 3star => Affordable Restaurant AND menumini between 10 and 15 => Affordable Show AND tarifmini between 8 and 12 => Affordable Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 14

Use case #3 : Classification rules in SPARQL CONSTRUCT {?x dc:subject :affordable } # Classify as affordable WHERE { # 3 stars Hotels {?x a :Hotel.?x :category :_3Star. } # or Restaurants with menu from 10 to 15 UNION {?x a :Restaurant.?x :menumini?m. FILTER (?m > 10). FILTER (?m < 15). } # or Shows with tarif from 8 to 12 UNION {?x a :Show.?y :tarifmini?t. FILTER (?t > 8). FILTER (?t < 12). } } Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 15

Conclusion There is a variety of ways to combine OWL and SKOS In most information management systems, you need both OWL is good for building a strong back-office structure With an ontology of business objects SKOS is good for front navigation and user experience The back-to-front transformation can be based on a variety of rules Including the use of SPARQL queries Mondeca 2008 - ISKO UK - SKOS Event, 21st July 2008, London 16