Pal gov.tutorial4.session1 1.needforsharedsemantics

1PalGov © 2011 1PalGov © 2011

أكاديمية الحكومة اإللكترونية الفلسطينيةThe Palestinian eGovernment Academy

www.egovacademy.ps

Tutorial 4: Ontology Engineering & Lexical Semantics

Session 1.1

The Need for Shared Semantics

Dr. Mustafa Jarrar

University of Birzeit

[email protected]

www.jarrar.info

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.jarrar.info/


About

This tutorial is part of the PalGov project, funded by the TEMPUS IV program of the

Commission of the European Communities, grant agreement 511159-TEMPUS-1-

2010-1-PS-TEMPUS-JPHES. The project website: www.egovacademy.ps

University of Trento, Italy

University of Namur, Belgium

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

TrueTrust, UK

Birzeit University, Palestine

(Coordinator )

Palestine Polytechnic University, Palestine

Palestine Technical University, PalestineUniversité de Savoie, France

Ministry of Local Government, Palestine

Ministry of Telecom and IT, Palestine

Ministry of Interior, Palestine

Project Consortium:

Coordinator:

Dr. Mustafa Jarrar

Birzeit University, P.O.Box 14- Birzeit, Palestine

Telfax:+972 2 2982935 [email protected]

http://www.egovacademy.ps/


© Copyright Notes

Everyone is encouraged to use this material, or part of it, but should

properly cite the project (logo and website), and the author of that part.

No part of this tutorial may be reproduced or modified in any form or by

any means, without prior written permission from the project, who have

the full copyrights on the material.

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

CC-BY-NC-SA

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-

commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations

under the identical terms.

4PalGov © 2011

Tutorial Map

Topic Time

Session 1_1: The Need for Sharing Semantics 1.5

Session 1_2: What is an ontology 1.5

Session 2: Lab- Build a Population Ontology 3

Session 3: Lab- Build a BankCustomer Ontology 3

Session 4: Lab- Build a BankCustomer Ontology 3

Session 5: Lab- Ontology Tools 3

Session 6_1: Ontology Engineering Challenges 1.5

Session 6_2: Ontology Double Articulation 1.5

Session 7: Lab - Build a Legal-Person Ontology 3

Session 8_1: Ontology Modeling Challenges 1.5

Session 8_2: Stepwise Methodologies 1.5

Session 9: Lab - Build a Legal-Person Ontology 3

Session 10: Zinnar – The Palestinian eGovernmentInteroperability Framework

3

Session 11: Lab- Using Zinnar in web services 3

Session 12_1: Lexical Semantics and Multilingually 1.5

Session 12_2: WordNets 1.5

Session 13: ArabicOntology 3

Session 14: Lab-Using Linguistic Ontologies 3

Session 15: Lab-Using Linguistic Ontologies 3

Intended Learning ObjectivesA: Knowledge and Understanding

4a1: Demonstrate knowledge of what is an ontology,

how it is built, and what it is used for.

4a2: Demonstrate knowledge of ontology engineering

and evaluation.

4a3: Describe the difference between an ontology and a

schema, and an ontology and a dictionary.

4a4: Explain the concept of language ontologies, lexical

semantics and multilingualism.

B: Intellectual Skills

4b1: Develop quality ontologies.

4b2: Tackle ontology engineering challenges.

4b3: Develop multilingual ontologies.

4b4: Formulate quality glosses.

C: Professional and Practical Skills

4c1: Use ontology tools.

4c2: (Re)use existing Language ontologies.

D: General and Transferable Skills

d1: Working with team.

d2: Presenting and defending ideas.

d3: Use of creativity and innovation in problem solving.

d4: Develop communication skills and logical reasoning

abilities.


Session ILOs

This session will help student to:

4a1: Demonstrate knowledge of what is an ontology, how it is

built, and what it is used for


Ontology-based Applications(i) Open Information Systems (Data Integration and Interoperability)

Conceptual

Schema

Data

Logical Schema

DBMS

Qu

ery

pro

cesso

r

Apps

Information System

Interoperation between Information Systems was important in the past.

Why do we need conceptual schemes? for designing Information

systems at the conceptual level.

Each Information System is made for one organization.



Conceptual Schema

Data

DBMS

Logical Schema

Qu

ery

pro

cesso

r

Apps

IS1

Conceptual Schema

Data

DBMS

Logical Schema

Qu

ery

pro

cesso

r

Apps

ISn

New needs:

Open data exchange, inter-organizational transactions, global queries…

Agreed data schemes

(XML, RDF)

Ontologies/ Semantics

(OWL)



Conceptual Schema

Data

DBMS

Logical Schema

Qu

ery

pro

cesso

r

Apps

Ministry1

Conceptual Schema

Data

DBMS

Logical Schema

Qu

ery

pro

cesso

r

Apps

Ministryn

New needs:

Open data exchange, inter-ministry transactions, global queries…

Agreed data schemes

(XML or RDF)

Government Ontology

eGovernment Application



eGovernment Application

Conceptual Schema

Data

DBMS

Logical Schema

Qu

ery

pro

cesso

r

Apps

Ministry1

Conceptual Schema

Data

DBMS

Logical Schema

Qu

ery

pro

cesso

r

Apps

Ministryn

New needs:

Open data exchange, inter-ministry transactions, global queries…

Agreed data schemes

(XML, RDF)

Government Ontology

The meaning, vocabulary,

and data structure in the

message commit to the

Government Ontology

10PalGov © 2011 10PalGov © 2011


Semantic Mediator

Bookstore OntologyShared meaning (i.e. formal

semantics) of bibliographical

Terminology

E-Commerce Application

11PalGov © 2011 11PalGov © 2011


Semantic Mediator

Bookstore OntologyProduct ⊑ ValuatedBy.Price

Book ⊑ Product ⊓ hasISBN

⊓ hasTitle

⊓ hasAuthor

Shared meaning (i.e. formal


Terminology


12PalGov © 2011 12PalGov © 2011


Semantic Mediator

Bookstore Ontology….

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Product" />

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Book">

<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Product" />

</owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Price" />

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Value" />

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Currency" />

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Title" />

<owl:Class rdf:ID="ISBN" />

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Author" />

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="Valuated-By">

<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Product" />

<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Price" />

</owl:ObjectProperty>

<owl:DataProperty rdf:ID=" Amounted-To .Value">

<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Price" />

<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"/>

</owl:ObjectProperty>

<owl:DataProperty rdf:ID="Measured-In.Currency">

<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Price" />

<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"/>

…

Shared meaning (i.e. formal


TerminologySpecification using

OWL

(Ontology Web Language )


13PalGov © 2011 13PalGov © 2011

Ontology-based Applications

(ii)The Semantic Web scenario (RDFa)

find a developer position, max 10 minutes from Ramallah

14PalGov © 2011 14PalGov © 2011




Bad results, as it is

string-matching search,

i.e., not meaningful

search

15PalGov © 2011 15PalGov © 2011




3 billion pages

“The semantic web” mission:

syntax to semantic based search The next generation

of the web.

1

2

3

4

Shared meanings of things,

This meaning is embedded

inside web pages. Ontology

16PalGov © 2011 16PalGov © 2011


(iii) Shared semantics in e-Commerce

Central customer complaining portal

See http://www.jarrar.info/publications/mjarrar-CCFORM-chapter.pdf.htm

CCForm Project (EU FP5).

The idea of this project is to build

a portal for treating customer

complaints (CCPortal):

• Instead of developing a

complaining system for each

website offering products and

services, these websites can

provide a link to the CC Portal,

so to allow customers to write

their complaints.

• All types of complains (about

anything) are collected centrally

and product/service providers

can respond and interact with

customers in a transparent way

through this CCPortal.

• A Customer Complaint

Ontology (CCOntology) is built

and used in the background;

such that, the complaining

vocabulary (all types of

complaints, responses, etc.)

become “standard” for all

companies and customers.

• Nice idea, but not fully

implemented yet.

http://www.jarrar.info/publications/mjarrar-CCFORM-chapter.pdf.htm





http://www.starlab.vub.ac.be/research/projects/detail.php?name_pro=CCFORM



17PalGov © 2011 17PalGov © 2011

Example (Customer Complaint Ontology)See http://www.jarrar.info/publications/mjarrar-CCFORM-chapter.pdf.htm






18PalGov © 2011 18PalGov © 2011

The Need for a Shared Understanding

• The Internet and the open connectivity environments are creating a

huge demand not only for sharing data but also its semantics.

• Not only humans but also computers needs to communicate

meaningfully.

• However, due to different needs and background contexts, there can be

widely varying viewpoints and assumptions regarding what is essentially

the same subject matter; each may have differing, overlapping and/ or

mis-matched concepts. [Martin Hepp]

• The consequent lack of a shared understanding leads to poor

communication within and between people, organizations, and systems.

19PalGov © 2011 19PalGov © 2011

The Need for Meaning Mediation

“Lack of technologies and products to dynamically mediate

discrepancies in business semantics will limit the adoption

of advanced Web services for large public communities

whose participants have disparate business processes”

Gartner Research, February 28, 2002

20PalGov © 2011 20PalGov © 2011

XML vs Ontology Common Alphabet is not Enough…

“XML is only the first step to ensuring that computers can communicate

freely. XML is an alphabet for computers, and as everyone who travels in

Europe knows, knowing the alphabet doesn’t mean you can speak Italian

or French” [Business Week, March 18, 2002]

<Book>

<Title> Orientalism </Title>

<Author>Edward Said</Author>

<Price>11</Price>

</Book>

<aaa>

<bbb> Orientalism </bbb>

<ccc>Edward Said</ccc>

<ddd>11</ddd>

</aaa>

One may ask:

Can we use XML instead of ontologies?

XML provides syntax, ontologies provide

semantics\meaning.

21PalGov © 2011 21PalGov © 2011

Standard Vocabularies vs Ontology

• Vocabulary definitions are often ambiguous or circular

• People don’t implement such definitions correctly anyway

Contract: A binding agreement between two or more legal persons that is enforceable by law; an

invoice can be a contract.

Complaint: An expression of grievance or resentment issued by a complainant against a compliant-recipient,

describing a problem(s) that needs to be resolved.

Legal Person: An entity with legal recognition in accordance with law. It has the legal capacity to represent

its own interests in its own name, before a court of law, to obtain rights or obligations for ….

Can we use business glossaries instead of ontologies?

Standard vocabularies don’t provide precise and formal

meanings, as ontologies

22PalGov © 2011 22PalGov © 2011

• Humans require words (or at least symbols) to communicate

efficiently. The mapping of words to things is indirect. We do it by

creating concepts that refer to things.

• The relation between symbols and things has been described in the

form of the meaning triangle:

“Jaguar“الَبْغَور

Concept

Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. 1923. "The Meaning of Meaning." 8th Ed. New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc

[Carole Goble, Nigel Shadbolt, Ontologies and the Grid Tutorial]

The meaning of Meaning (Semantics)

23PalGov © 2011 23PalGov © 2011


“Jaguar“الَبْغَور

Concept

Concept: a set of rules we have in mind

to distinguish similar things in reality. An instance of a concept

(الماصدق)

24PalGov © 2011 24PalGov © 2011


• A Term (/symbol) may refer to different concepts (Animal: Jaguar,

Car:Jaguar)

• A Concept might not be agreed on among all people (i.e., not exactly

the same set of rules are agreed by all people)

Dictionaries represent meanings approximately and informally, mixed

with lexical aspects.

Ontologies specify the meaning formally and precisely.

We will come to this topic (Lexical Semantics) in

more details later

25PalGov © 2011 25PalGov © 2011

Levels of Ontological Precision

Ontological Precision

Catalog Axiomatized

TheoriesGlossaryThesaurus

Taxonomy

OO/DB

schema

tennis

football

game

field game

court game

athletic game

outdoor game

game

athletic game

court game

tennis

outdoor game

field game

football

game

NT athletic game

NT court game

RT court

NT tennis

RT double fault

game(x) → activity(x)

athletic game(x) → game(x)

court game(x) ↔ athletic game(x) ∧ ∃y. played_in(x,y) ∧ court(y)

tennis(x) → court game(x)

double fault(x) → fault(x) ∧ ∃y. part_of(x,y) ∧ tennis(y)

[Guarino]

PalGov © 2011 26

References

• Mustafa Jarrar: Towards Effectiveness and Transparency in e-

Business Transactions, An Ontology for Customer Complaint

Management.

• Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. 1923. "The Meaning of Meaning." 8th

Ed. New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

• Carole Goble and Nigel Shadbolt: Ontologies and the Grid Tutorial.

http://www.jarrar.info/publications/




Pal gov.tutorial4.session1 1.needforsharedsemantics

Education

Transcript of Pal gov.tutorial4.session1 1.needforsharedsemantics