Model-theoretic Semantics

Similar documents

Description Logics. decidable, supported by automatic reasoning systems

Merging and Aligning Ontologies in dl-programs

Knowledge Representation and Description Logic Part 3

Web Ontology Language (OWL)

OWL 2 Rules (Part 1) Tutorial at ESWC2009 May 31, Pascal Hitzler. AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe (TH) Markus Krötzsch

OWL Semantics COMP Sean Bechhofer Uli Sattler

OWL Basics. Technologies for the Semantic Web. Building a Semantic Web. Ontology

Possibilistic testing of OWL axioms against RDF data

OWL Semantics. COMP60421 Sean Bechhofer University of Manchester

INTEGRITY CONSTRAINTS FOR THE SEMANTIC WEB: AN OWL 2 DL EXTENSION

FOUNDATIONS OF SEMANTIC WEB TECHNOLOGIES

RDF and Logic: Reasoning and Extension

Phase 1. Phase 2. Phase 3. History. implementation of systems based on incomplete structural subsumption algorithms

A Survey of Temporal Knowledge Representations

SPARQL Rewriting for Query Mediation over Mapped Ontologies

Representing and Querying Validity Time in RDF and OWL: A Logic-Based Approach

Resource Description Framework (RDF) A basis for knowledge representation on the Web

On the Properties of Metamodeling in OWL

Teil III: Wissensrepräsentation und Inferenz. Kap.11: Beschreibungslogiken

Knowledge Sharing. A conceptualization is a map from the problem domain into the representation. A conceptualization specifies:

Extending Logic Programs with Description Logic Expressions for the Semantic Web

Logic and Reasoning in the Semantic Web (part II OWL)

Reasoning in the SHOQ(D n ) Description Logic

Description logics. Description Logics. Applications. Outline. Syntax - AL. Tbox and Abox

Completing Description Logic Knowledge Bases using Formal Concept Analysis

Week 4. COMP62342 Sean Bechhofer, Uli Sattler

On the Properties of Metamodeling in OWL

First-Order Logic. 1 Syntax. Domain of Discourse. FO Vocabulary. Terms

Knowledge Representation for the Semantic Web Lecture 2: Description Logics I

An Introduction to Description Logics

Description Logics. an introduction into its basic ideas

Tightly Integrated Fuzzy Description Logic Programs under the Answer Set Semantics for the Semantic Web

APPROVAL SHEET. Uncertainty in Semantic Web. Doctor of Philosophy, 2005

An Ontology and Concept Lattice Based Inexact Matching Method for Service Discovery

Fuzzy Description Logic Programs under the Answer Set Semantics for the Semantic Web

Propositional Logic Language

Semantic Web Languages Towards an Institutional Perspective

Propositional and Predicate Logic - VII

A RESOLUTION DECISION PROCEDURE FOR SHOIQ

Syntax. Notation Throughout, and when not otherwise said, we assume a vocabulary V = C F P.

Tightly Coupled Probabilistic Description Logic Programs for the Semantic Web

Completing Description Logic Knowledge Bases using Formal Concept Analysis

Design theory for relational databases

Introduction to Description Logic and Ontology Languages

GeomRDF : A Geodata Converter with a Fine-Grained Structured Representation of Geometry in the Web

First Order Logic (FOL)

APPLICATION OF ONTOLOGIES AND SEMANTIC WEB FOR FACILITATION OF ECOLOGY

Answering Metaqueries Over Hi(OWL 2 QL) Ontologies

Incomplete Information in RDF

An OWL Ontology for Quantum Mechanics

An Algebra of Qualitative Taxonomical Relations for Ontology Alignments

ALC Concept Learning with Refinement Operators

First-Order Theorem Proving and Vampire

Translating XML Web Data into Ontologies

Description Logics (DLs)

What Is an Ontology?

A Sorted-Graph Unification Approach to the Semantic Web

A Crisp Representation for Fuzzy SHOIN with Fuzzy Nominals and General Concept Inclusions

A Logic Primer. Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley

Modal Logics. Most applications of modal logic require a refined version of basic modal logic.

if t 1,...,t k Terms and P k is a k-ary predicate, then P k (t 1,...,t k ) Formulas (atomic formulas)

Closed World Reasoning for OWL2 with Negation As Failure

Logic: Propositional Logic Truth Tables

Lecture 2: Axiomatic semantics

Semantic Web Uncertainty Management

Fuzzy OWL: Uncertainty and the Semantic Web

Artificial Intelligence. Propositional Logic. Copyright 2011 Dieter Fensel and Florian Fischer

Geospatial Semantics for Topographic Data

An Introduction to Modal Logic III

On Terminological Default Reasoning about Spatial Information: Extended Abstract

CS 730/830: Intro AI. 1 handout: slides. Wheeler Ruml (UNH) Lecture 11, CS / 15. Propositional Logic. First-Order Logic

Propositional Logic: Logical Agents (Part I)

Semantics and Inference for Probabilistic Ontologies

THE LANGUAGE OF FIRST-ORDER LOGIC (FOL) Sec2 Sec1(1-16)

How to Contract Ontologies

DESCRIPTION LOGICS. Paula Severi. October 12, University of Leicester

Preliminaries. Introduction to EF-games. Inexpressivity results for first-order logic. Normal forms for first-order logic

Predicate Logic. CSE 595 Semantic Web Instructor: Dr. Paul Fodor Stony Brook University

Description Logics. Glossary. Definition

Fuzzy Description Logics

Knowledge Base Exchange: The Case of OWL 2 QL

How to determine if a statement is true or false. Fuzzy logic deal with statements that are somewhat vague, such as: this paint is grey.

Intelligent Systems. Propositional Logic. Dieter Fensel and Dumitru Roman. Copyright 2008 STI INNSBRUCK


Propositional Logic: Models and Proofs

CS560 Knowledge Discovery and Management. CS560 - Lecture 3 1

Handling Inconsistency in Knowledge Bases

Interactive ontology debugging: two query strategies for efficient fault localization

Logic and Modelling. Introduction to Predicate Logic. Jörg Endrullis. VU University Amsterdam

Relations to first order logic

Lightweight Description Logics: DL-Lite A and EL ++

Quasi-Classical Semantics for Expressive Description Logics

CSC384: Intro to Artificial Intelligence Knowledge Representation II. Required Readings: 9.1, 9.2, and 9.5 Announcements:

Propositional Logic: Logical Agents (Part I)

The Importance of Being Formal. Martin Henz. February 5, Propositional Logic

Bound and Free Variables. Theorems and Proofs. More valid formulas involving quantifiers:

A New Approach to Knowledge Base Revision in DL-Lite

Extensions to the Logic of All x are y: Verbs, Relative Clauses, and Only

A Logic Primer. Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley. Stavros Tripakis (UC Berkeley) EE 144/244, Fall 2014 A Logic Primer 1 / 35

Transcription:

Model-theoretic Semantics 1

Semantics Intro I What is the semantics of the following statement, according to RDF and according to RDFS? Ex:SpaceAccessory rdfs:subclassof ex:product 2

Semantics Intro II What is the semantics of the following ontology, according to RDF(S) and according to OWL2? <rdf:rdf xmlns="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/10/ontology1352809960588.owl#" xml:base="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/10/ontology1352809960588.owl" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/xmlschema#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:ontology1352809960588="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/10/ontology1352 809960588.owl#"> <owl:ontology <http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/10/&ontology1352809960588;organisationalunit rdf:about="http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/10/ontology1352809960588.owl"> > <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#equivalentclass> _:bnode1447883008. <rdfs:label>my _:bnode1447883008 Test Ontology</rdfs:label> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <owl:versioninfo>0.9</owl:versioninfo> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#class>. <owl:priorversion>0.75</owl:priorversion> _:bnode1447883008 <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#unionof> _:bnode410442880. <owl:imports _:bnode410442880 rdf:resource="http://www.xfront.com/owl/ontologies/camera/"/> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#first> </owl:ontology> <http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/10/&ontology1352809960588;department>. _:bnode410442880 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#rest> _:bnode2037950656. <owl:class rdf:about="&ontology1352809960588;organisationalunit"> _:bnode2037950656 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#first> <owl:equivalentclass> <http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/10/&ontology1352809960588;division>. <owl:class> _:bnode2037950656 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#rest> <owl:unionof <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#nil>. rdf:parsetype="collection"> <rdf:description rdf:about="&ontology1352809960588;department"/> <rdf:description rdf:about="&ontology1352809960588;division"/> </owl:unionof> </owl:class> </owl:equivalentclass> <rdfs:subclassof rdf:resource="&owl;thing"/> </owl:class> http://www.rdfabout.com/demo/validator/ </rdf:rdf> 3

Model-Theoretic Semantics So far we have been talking quite informally about semantics What follows is really a crash-course in model-theoretic semantics plus how to use these to assign meaning to RDFS and OWL 2 language constructs that glosses over many details. To know more, read: http://www.w3.org/tr/rdf-mt/ for RDF Semantics http://www.w3.org/tr/owl2-direct-semantics/ for OWL2 direct semantics 4

Logic Theories, Interpretations and Models Very roughly: Logical statements (axioms) Logical theory: A collection of logical statements (a knowledge base, an ontology) Many interpretations ( worlds ) Some interpretations satisfy the conditions of a theory, these are models of the theory. Some theories are satisfied by no interpretation (unsatisfiable) 5

Interpretations Interpretation I = (D,. I ) for a vocabulary V: Domain of discourse D Function. I that maps individuals in V to elements in D, unary predicates (classes) in V to subsets of D and binary predicates (properties) to elements in (D x D). 6

Interpretation Example Text (please use text notation in exams!!!) V = {Mackenzie, NBDD, Deparmtent, manages} D = {Lisa, Anna, Mary, x, y, z} Mackenzie I = Anna NBDD I = z Department I = {y, z} Manages I = {(Anna,z)} 7

Interpretation Example - Graphical 8

Models An interpretation relates a domain of discourse (D) to a vocabulary (V). The vocabulary is used to express a logic theory (one way of seeing a knowledge base or ontology) Theory: ClassAssertion(:Department :NBDDptmt) An interpretation I is a model of a theory O (for ontology) iff I satisfies O. 9

Example Is the theory below satisfied by the interpretation below? What do we need in order to answer this question? Theory: ClassAssertion(:Department :NBDDptmt) 10

Axiom SubClassOf( CE 1 CE 2 ) OWL 2 Semantics EquivalentClasses( CE 1... CE n ) DisjointClasses( CE 1... CE n ) DisjointUnion( C CE 1... CE n ) Axiom ClassAssertion( CE a ) ObjectPropertyAssertion( OPE a 1 a 2 ) Condition (CE 1 ) C (CE 2 ) C http://www.w3.org/tr/owl2-semantics/ (CE j ) C = (CE k ) C for each 1 j n and each 1 k n (CE j ) C (CE k ) C = for each 1 j n and each 1 k n such that j k (C) C = (CE 1 ) C... (CE n ) C and (CE j ) C (CE k ) C = for each 1 j n and each 1 k n such that j k Condition (a) I (CE) C ( (a 1 ) I, (a 2 ) I ) (OPE) OP Description owl:thing owl:nothing ObjectComplementOf(C) Interpretation { x #{ y ( x, y ) U DataMaxCardinality(n U DR) Ipd and y DR D } n } V. Pammer-Schindler Nov 28, 2013 VU SemTech { x 2013/5 #{ y ( x, MT y ) Semantics U DataExactCardinality(n U DR) Ipd and y DR D } = n } 11 Δ I empty set Δ I \ C Ic ObjectIntersectionOf(C 1... C n ) C 1 Ic... C n Ic ObjectUnionOf(C 1... C n ) C 1 Ic... C n Ic ObjectOneOf(a 1... a n ) { a 1 Ii,..., a n Ii } ObjectSomeValuesFrom(R C) ObjectAllValuesFrom(R C) { x y : ( x, y ) R Ipo and y C Ic } { x y : ( x, y ) R Ipo implies y C Ic } ObjectHasValue(R a) { x ( x, a Ii ) R Ipo } ObjectExistsSelf(R) { x ( x, x ) R Ipo } ObjectMinCardinality(n R C) ObjectMaxCardinality(n R C) ObjectExactCardinality(n R C) DataSomeValuesFrom(U 1... U n DR) DataAllValuesFrom(U 1... U n DR) { x #{ y ( x, y ) R Ipo and y C Ic } n } { x #{ y ( x, y ) R Ipo and y C Ic } n } { x #{ y ( x, y ) R Ipo and y C Ic } = n } { x y 1,..., y n : ( x, y k ) U k Ipd for each 1 k n and ( y 1,..., y n ) DR D } { x y 1,..., y n : ( x, y k ) U k Ipd for each 1 k n implies ( y 1,..., y n ) DR D } DataHasValue(U v) { x ( x, v D ) U Ipd } DataMinCardinality(n U DR) { x #{ y ( x, y ) U Ipd and y DR D } n }

Example Same example, plus we know: ClassAssertion( C a ) is satisfied by I iff (a) I (C) I Theory: ClassAssertion(:Department :NBDDptmt) 12

Reasoning (via Example) Given that SubClassOf( CE 1 CE 2 ) is satisfied by I iff (CE 1 ) I (CE 2 ) I : How could you find out whether: ex:textbook rdfs:subclassof ex:publication follows from these 2 triples? ex:textbook rdfs:subclassof ex:book ex:book rdfs:subclassof ex:publication The following triple is true? ex:textbook rdfs:subclassof ex:textbook 13

OWL 2 Semantics correspond largely to the semantics of the DL SROIQ... SROIQ however misses datatypes and datatype properties, and metamodeling We have been talking about the direct model semantics of OWL2. However, rdf-based semantics for OWL2 also exist, and the semantics can be different. To read more, consult: Domingue, Fensel, Hendler: Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies, p.384ff http://www.w3.org/tr/owl2-rdf-basedsemantics/#example_on_semantic_differences 14

Why should we care about semantics? Gives you a basic understanding about interpretations, models, logic theories and how to find out what a logic theory (=any data or knowledge model in RDFS or OWL2) means. Lets you understand what reasoners do when they: Check the satisfiability of an ontology O: Is there a model of O? Check the satisfiability of a concept C w.r.t. an ontology O: Is there a model of O in which C I is non-empty? Does the ontology O entail (=implicitly state) that a is of type C: Is a I C I in all models of O? 15

Why should we care about semantics? Lets you understand why a simple query language can only find out about explicitly stated knowledge, and you need a reasoner to elicit the implicit knowledge. 16

Exercise 1 Our ontology O consists of two axioms: ClassAssertion(ex:Manager ex:mackenzie) ObjectPropertyAssertion(ex:manages ex:mackenzie ex:nbdd) a) Write down an interpretation that satisfies O (is a model of O). b) Write down an interpretation that does not satisfy O. 17

Exercise 2 An ontology O consists of the following axioms: SubClassOf(ex:SpaceSuit ex:product) SubClassOf(ex:SpaceAccessory ex:product) Is the following interpretation I a model of O or not? D = {a,b,c,d,e} SpaceSuite I = {a,b,c} SpaceAccessory I = {b,c,d} Product I = {a,c,d} If not, how could you change I so that it satisfies O? 18