1 Ontological Analysis and Conceptual Modelling: Achievements and Perspectives Nicola Guarino National Research Council of Italy Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technology Laboratory for Applied Ontology, Trento (Ongoing work with Giancarlo Guizzardi, Federal University of Espirito Santo, Brazil) 1
40
Embed
Ontological Analysis and Conceptual Modelling: Achievements and Perspectives
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Ontological Analysis !and Conceptual Modelling: !
Achievements and PerspectivesNicola Guarino!
!National Research Council of Italy!
Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technology!Laboratory for Applied Ontology, Trento!
!(Ongoing work with Giancarlo Guizzardi, Federal University of Espirito Santo, Brazil)!
1
Summary
2
1. Knowledge representation, conceptual modelling, and ontological analysis!
2. The ontological level, 20 years later!
3. OntoClean, 13 years later!
4. Roles and relationships, 23 years later!
5. Dolce, 11 years later!
6. Episode-driven conceptual modeling!
7. A future challenge for ontological analysis
DisclaimerUnfortunately, this is not a comprehensive state of the art.
Just some subjective considerations mainly from the perspective of my own present interests.!
I wish I could have done more :-(
• Ontological analysis: systematic way to understand and make explicit the world assumptions behind a certain description:!• How do we believe the world is, when we say !
• This rose is red!• John is married with Mary!• John is a student!• My name is Nicola
• Data models encode knowledge about the world in order to easily and efficiently access it!
• Conceptual models describe some aspects of the world for the purpose of understanding and communication!
• Knowledge representations encode knowledge about the world in order to easily and efficiently access it and use it to generate new knowledge!
• Computational ontologies characterize the language used to talk about the world in order to reduce ambiguities and misunderstandings
Knowledge representation, conceptual modeling, and ontological analysis
3
different role of axioms
possible expansions of domain !and vocabulary
Ontological analysis as a detective lens
• Most of our true statements about the world are approximate!
• What makes them true?!• Where…?!• When…?!• Who…?!
• Why…?!
• Ontological analysis as a search for Truth-makers
4
The Ontological Level, 20 Years Later
5
The Ontological Level
Level Primitives Interpretation Main feature
Logical Predicates, functions
Arbitrary Formalization
Epistemological Structuring relations
Arbitrary Structure
Ontological Ontological relations
Constrained (meaning postulate s )
Meaning
Conceptual Conceptual relations
Subjective Conceptualization
Linguistic Linguistic terms
Subjective Language dependence
• Guarino N. 1994. The Ontological Level. In R. Casati, B. Smith and G. White (eds.), Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences (by 16th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg am Wechsel, Austria, 1993). Vienna, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky 1994!
• Guarino, N. 2009. The Ontological Level: Revisiting 30 Years of Knowledge Representation. In Alex Borgida, Vinay Chaudhri, Paolo Giorgini, Eric Yu (eds.), Conceptual Modelling: Foundations and Applications. Essays in Honor of John Mylopoulos, Springer Verlag 2009
From the logical level to the ontological level
• Logical level (no structure, no constrained meaning)!• ∃x (Apple(x) ∧ Red(x))!
!• Epistemological level (structure, no constrained meaning):!
• ∃x:apple Red(x) (many-sorted logics)!• ∃x:red Apple(x)!• a is a Apple with Color=red (description logics)!• a is a Red with Shape=apple!
• Some structuring choices are excluded because of ontological constraints: Apple carries an identity condition, Red does not.!!
Ontology helps building “meaningful” representations
OntoClean, 13 years later!(joint work with Chris Welty, Vassar College, !
then at IBM Watson Research Center, now at Google Inc.)
8
Ontoclean 13 years later • Basic idea: !
• assumptions about individuation and identity constrain taxonomic relationships: is-a overloading can be controlled!
• such assumptions are a basic component of ontological commitment!• Large impact, despite:!
• difficulties in coming up with identity precise criteria (necessary and sufficient conditions)!
• some problems in the definitions for rigidity and identity criteria (discussed and fixed in various papers by Carrara&Giaretta, Welty…)!
• Implementations in Protege and in other software modelling tools !• Some tools for deciding identity conditions on the basis of NL questions
have been developed [Oltramari…]!• Simplifications: !
• just focus on identity conditions (either only necessary or only sufficient)!
• unity criteria (a kind of weak identity criterion) are enough in many cases
9
10
From OntoClean meta-properties to a basic ontology of properties (universals)
Property
Non-sortal -I
Role ~R+D
Sortal+I
Formal Role
Attribution -R-D
Category +R
Mixin -D
Type +O
Quasi-type -O
Non-rigid -R
Rigid +R
Material roleAnti-rigid
~R Phased sortal -D
UFO and OntoUML !(Giancarlo Guizzardi and coll., UFES, Brazil)
• UFO: A foundational ontology that shares many of the basic intuitions of DOLCE, and includes an ontology of universal largely based on OntoClean!
• OntoUML: A visual conceptual modeling language whose primitives reflect ontological distinctions put forth by UFO!
• Besides the OntoUML language itself, the approach includes a number of methodological principles, design patterns and computational tools for doing formal verification, validation (via visual simulation), verbalization and automated transformation to operational languages such as OWL!
• Adopted in many industrial projects in different domains (telecommunications, government, digital journalism, software engineering, etc.)
11
Parts and wholes, 18 years later• 1996 paper!• Parts and moments!• DKE special issue!• Functional parts!• Debate at the summer school!• mereogeometry!• Unity and plurality
12
Roles and relationships, 23 years later
13
Constraining structuring relationships
Woods’ “What’s in a link?” (1975): JOHN HEIGHT: 6 FEET KISSED: MARY !
"no longer do the link names stand for attributes of a node, but rather arbitrary relations between the node and other nodes”
14
Structuring relations: a broader picture
JOHN HEIGHT: 6 FEET RIGHT-LEG: LEG#1 MOTHER: JANE JOB: RESEARCHER KISSED: MARY
intrinsic quality part role
relational quality external relation
We need different primitives to express different structuring relationships among concepts We need to represent non-structuring relationships separately Current description logics tend to collapse EVERYTHING!
15
structuring relationships
Roles, a never-ending story• LOT of literature, but still several open issues!
• AO special issue on roles (Boella)!• KR 2004 paper on social roles (Masolo et al.)!• Extensive further work by Mizoguchi, Loebe, Kassel….!
• In OntoClean we defined roles as anti-rigid, dependent properties!• Problems: broken, widow, driving…!
• For some, roles are particulars, not (reified) properties!• An old debate: “Roles are not classes: a reply to Nicola
Guarino” (van Heijst et al. 1997)!• Going back to their etymology: roles as descriptions (abstract
particulars)?!• Maybe we can take descriptions for the proper referent of the term
‘role’…!• …and distinguish between roles and the corresponding properties
(role properties)!• …but there are still problems
16
Being in a role vs. playing a role!some striking linguistic behaviours of social roles
17
• Comparatives:!• John has a good friend!• *John has a good classmate!• He is a good driver !• *he is a good pedestrian/passenger!• He is a good president !• *he is a good ocular witness!• *she is a good widow!!
• Replaceability:!• John replaced his teacher!• *John replaced his friend!• The company replaced an employee!• *The company replaced a customer
• Playing a social role does not mean instantiating the properties expected to be associated to the role!
• Some social roles (but not all!) are “replaceable”.
US president
Nixon
Quaker
embodies The US Presidency
US Presidency
satisfies
Natural personLegal person
~R +R~R
Nixon’s diamond revisited
Us president role
plays
Quaker role
plays
describes?describes?
variable embodiments emerge only for assigned (functional) roles
Dolce, 11 years later
19
Dolce, 11 years later
• Very robust and stable top ontology!• Several applications, various core or domain ontologies based on it!• Used for cleaning up and improving lexical resources [Oltramari, Vieu…]!• Just one paper discussing its foundational choices [Borgo&Masolo]!• Individual qualities as a crucial notion!• Three needed extensions, in my opinion (among many others!):!
• Local qualities!• Relative qualities!• A more detailed account of perdurants and the different ways of
• Lombard: an event is a change of an object in a quality space!• The simplest event I can think of is the manifestation of an individual
quality: !• the redness of this rose lasted one week!
• Focusing on the ultimate constituent subjects of events (i.e., individual qualities) allows us to distinguish events involving the same objects at the same time!
• Isn’t an event, after all, what happens to a sum of individual qualities?!
• Giving an event, focusing on its constituent qualities helps recognising it!
• Note: some of these individual qualities can be relational qualities (e.g., the distance of the Earth from the Sun) or local qualities (e.g., the depth of Adriatic Sea near Ravenna)
24
What's the width of a river?
25
What's the depth of the Adriatic Sea?
26
What’s the width of a vase?
What’s the color of a car?
Referring to local qualities
27
• Some qualities inhering to parts are conceived as if they where inhering to the whole:!? the width of this river stretch is 100 meters!√ the river’s width is 100 meters here!
? the Croatian side of the Adriatic Sea is much deeper than the Italian side !√ the depth of the Adriatic Sea is much higher along the Croatian coast than along the Italian coast
The problems with local qualities
...Of course, this only happens for some quality kinds:!the river has (arguably) just one length (at a given time)!the car has just one mass (at a given time)!
• Problems!• What is a local quality?!• What are the quality kinds that “generate” local qualities? !• In which sense does a local quality, which inheres to a
proper part, also “inhere” to the whole?!• How to make sense of terms like the color of the car even
if the actual color varies a lot?
28
Local to what?• Is the width of a longitudinal part of the river a
width of the river?
29
• Is the width of the handle a width of the vase?!• How can we exclude this?!• Answer: conventional parts
Episode-centric conceptual modeling
30
Objects and Episodes• DOLCE distinguishes between entities that endure (persist) in time and
entities that perdure (happen) in time: a person is an endurant, a talk is a perdurant!
• Ordinary endurants are commonly called objects. !• No standard term is used for ordinary perdurants:!
• Episode is the generic term I propose for a large class of relevant perdurants.!• “An episode is an event, a situation, or a period of time that is important or
interesting in some way” (Oxford Advanced Learning Dictionary)!• Why “Episode” may be a good choice for conceptual modeling:!
• Focuses on something relevant which is happening!• Conveys a unity criterion (maximality)
• Person(John) holds because John exists. John is the truth maker of the proposition. Nothing else is necessary.!
• Tired(John), in addition to the existence of John, requires an episode to occur at a certain time. It is such episode (involving John) that is the truth-maker.!
• All temporary properties (both intrinsic and extrinsic) require an episode as their truth maker.!
• Some (all?) permanent extrinsic properties require an episode as their truth maker.33
Relations and their truth makers
• Kinds of relations (a rough taxonomy - More work to be done!)!• Permanent relations!
• What is their truth maker?!• All temporary relations require an episode as their truth maker!• Some permanent relations (the extrinsic ones) require an episode
as their truth maker
34
Episode-centric conceptual modeling:!put truth-makers explicitly in your domain
• Why is it so useful?
35
In an episode there is more!...
• Whenever a contingent relation holds, you can ask yourself the usual questions:!
• When?!• Where?!• Who?!• What?!• Why?!
!• …and include the corresponding knowledge in your model only if you put
episodes in your domain!!• ….That’s why we can’t confuse episodes with facts or reified relations
The expressive power of episodes:!revisiting Guizzardi’s notion of ‘relator’ (*)
36
(*) Giancarlo Guizzardi, Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models, University of Twente, 2005
Episodes solve the cardinality constraint problem
«role»Patient
«kind»Medical Unit
1..*1..* treated In
A material relation:
Episodes, Relators and Derived Material Relations
«role»Patient
«kind»Medical Unit
«relator»Treatment
1..*
1
«mediation»
1
«mediation»
«kind»Person
1..*
1..* 1..*
/treated in
1
1..*
‹‹ material ››
Indeed this is an episode
has-patient has-agent
A closer look at relationships
• Chen 76: “a relationship is an association among entities. [However,] some people may view a marriage as an entity while other people may view it as a relationship. We think that this is a decision which should be made by the Enterprise Administrator”!
• Rationale: relationships can bear properties: a project-worker relationship can have the attribute percentage-of-time representing an intrinsic property of the relationship itself.!
• Such attributes are actually properties of episodes…!• Database people distinguish between relation constraints and tuple constraints
(such as those involving the number of patients being treated by a medical unit at the same time)!
• Tuple constraints do not actually constrain relations, but their truth-makers (episodes) !
• If so, what is a relationship?!• a tuple?!• an episode?!• a bundle of relational qualities?
39
From formal ontology to applied ontology!a glimpse the future
40
From ontology-driven information systems to ontology-driven socio-technical systems