arcoe-11

58 Pages·2011·3.41 MB·English

Workshop Notes
The IJCAI-11 Workshop on
Automated Reasoning about Context and Ontology Evolution
ARCOE-11
July 18, 2011
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
held at the
International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Co-Chairs
Alan Bundy
Jos Lehmann
Ivan Varzinczak
http://www.arcoe.org

ARCOE-11 Workshop Notes
IntroductiontotheNotesoftheIJCAI-11WorkshopARCOE-11
Automated Reasoning about Context and Ontology Evolution
AlanBundy1,JosLehmann1,IvanVarzinczak2,3
1 SchoolofInformatics,UniversityofEdinburgh
2 CSIRMerakaInstitute,Pretoria,SouthAfrica
3 SchoolofComputerScience,UniversityofKwaZulu-Natal,Durban,SouthAfrica
MethodsofautomatedreasoninghavesolvedalargenumberofproblemsinComputerSciencebyusing
formalontologiesexpressedinlogic.Overtheyears,though,eachproblemorclassofproblemshasrequired
a different ontology, and sometimes a different version of logic. Moreover, the processes of conceiving,
controllingandmaintaininganontologyanditsversionshaveturnedouttobeinherentlycomplex. Allthis
has motivated much investigation in a wide range of disparate disciplines—from logic-based Knowledge
RepresentationandReasoningtoSoftwareEngineering,fromDatabasestoMultimedia—abouthowtorelate
ontologiestooneanother.
Just like its previous editions, ARCOE-11 aims at bringing together researchers and practitioners from
core areas of Artificial Intelligence (Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Contexts, and Ontologies)
todiscussthesekindsofproblemsandrelevantresults. Historically,therehavebeenatleastthreedifferent,
yetinterdependentmotivations behindthistypeof research: definingthe relationship betweenanontology
anditscontext,providingsupporttoontologyengineers,enhancingproblemsolvingandcommunicationfor
softwareagents.
ARCOEcallforpapershasbeenformulatedagainstsuchhistoricalbackground.SubmissionstoARCOE-
11havebeenreviewedbytwotothreeChairsorPCmembersandrankedonrelevanceandquality. Seventy
fivepercentofthesubmissionshavebeenselectedforpresentationattheworkshopandforinclusioninthese
WorkshopNotes.
Thanks to the invaluable and much appreciated contributions of its program committee and its authors,
ARCOE-11 provides participants with an opportunity to position various approaches with respect to one
another. Hopefully, though the workshop and these Notes will also start a process of cross-pollination
and consolidate the constitution of a truly interdisciplinary research-community dedicated to automated
reasoningaboutcontextsandontologyevolution.
(Edinburgh,Pretoria–June2011)
1
ARCOE-11 Workshop Notes
ARCOE-11Co-Chairs
AlanBundy(UniversityofEdinburgh,UK)
JosLehmann(UniversityofEdinburgh,UK)
IvanVarzinczak(CSIRMerakaInstituteandUniversityofKwaZulu-Natal,SouthAfrica)
ARCOE-11InvitedSpeaker
ChiaraGhidini(FBKFondazioneBrunoKessler,Italy)
ARCOE-11ProgramCommittee
FranzBaader(TUDresden,Germany)
ChristophBenzmueller(ArticulateSoftware,USA)
RichardBooth(UniversityofLuxembourgandMahasarakhamUniversity,Thailand)
PaoloBouquet(UniversityofTrento,Italy)
JimDelgrande(SimonFraserUniversity,Canada)
JeromeEuzenat(INRIA&LIG,France)
NicolaFanizzi(UniversityofBari,Italy)
GiorgosFlouris(FORTH,Greece)
ChiaraGhidini(FBKFondazioneBrunoKessler,Italy)
DeborahMcGuinness(RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute,USA)
ThomasMeyer(CSIRMerakaInstitute,SouthAfrica)
AlessandraMileo(DigitalEnterpriseResearchInstitute,Ireland)
AmedeoNapoli(LORIACNRS,France)
MauricePagnucco(TheUniversityofNewSouthWales,Australia)
ValeriadePaiva(CuilInc.,USA)
JeffPan(UniversityofAberdeen,UK)
DimitrisPlexousakisFORTH,Greece)
GuilinQi(SoutheastUniversity,China)
MarcioRibeiro(UniversityofSaoPaulo,Brazil)
LucianoSerafini(FBKFondazioneBrunoKessler,Italy)
RenataWassermann(UniversidadedeSaoPaulo,Brazil)
2
ARCOE-11 Workshop Notes
TableofContents
AlanBundy
OntheEvolutionofClassifications............................................................................................................7-12
ChristopheJouis,Jean-GabrielGanascia,FranckGuyandClaudeJouis
Emergenceinscientificliteratureanddynamicsinontologies:applicationinpaleoanthropology............13-17
ValeriaDePaivaandNatashaAlechina
ContextualConstructiveDescriptionLogics..............................................................................................18-22
SergioAlejandroGomez,CarlosChesevarandGuillermoSimari
Local-as-ViewIntegrationofOntologiesThroughArgumentation.............................................................23-27
SineZambachandMaiAjspur
Reductionofcompositesofrelationsbetweenclasseswithinformalontologies.........................................28-32
AlexanderDemin,DenisPonomaryovandEvgenyVityaev
Probabilisticconceptsinformalcontexts...................................................................................................33-37
WilliamGatens,BorisKonev,MichelLudwigandFrankWolter
VersioningBasedonLogicalDifferenceforLightweightDescriptionLogicTerminologies.......................38-42
MontassarBenMessaoud,PhilippeLerayandNahlaBenAmor
SemCaDo:aserendipitouscausaldiscoveryalgorithmforontologyevolution.........................................43-47
MichaelChan,JosLehmannandAlanBundy
GALILEO:ASystemforAutomatingOntologyEvolution..........................................................................48-52
3
ARCOE-11 Workshop Notes
4
ARCOE-11 Workshop Notes
On the Evolution of Classifications ∗
AlanBundy
SchoolofInformatics,UniversityofEdinburgh
Edinburgh,Scotland,UK
[email protected]
Abstract Wetakethestancethatthereisnoperfectorfinalclassifica-
tionofasetofobjects: representationisafluent[Bundyand
Theevolutionofontologieshasbeenidentifiedby
McNeill,2006]. Classificationsevolvewithbothourknowl-
W3C as a significant issue. Automatic ontology edge of the objects and the purpose for which they are em-
evolution is increasingly important to allow run-
ployed. Neitherourknowledgenorourapplicationsarelim-
time communication between vast collections of
ited,soevolutionmustbeseenasanon-terminatingprocess.
onlineagents. Forthisapplication,manual,offline
In a similar way, no definition may be regarded as final and
evolutionisbothtooslowandtooexpensive.
complete,butwillalsoevolvewithourknowledgeandappli-
Very many ontologies are classifications of a set cations. Soallthedefinitionsandclassificationsbelowmust
of objects. In order to gain insight into how the beregardedassnapshotsinaprocessofflux.
evolutionofclassificationsmightbeautomated,we
discuss some historic examples of such evolution.
2 TheClassificationoftheAnimals
Fromthisdiscussion,weextractsomegeneralprin-
ciplesthatmightbeemployedtohelpautomatethe Fromtheearliesthistoricalrecords,peoplehaveclassifiedan-
ontologyevolutionprocess. imals and plants, i.e., partitioned them into sets or arranged
theminhierarchies. AtypicalexamplecanbeseeninFigure
11. It consists of a tree whose nodes each correspond to a
1 Introduction
setofanimals. Anarcbetweentwonoderepresentsasubset
The 2004 W3C Recommendation on the “OWL Web Ontol- relationbetweenthelowerandtheuppernode.
ogyLanguage: UseCasesandRequirements”justifiesontol- NoticethateachnodeofthetreeinFigure1hassomeasso-
ogyevolutionasfollows: ciatedtext. Thisgivessomepropertiescommontothesetof
SincetheWebisconstantlygrowingandchanging, animalsatthatnode. Someexampleanimalsaresometimes
we must expect ontologies to change as well. On- alsolisted.
tologiesmayneedtochangebecausetherewereer- Theclassificationofanimalshasevolvedsignificantlyover
rorsinpriorversions,becauseanewwayofmod- time.Themaindriverofthisevolutionhasbeentoreviewthe
elingthedomainispreferred, orbecausenewter- definingpropertiesofeachnode. Forinstance,
minology has been created (e.g., as the result of
• Pre-scientific classifications were based on superficial
the invention of new technology). A web ontol-
properties,i.e.,mainlymattersofimmediateappearance
ogy language must be able to accommodate on-
orhumanusage,thelatterbeingculturallydependent.
tology revision. [http://www.w3.org/TR/
webont-req/#goal-evolution] – Anexampleoftheformeristhat, becausewhales,
dolphins and porpoises lived in the sea and were
Many ontologies consist of classifications of a set of ob-
fish-shaped,theywereclassifiedasfish.
jects. Atypicalsuchclassificationwillbeatreestructurein
– Anexampleofthelatteristheclassificationofall
whichthenodesaresubsetsoftheobjectsetandarcsbetween
pestsunder‘vermin’.Anexamplefromtheclassifi-
themrepresentsetinclusion. Giventheimportanceassigned
cationofplantsistheuseof‘vegetable’todescribe
to ontology evolution by W3C and the ubiquity of classifi-
a selection of plant components, including some,
catory ontologies, we thought it would be useful to investi-
butnotall,fruits,leavesandroots,whosecommon
gatehowsomehistoricexamplesofhowclassificationshave
propertyisthatwecaneatthem2.
evolved. Wehopethathisanalysiswillrevealsomegeneral
principlesthatmightthenbeemployedintheautomationof
1http://www.rapidonline.com/1/1/
classificationevolution.
6239-classification-of-animals-wall-chart.
∗Thanks to Fiona McNeill, Liwei Deng and two anonymous html
ARCOE-11 reviewers for feedback on earlier drafts and to my re- 2I’mgratefultoananonymousreviewerforsuggestingthisex-
searchgroupforthediscussionataseminar. ample.
5
ARCOE-11 Workshop Notes
ferences are multi-dimensional: evolution can change
any piece of DNA in multiple ways. Suppose, for in-
stance,thatgeneAevolvestoA1tocreateonenewsub-
species and gene B to B1 to create another. These two
sub-species may subsequently converge again in a new
subspecieswithbothgenesA1andB1,makingthetree
intoagraph.Moreover,itmakestheboundariesbetween
nodesmorefuzzy. Somegeneticvariationhastobetol-
erated within a node, or each node would be singleton
animal. But how much variation is necessary before a
nodeneedstobesplit?
• Variant classifications may survive for a variety of rea-
sons. Forinstance, simpleronesmaybeusefulforele-
mentaryeducation,especiallywhenthestudentscannot
be expected to understand the potentially more sophis-
ticated science informing the definitional properties of
later classifications. Figure 1 is an example of such a
simple classification aimed at primary school students.
Some variant classifications may be aimed at specific
applications, e.g., a guide to edible food, field identifi-
cationfornaturelovers,warningsofdangerousanimals,
historicalinterest.
Figure1: AClassificationofAnimals
Fromthisexamplewecandrawsomeconclusions.
1. We can’t hope to model the evolution of classifications
• In1778,Swedishbiologist,Linnaeusstartedtoclassify
unless we also know the defining properties of these
whalesasmammalsonthegroundsthattheysharedsig-
classifications. Intheanimalclassification,thesedefin-
nificant non-superficial properties with the other mam-
ingpropertieschangefromfirstsuperficialtomorefun-
mals3.Thesepropertiesaresomeofthoselistedasdefin-
damental ones and then to the underlying DNA. Each
ing ‘mammals’ in Figure 1, that is having hair or fur,
new advance in understanding may make new defining
feedingyoungonmilk,beingwarm-blooded,etc.
properties available, e.g., the discovery that some ani-
• Darwin’s theory of evolution and the discovery of the mals were warm blooded and some cold blooded, the
fossil record led to both the inclusion of extinct ani- evidence of common ancestry arising from the fossil
mals in the classification and defining properties based record,thediscoveryofDNA.
oncommonancestryandevolutionarydescent. Thehi-
2. Wehavetobeabletoreasonabouttheseproperties,i.e.,
erarchicalclassificationcalledCladisticsusesonlysuch
toarguewhyoneisabetterbasisforclassificationthan
Darwinianproperties4.
another.Theclassificationoftheanimalsprovidessome
• Mostrecently,thediscoveryofDNAhasledtoafurther possiblecriteria.
evolutioninwhichthedefiningpropertiesarebasedon
• A classification may be preferred because it pro-
geneticsimilarities. Thishasledtotheidentificationof
vides better explanatory power, e.g., DNA can po-
previously unrecognised distinctions. For instance, re-
tentiallyexplainthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbe-
cent genetic comparison of the forest-dwelling African
tweendifferentanimals.
elephantwithitssavannah-dwellingcousinshowsthem
• A classification may be rejected because itsdefin-
tohavedivergedasmuchastheAsianelephantandthe
ingpropertiesmaycometobeseenasenvironmen-
woolly mammoth5. Similarly, recent DNA studies have
tally contingent rather than fundamental, e.g., fish
discoveredthattheclosestlivingrelativesofthebeaver
shapeisanefficientshapeforanimalsswimmingin
arescaly-tailedflyingsquirrels,notgophersaswaspre-
water,whichiswhydifferentkindsofanimal(e.g.,
viouslythought6.
whalesandsharks)sometimeshavesimilarshape.
• Note that this change of defining property also under- Contingency may also arise because a property is
mines the tree-structure of the classification. DNA dif- defeasible,e.g.,somebirdscan’tfly,aninsectmay
loseoneofitssixlegs,etc.Defeasiblepropertiesdo
3http://www.ecokids.ca/pub/eco_info/topics/
not provide reliable definitions, e.g., penguins are
whales/mammals.cfm
still considered birds even though they are flight-
4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
less.
5http://www.newscientist.com/article/
mg20927942.900-ancient-genomes-suggest-africa Notethatwhatmaybeviewedasfundamentaland
-has-two-elephant-species.html finalatonestageofclassificationevolutionmaybe
6http://www.newscientist.com/article/ viewed as merely contingent at a later stage. For
mg20927984.100-60-seconds.html instance, the convergent evolution of the shape of
6
ARCOE-11 Workshop Notes
sharksandwhales,andtheefficiencyoffishshape elementschangedfrom4to92,withtheoriginal4elements
arebothrelativelyrecentdiscoveries.Soweshould nowreclassifiedasmixtures,compoundsorboth,ofthenew
notbeseducedintobelievingthatthecurrentdefin- 92 elements, or, in the case of fire, as being either a chemi-
ingpropertiesrepresentacompletionoftheevolu- cal reaction or photons, according to how you view it. Sec-
tionaryprocess. Forinstance,ananimal’sDNAcan ondly,thenewbasisofMendeleev’sclassificationwaschem-
nowchangeduringitslifetimeduetogeneticengi- ical and physical properties of the elements. For instance,
neering,soeventhispropertyisdefeasible. the elements line up in order of atomic weight: left/right,
• Aclassificationmaybepreferredbecauseitleadsto top/bottom. Eachcolumncontainselementsofsimilarprop-
successful prediction, e.g., animals found to have erties,e.g.,thenoblegasesthatlineupintherightmostcol-
some of the properties of mammals may be pre- umn share the property of being chemically inert, while the
dictedtohaveothers,evenbeforetheseotherprop- alkalimetalslineupintheleft-handcolumn.
erties are observed. Perhaps live birth and hair
in whales are examples. Novel but viable bacte-
rial cells have even been created from artificially
constructed DNA,afteranalysispredictedwhatthe
minimalviableDNAwas7.
• A classification may be preferred because it pro-
videsafinergranularityofdistinction,e.g.,theLin-
neanhierarchycontainskingdoms,classes,orders,
generaandspecies,withwiderbranchingandfiner
distinctions being frequently added, as new scien-
tificdiscoveriesaremade. DNA providesanexpo-
nentiallybiggerspaceofpossibilitiesyet.
• A new object may be discovered that does not fit
intotheexistingclassification,forcingachangeto
the classification so that it does fit, e.g., the duck-
billed platypus has features of both mammals and
Figure2: Mendeleev’sPeriodicTable
birds. Its discovery led to the creation of a new
orderofmammals: themonotremes.
Ourmodernunderstandingofatomicstructurehasgivenan
• Classifications may be tailored to particular pur-
explanationofwhyelementsinthesamecolumnhavesimilar
poses or usages, e.g., simplified versions for el-
properties.Electronsarearrangedinnestedshellsaroundthe
ementary education, field observation, edible vs
nucleus11.Thereisalimittohowmanyelectronscanoccupy
inediblefood,etc.
each shell, but this limit increases quadratically. The num-
3. We have to be prepared for the shape of the classifica- berofelectronsoccupyingtheoutermostshelldeterminesthe
tion to change if the properties do. For instance, Lin- chemicalbondsthattheelementcanmake. So,forinstance,
nean trees may not be the best way to summarise DNA whenthelastshellisfull, theelementischemicallyinert: a
differences. noblegas. Thefactthatthesizeofeachshellincreases, ex-
plainswhytherowsoftheperiodictablehavegapsatthetop
3 TheClassificationoftheElements and why two separate rows are required at the bottom: the
lanthanidesandtheactinides.
Similarlytotheanimalsandplants, classificationsoftheel-
Abetterwaytorepresentthiswouldbeasconcentricrings
ementsgobacktoancienthistory. Theearliestclassification
of increasing size, to reflect the growing size of the shells.
wasintofourelements:earth,water,airandfire,andwasdue
Therehavebeenvariousattemptstoproducesuchacircular
to the Greek philosopher Empedocles of Sicily8. The basis
periodictable12,butthequadraticgrowthofshellsizemakes
ofthisclassificationseemstobesuperficialphysicalappear-
thisdifficulttodowhileretainingvisibilityintheouterrings.
ance,althoughtherealsoseemstohavebeenareligiousinflu-
The best attempt I could find in a short search is in Figure
ence, with each element being associated with a god: Zeus,
313,butevenherethelanthanidesandactinidesaresqueezed
Hera,NestisandAidoneus.
into one entry, rather than using a bigger ring. Note that,
OurmodernclassificationoriginatedwithMendeleev’spe-
onceagain, thedefiningpropertiesoftheclassificationhave
riodictable9(seeFigure210).Firstly,thenumberofclassified
changed. Eachelementisplacedintheringthatcorresponds
7http://www.newscientist.com/article/ tothenumberofoccupiedshellsinitselectroncloud,whereas
dn18942-immaculate-creation-birth-of-the
-first-synthetic-cell.html 11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_
8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empedocles shells#Shells
9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelev 12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_
10http://www.tutorvista.com/content/science/ periodic_tables
science-ii/periodic-classification-elements/ 13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:
modern-periodic.php TROPE_777x777_AB_082009.png
7
ARCOE-11 Workshop Notes
inFigure2anelement’srowwasdeterminedbyitschemical • A finer granularity of distinction, e.g., different
properties14. kinds of ‘air’ in Mendeleev’s table, different iso-
topesofthesameelementinquantummechanics.
• Theexistenceofobjectsthatdon’tfitwellintothe
existingclassification,e.g.,thelanthanidesandac-
tinides.
3. Themovefrom4to92+elementswasdrivenbychemi-
calanalysisaswastheshapeofMendeleev’stable,e.g.,
the discovery of multiple kinds of ‘air’ undermined its
classificationasasingleelementandledtotheidentifi-
cationofnewgaseouselements(andcompounds). The
movetoacircular‘table’wasdrivenbytheunderstand-
ingofelectronshells.
4. Mendeleev’s table is retained for educational purposes.
Perhaps the quantum mechanical basis for a more so-
phisticated story would be hard to explain to students.
Also, the majority of working quantum physicists sub-
scribetothe‘Copenhageninterpretation’,whichrejects
intuitive, non-mathematical accounts as unobtainable,
misleadingandundesirable,sotheymightnotevenseek
abetterclassification.
4 ClassificationinActioninAstronomy
It’sinstructivetowitnessclassificationsbeingformed. We’re
Figure3: TheRingOfPeriodicElements(TROPE)(August historically lucky that several such classifications are cur-
2009) rentlybeinghotlydebated,especiallyinAstronomy.
The case that has received the most public attention is
Wecandrawsimilarconclusionsfromtheclassificationof whetherPlutoshouldbeclassifiedasaplanet15. Whatdrove
theelementsthatwedrewfromtheclassificationoftheani- the debate was the discovery of similar objects to Pluto in
mals. theoutersolarsystem,e.g.,Chiron,andtheexpectationthat
1. Thechangeindefiningpropertiesoftheelements, e.g., many more such objects would be discovered in the future.
from physical appearance to chemical properties to It’sinterestingthattheprincipalargumentsoneithersideof
atomicstructure,drovetheevolutionoftheirclassifica- thedebateweremore‘political’thanscientific.
tion. Scientific advances provided the candidate defin- • ThosearguingforthedemotionofPlutotoanewclassi-
ing properties for the new classifications, e.g., sepa- ficationofdwarfplanetweremostlymotivatedbywant-
ration between compounds and elements, discovery of ing to keep the designation ‘planet’ as something spe-
their chemical properties and atomic weight, the quan- cial. Theydidnotwanttoopenthedoortohugenum-
tumstructureoftheatom,etc. bersofobjectsbeingcalledplanets.
2. To model this we’d have to reason why atomic struc- • ThosearguingfortheretentionofPlutoasaplanetwere
ture is a better basis for a classification than chemical mostlydrivenbytradition,i.e.,Plutohadbeenclassified
properties,whichwasabetterbasisthansuperficialap- asaplanetsince1930,andtheywerereluctanttoseethis
pearance.Thereasonsechosomeofthoseatworkinthe decisionrevoked.
evolutionoftheclassificationofanimals.
Thearbitrarynatureofthefinaldecisionisemphasisedbythe
• Betterexplanatorypower,i.e.,atomicstructureex- methodofdecision: avote,onAugust242006,bytheInter-
plainschemicalpropertieswhich,inturn,explains nationalAstronomicalUnion. However,whattheyvotedfor
physicalappearance. was some new defining properties of a planet, which would
• Defining properties seen as contingent, e.g., excludePluto,Chironandotheranticipatedplanetarycandi-
whether an object appears at room temperature as dates. Thesewere:
solid (earth), liquid (water) or gas (air), depends
1. TheobjectmustbeinorbitaroundtheSun.
onlyonitsfreezingandboilingpoints.
2. Theobjectmustbemassiveenoughtobeaspherebyits
• Prediction of new elements, by both Mendeleev’s
owngravitationalforce.Morespecifically,itsowngrav-
tableandquantummechanics.
ityshouldpullitintoashapeofhydrostaticequilibrium.
14Allthesecircularrepresentationshavetworingsof8elements 3. Itmusthaveclearedtheneighbourhoodarounditsorbit.
and two of 18, whereas a naive understanding of electron shells
wouldsuggestthatthereshouldbeonlyoneofeach. Itseemsthat
someshellscannotbecompletelyfilleduntilthenextoneisstarted. 15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
8