Day 1
Session 1 - Industry Track
Near Real-time Enterprise System Integretion - Suzette Stautenburg
Use case:
- Very easily extensible tracking of e.g. sattelites, enemy forces, etc.
Wants:
- Uncertainty
- N-ary predicates
- Individual denoting functions
Lockheed-Martin - Henson Graves
Use case:
- integrate, organise, identify enterprise data
- Assessment of requirements, design analysis
Wants:
- Ontology-driven data insertion: using fill-in forms based on constraints on the ontology
IBM Watson - Anand Raganathan
Use case:
- Stream processing of data streams (e.g. traffic camera data)
- Need workflow description
Has:
- System for describing workflows different from OWL(S)/WSML
- Instance-level graph patterns
- More expressive -> cycles, xsd sequences, progagate information using variables
- ABox assertions instead of TBox axioms
- Planner for automatic composition of optimal workflows
Renault - Francois Servant
Use case:
- Diagnostics of car parts using RDF/OWL Full
- Use their own reasoning tools
- Each test has a cost:
- Disassembly graph of parts in a car
- Disassembly state
- OWL Modeling is not "extra" work
- Allows a lot of business knowledge about data
- Easily implemented by using the "dynamic object model"-pattern in Java
Problem:
- Still need to produce the data
Questions
Bijan: What part of OWLFull did you use? Would punning be enough?
Peter: Anyone doing any *OWL-Fullishness*??
Henson G: We use XML proof checking, decdability is not important
Suzette: Would like an integrated suite, currently using XML tools
Anand: Uses Protege 3.2beta, and uses an IBM-developed DLP reasoner
Francois: Uses Protege as well, would like a way to insert instances in a browser
Anand: Reache & replace over large ontologies, simple text editing.
Suzette: OWL/SWRL 2 Prolog -> as they use Prolog for reasoning.
Session 2
Brian Lowe
VIVO Website (Virtual Life Sciences Library), ontology based, at:
http://vivo.cornell.edu
Based on java/tomcat/lucene/mysql
RDFS Semantics is sufficient for most cases, but need:
- How to hide stuff in a database
- Transitive properties
-> Moving to Jena/Pellet seems promising. Could use rapid/dynamic TBox editing for site editors.
Ontology of Fine Rolls (Henry III, 1216-1248) - Jose Viera
The ontology is used for describing person, subject, place etc.
Extract data from XML to ontology -> show in the portal
Problem: synchronisation between XML serialisation and RDF/OWL representation
Stephen Larson
Ontology that integrates (image) data accross diferent scales (microscopic, brain tissue), but also other sources.
Use *Algernon* for rules. Used to generate inferred instances from existing ones -> e.g. generate a neuron if you know there's an axon.
SWRL Tab - Martin O'Connor (SMI)
Use case: clinical trials application & SWRL
- Create some consistency accross different trials
Need/Does:
- Ontology Mapping (EPOCH/Bridge)
- Knowledge-level queries
- SWRL as query language (SPARQL is RDF, SWRL is OWL)
- TBox, ABox queries, temporal queries
- Implemented the SWRL Query Tab (JESS): SQWRL
- Allows OWL restrictions in queries, disjunction and negation
Session 3
Integrity Constraints - Boris Motik
Integrity constraints (as used in relational databases) can be used for error detection:
- Domain constraint
- Participation constraint
Constraints can be used to find lacking information.
Axioms should be treated as a *check* -> current OWL reasoning is actually unnecessarily complex
- Strategy is to split the TBox
- Normal TBox - for inference rules
- Constraint TBox - integrity constraints
If IC's are ok, we can throw them away for query answering.
- Model ontology as usual
- Mark (some/all) axioms as integrity constraints
- Add individuals
- Check IC satisfaction
- Forget IC's
- Answer ABox queries -> reason more efficiently
This procedure will lead to:
- Better modelling
- Better performance
Current issues:
- Still needs to be implemented (will be in KAON2)
- Computational complexity is unclear
Fuzzy Description Logics - Giorgos Stoilos
Implemented:
- Fuzzy reasoning engine, FIRE (connected to triples in Sesame)
- Fuzzy DL-Lite (fuzzy cardinality constraints)
- Fuzzy DL
Can OWL model Football Leagues - Diego Calvanese
- Need identifiers -> normal in ERM, databases etc. the notion of *key*
- Identifiers exist in a restricted form in DL (the at_most_1 construct)
- Developed DL-LiteA, which has the same complexity as relational databases.
SPARQL-DL - Bijan Parsia
- Many query languages: DIG, nRQL, OWL-QL (OQL), SPARQL, SeRQL
- DIG is not satisfactory for OWL-DL, many other query languages aren't either
- Queries are the way in which users interact with the store.
- SPARQL-DL is an extension of SPARQL which allows to use OWL-DLlish constructs (subClassOf, equivalentClass etc.) in SPARQL queries.
Panel 1 - SPARQL/OWL/Rules
- What's the difference between Queries and Rules?
- Should it be OWL+rules or owl+RULES
Sandro Hawke (W3C)
RIF is a WG at W3C
- Core+extensions
- Interchange (not native!)
- May be lossy if you go beyond core
- Uses Horn logic
- Two way;s to use OWL on RIF-only systems
- Hybrid systems likely for OWL+RIF users
- Looking for the intersection
Martin O'Connor
- SPARQL is grotesque: poor syntax, unclear semantics, no extensions
- Exposes too much of RDF to the user
- SWRL has clean syntax, clear semantics
- supports extensions through plugins
Boris Motik
- We *should* distinguish Queries from Rules
- Query semantics is not controversial
- Rules have different focus: facts. Furthermore, their semantics *is* controversial
- Extend SPARQL, and fix it. Map it onto full algebra
- Add negation and universal quantification
- Make semantics on OWL unambiguous
- for ABox reasoning:
- Rules
- Integrity constraints
OWL+Rules is easier if we first extend it with integrity constraints
Italian Guy
- KR Perspective
- Overcome undecidability of QL's by using auto-epistemics
Bijan Parsia
- After a survey of submissions, and emails sent, mentions as primary 'wishes':
- SWRL, DL-Safe, Scalable ABox, Constraints, Keys, SPARQL-DL
- "SWRL" could mean anything: rules, constraints & queries
Questions
Alan Ruttenberg:
- Have the feeling that the "room" wants mixed ABox/TBox queries
Alan Rector:
- We need a list of typical rules and checks for rules formalism expressivity (RIFRAF was a start in the RIF WG)
Ulrike Sattler:
- How do you know where to draw the line between Rules & OWL?
Suzette:
- As much as possible in OWL
O'Connor:
- But people just use the most convenient method.
Session - OWL 1.1 Status Report - Ian Horrocks
- Invitation to do document-editing
Sandro Hawke will be staff-contact for possible WG:
- WG usually runs for 3 years
- 15 people
- F2F meeting 4 times per year
- Phone conference every week
- 1-2 days per week per person
- Proposed chairs: Ian Horrocks & Alan Ruttenberg
- Call for participation at the start of October, first telecon at the end of October
- F2F at the end of November, first week of December.
- Talk to AC Rep to speak-up for the initiative!
For next OWLED:
- Report of the possible
- Proposal
- Specification
Session
OWL API - Matthew Horridge
The WonderWeb API has transformed into the OWL API:
- Syntax neutral
- Closely follows specification
- change-objects, easy redo/undo
- Multiple ontologies
- Many syntaxes, can be connected to OWL/RDF triplestore