View
763
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Cover on "Semantic Matchmaking of Resources with Local Closed-World Reasoning" paper by Stephan Grimm & Pascal Hitzler
Citation preview
Semantic Matchmaking of Resources with Local
Closed-World Reasoning
Stephan Grimm
stephan.grimm@fzi.de
Pascal Hitzler
hitzler@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
Khan “Sadh” N. Mostafa
Web Ontology Language
•
•
•
• description logic
• first order predicate logic• (open world assumption)
• negative knowledge absence of knowledge
•
Intro
Agenda
Description Logics
e.g. Computer, OS
e.g. hasComponent, runsOS
e.g. Deep Blue, Windows 8
Description Logics
e.g. hasComponent
e.g. capacity
Description Logics
Computer ⊓ MobileDevice
∃ hasComponent.DVDDrive
Computer ⊓ ∀ runsOS.￢WindowsOS
SHOIN D
Description Logics
→ ⊥ ⊤ ￢ C1 ⊓ C2 𝐶1 ⊔ 𝐶2 ∃ ∀ ≥ ≤
a1 an ∃ ∀ ≥ ≤
→ ci cn
→ −
A p r s
d𝑎𝑖𝑐𝑖n
Description Logics
Description Logics
⊑WindowsPC ⊑ Computer ⊓ ∃ runsOS.WindowsOS
≡
Laptop ⊔PocketPC ≡ Computer ⊓MobileDevice
⊑hasGfx ⊑ hasComponent,
Description Logics
Laptop(MyComputer)
runsOS(MyComputer, WindowsXP)
Description Logics
ΔII
Description Logics
SHOIN D
Description Logics
I• I ⊆ I
• I I
• I ⊆ I
• I ∈ I
• I I ∈ I
M(KB)
Description Logics
•
•
••
•
••
•
Description Logics
Reasoning tasks:
• Knowledgebase satisfiability
• Concept satisfiability C KB
I ∈M I ≠∅
• Instance checkingI ∈ I I ∈M
• Subsumption
⊑ I ⊆ I I ∈M
Autoepistemic DL
••
• K
•
• known to be
•
•
Autoepistemic DL
KB = {Application(XOffice), runsUnder(XOffice,RedHat)}
RedHat WindowsOS
XOffice D
D = Application ⊓ ∃ runsUnder .￢WindowsOS
D = Application ⊓ ∃ K runsUnder .￢K WindowsOS
RedHat WindowsOS RedHat
XOffice
′
Autoepistemic DL
IW
intersecting the extensions
K KB
KBI ∈M IM ≠∅
Circumscriptive DL
•
•
•
(M, F, V)
Circumscriptive DL
•
••
•
••
Circumscriptive DL
KB = { Laptop ⊑ Computer, Computer ⊑ Hardware,
Application ⊓ ∃ runsUnder .LinuxOS(XOffice) }
(M = {Hardware, Laptop, Application, LinuxOS}, F = {Computer}).
• Laptop•
• Computer (∈F
• Hardware• Computer ∈F Hardware
• Application• XOffice
Circumscriptive DL
KB = { Laptop ⊑ Computer, Computer ⊑ Hardware,
Application ⊓ ∃ runsUnder .LinuxOS(XOffice) }
(M = {Hardware, Laptop, Application, LinuxOS}, F = {Computer}).
• Laptop
• Computer
• Hardware
• Application
• LinuxOS • XOffice
Circumscriptive DL
•
• J I• ΔJ ΔI
• J I
• J I ∈ F
• J⊆ I ∈ M
• ∈ M J⊂ I
Circumscriptive DL
•
•
•
•
Modelling Resources in DL for Matchmaking problem •
•
•
•
Resource Classes as DL Concepts•
••
•
•
Resource Classes as DL Concepts
Resource Classes as DL Concepts in OWA•
•
•
•
Example Scenario
Example Scenario
Example Scenario
Example Ontology
Matching Resource Descriptions with DL Inferencing
•
•
•
DL Inferences for Matching
•
•
•
•
Intersection Matching
satisfiability of concept conjunction
I ∈M I ∩ I
Intersection Matching
entailment of non-disjointness
I ∈M I ∩ I
Subsumption Matching
Entailment of Concept Subsumption (Plugin)
I ∈M I ⊆ I
Subsumption Matching
Entailment of Concept Subsumption (Subsumes)
I ∈M I ⊆ I
Exact Matching
•
≡
Matching Inferences
•
fail ≺ intersect ≺ subsume − plugin ≺ exact
concept contraction andconcept abduction•
•
Matching Inferences
•
•
•
Counterintuitive Matching Behavior due to OWAIntersection Matching and the Open-World Assumption
• D = Laptop S = DesktopPC
match(OPC,D, S) •
′ ′
•
Counterintuitive Matching Behavior due to OWACases of Undesired Matching Behavior
∪ ∪
Demand D1 in OWA
•
••
••
••
•
Demand D2 in OWA
••
••
•
••
••
Improved Matching with Local Closed-World Reasoning•
Forms of Local Closure for Matchmaking•
•
•
••
•
Local Concept Closure
•
•
•
Local Concept Closure
•
• ∃
•
Local Role Closure
If a role r is locally closed, only such pairs of objects should occur in the extension of r for which there is evidence to be in there
•
•
•
• supports
If a role r is locally closed, only such pairs of objects should occur in the extension of r for which there is evidence to be in there
•
•
•
Matching with Local Closure by Epistemic Operators•
• K DualScreenGfxCard
• K RAIDStorage
Autoepistemic for Closing Atomic Concepts
′
Autoepistemic for Closing Complex Concepts• ′
•′
•
Autoepistemic for Closing Complex Concepts
∗
Autoepistemic Role Closure (whole)
′ ′′
Autoepistemic Role Closure (partial)
′
Matching with Local Closure by Circumscription•
•
•
•∅
••
•
Closing Atomic Concepts (Circumscriptive)• ∅
•
•
•
Closing Complex Concepts (Circumscriptive)•
• ≡ ∃
• ∅•
∃
•
•
Closing Complex Concepts (Circumscriptive)• ≡ ⊓ ∃ ∃
⊓ ∀•
•
⊓ ∪∪
Closing Roles as a Whole with circumscription• ∅
•
•
•
Closing Roles Partially with circumscription•
Discussion
•
•
•
•
Discussion
•
•
Discussion
••
•
•
Thanks
Recommended