OntologyPresentation4527 NoBackup

Ontology 101
Ontologies:
What Are They And Why
Are We Interested In Them?
Leo Obrst
Ontological Engineering Department
VerticalNet
lobrst@vertical.net
April 27, 2000
 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.
Ontology 101
Abstract
The term “ontology” is used often these days, but sometimes with little content. What does it really
mean? What is the study of ontology? An ontology? Formal ontology? Ontological engineering? Why
and how can implemented ontologies be useful for electronic commerce? For information technology,
in general? How are they different from database schemas and object models? What problems do they
help solve?
This presentation will attempt to briefly answer these questions by providing an overview of the
recently emerging branch of knowledge representation called ontological engineering, including a
discussion of some fundamental issues in creating and using ontologies, and representative tools which
are currently available. Because ontologies are typically rigorously defined conceptualizations or
models, they are inherently concerned about the semantics (i.e., the “meaning”) of some aspects of
information domains or the real world, including commercial products, services, and transactions, and
vertical markets (“domains”). Ontologies are also concerned with how that semantics is represented
and used. This talk will look at some of these issues and how we are trying to use ontologies in
VerticalNet’s new electronic commerce infrastructure.
Note: This is intended to be the first presentation in a series, and is aimed primarily at communicating a
subject of potential interest to a broad VerticalNet audience.
Special thanks to Don McKay, Craig Schlenoff, Jon Pastor, Eric Peterson, Mike Molloy, Yao Zhu, Ugo
Boggio, Howard Liu, Jack Park, Diane Pierson, Pramod Sinha, X. Mark Yang, Aseem Das, Wei
Wen, Wilton Williams, Jean-Marc Loingier, Adam Cheyer, Eric Elias, Ravi Benedetti, Luiza
Carneiro-Coffin, Hugo Daley, Ed Mayer, Amelia Mills, and Bruce Blair for comments and
collaboration.  VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.
Overview
 VerticalNet Planetary System
 Preliminaries: Knowledge as Interpretation
 Why Are We Interested in Ontologies?
 Ontology Spectrum
 Some Definitions: Ontology, ontologies, conceptualization, models
 Ontological Engineering
 Ontology Application Areas
– Example: Organizational Ontology
– Example: UN/SPSC-Rausoft R1 Ontology
– Example: VerticalNet E-commerce
 E-Commerce: What Problems Do Ontologies Solve?
 Ontologies & the Future
 Why Are We Interested?
 References & Selected URLs

VerticalNet Planetary System
Decision
Support Trading Hub
Catalogs
Buyer’sOntology
Exchanges
Guides
Store Fronts C2 Server
Business Publisher
Verticals

Preliminaries: Knowledge as Interpretation
 A true Knowledge-based System encapsulates
knowledge and at least partially symbolically
interprets that knowledge for a user
 Complexity of (data) Structure is a side effect of the
degree of interpretation required
 Knowledge = Data + Interpretation
 Interpretation is the mapping between some
structured set of data and a model of some set of
objects (in a universe of discourse) with respect to the
intended meaning of those objects and the
relationships between those objects
 Model (i.e., Ontology): Need to symbolically represent
in some fashion a (portion of the) world, the objects of
the world, and the relationships among those objects
The Interpretation Continuum
knowledge
bases: shared, learned,
databases, consistent
patterns, rules concepts,
relations, knowledge representation,
code to bounded im/precision,
interpret i.e., metadata,
inference uncertainty
these
constraint satisfaction, partial knowledge
Human interpreted Computer interpreted
random
Interpretation Continuum logical
data: stochastic symbolic knowledge:
relatively data knowledge very
unstructured mining discovery, structured
Need to go rightward on composition
the Interpretation
Continuum, i.e., increase Summarization,
Information retrieval content extraction, Ontology Induction
automated semantic NLP
interpretation & Web search
display all find & correlate store and automatically automatically

raw documents, patterns interrelate acquire concepts, span domain theories
all interpretation in raw documents, patterns via evolve ontologies and institution
performed by displaying only a conceptual into domain repositories;
human matching documents object model, theories, & reason and
i.e., ontology, link to institution communicate with
& link to repositories fully interpreting computer;
documents; decisions made by human
collaboration

Why Are We Interested in Ontologies?
 Because humans are able to use a lot of knowledge
– shallow to deep The Interpretation
– commonsensical & domain-specific Continuum
– static & dynamic databases,
knowledge
bases: shared, learned,
consistent
patterns, rules concepts,
relations, knowledge representation,
code to
to interpret the world, their fellow

i.e., metadata, bounded im/precision,
interpret uncertainty
these inference
constraint satisfaction, partial knowledge

human
interpreted computer
human beings, themselves

interpreted
interpretation continuum
random data: stochastic symbolic knowledge: logical
relatively data knowledge very
unstructured mining discovery, structured
 We want our machines to do so too,

composition
information retrieval summarization, ontology induction

content extraction,
nlp
display all find & correlate store and automatically automatically
assuming some of the interpretation

raw documents, patterns interrelate acquire concepts, span domain theories
all interpretation in raw documents, patterns via evolve ontologies and institution
performed by displaying only a conceptual into domain repositories;
human matching documents object model, theories, & reason and
i.e., ontology, link to institution communicate with
& link to repositories fully interpreting computer;
documents; decisions made by human
collaboration
burden and our work agent: computer assuming roles of human
 We want to do it as right, as declaratively as

we can, so it is usable and reusable, and
 We want to enable information and transaction flow between
businesses having
– heterogeneous databases
– no usable common model of the B2B enterprise

More
 Reusability, limited duplication/redundancy
 Standardization, correctness, safety
 Inference and sound reasoning
 Sane distribution of homogeneous vs. heterogeneous
knowledge
 Knowledge composition becomes much easier
 Knowledge compilation: efficient run-time use
 Support Exchanges, C2 Server-Business Publisher
Trading Hubs, Buyer’s Guides, Catalogs, etc.
 NOTE: Ontology cannot do it all; Key applications and
VerticalNet people:
– C2-Server – Marketing
– Business Publisher – Editors
– Industry Leads
– Business Leaders
Ontology as Conceptual Model
 An Ontology Models the Meaning (“semantics”) of a
Domain
 Domain (at VerticalNet): a vertical market of products
and services able to be bought and sold by
businesses for businesses
– Machine Tooling
– Electronic Components
– Paint and Coatings
– Healthcare
– Food Services
 Ontology thus includes:
– Objects (things) in the many domains of VerticalNet
– The relationships between those things
– The properties (and property values) of those things
– The functions and processes involving those things
– Constraints on and rules about those things
Ontology Spectrum
Logical Domain Theory
Rich & Consistent Formal Syntax, Structure, Semantics
Vocabulary and Types: Entities, Relations,

Properties, Values, Constraints, Rules, Axioms
Syntax/Format, Structure, Semantics
Animal Conceptual Model

has_expertise_in works
Technologies Program Personnel Company
Knowledge Project St
Mammal Representation
Management af
f
Division
Reptile Agent
Natural
Language Task Technical Program
A6 A5 A4
Department
Bird Syntax/Format & NL Definition Telecommunications Leo

PaulInderjeet
W150
Semantic Director Etc.DARPA has
Interoperability Navy
Dog Cat Snake
requires
Reza
Assistant
Director
Ann Brad
Intelligence
Vocabulary Howard
knows
Cocker Spaniel
Entities: Metal working machinery, equipment and supplies; metal-cutting
machinery; metal-turning equipment; metal-milling equipment; milling insert;
turning insert; etc.
Lady Relations: subclass-of; instance-of; part-of; has-geometry; used-on;etc.
Minimal Hierarchic Structure Properties: geometry; material; length; operation; UN/SPSC-code; ISO-code; etc.
Values: 1; 2; 3; “2.5 inches”; “85-degree-diamond”; “231716”; “boring”; “drilling”; etc.
Taxonomy
Definitions: Ontology, ontology
 Philosophy: “a particular system of categories
accounting for a certain vision of the world” or
domain of discourse, a conceptualization
 Artificial Intelligence: “an engineering product
consisting of a specific vocabulary used to describe
a part of reality, plus a set of explicit assumptions
regarding the intended meaning of the vocabulary
words”, “a specification of a conceptualization”
 Ontological Engineering: towards a formal, logical
theory, usually ‘concepts’ (i.e., the entities, usually
classes hierarchically structured in a special
subsumption relation), ‘relations’, ‘properties’,
‘values’, ‘constraints’, ‘rules’, ‘instances’
* These definitions are derived from Guarino, 98; Guarino & Giaretta, 95  VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.
More Formally: a common picture
Conceptualization C
Language L
Models M(L)
Ontology
Intended models IM(L)
* Guarino, 98, p. 7  VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

Definitions: Conclusions
 Ontology: a specification of a conceptualization,
vocabulary + model, theory
 Informally, ontology and model are taken to be
synonymous, i.e.,a description of the structure and
meaning of a domain, a conceptual model
 Bottom Line: an Ontology is the entities (usually

structured in a class hierarchy with multiple
inheritance), relations, properties (attributes),
values, instances, constraints, and rules used to
model one or more domains
 A Taxonomy: entities structured in a hierarchy with
single inheritance, with properties & values
Ontological Engineering
 Ontological Engineering: applies the principles and

methods of Formal Ontology to information systems
design and implementation
 Related technical disciplines:

– Knowledge Representation and Artificial
Intelligence
– Constraint and Logic Programming
– Formal Methods in Computer Science
– Theorem-Proving
– Formal Semantics in Linguistics

Ontological Engineering and Related Disciplines
Mathematics Logic Philosophy Enterprise Engineering

Industrial Engineering
Formal Methods Linguistics Business Management
Computer
Formal Semantics Ontology Science Database Theory
Sociology
Artificial Intelligence
Formal Ontology Informal Ontology
Knowledge Knowledge Representation

Management
Conceptual Modeling
Ontological Engineering
Knowledge Engineering Software/Data Engineering
Object Modeling
Ontological Engineering Fixes Some Old
Problems: Far Beyond Expert Systems
Problem
Organization definition Task
CommonKADS
Model Model Suite of models*
Capabilities required
Competence Communications
required Agent required
Model
Expertise
Communication
(problem-solving)
Model
Model
Computational realization
Design * Wielinga et al, 1992

Model

Ontology Application Areas
 Electronic Commerce
 Agent Technology
 Natural Language Processing
 Enterprise Integration
 Medicine
 Product Knowledge Standards
 Information Systems: Geographic, Legal
 Database Systems

Example : An Organizational Ontology
 Ontology: “a specification or formal encoding of a
conceptualization (set of concepts, relations, objects,
constraints) that define a semantic model of some domain of
interest” [Karp, Chaudri, & Thomere. 1999. XOL]
has_expertise_in works
Technologies Program Personnel Company
Knowledge Project Management Staff Division

Representation
Agent
Natural A6 A5 A4
Language Task Technical Program Department
Telecommunications Leo
Paul Inderjeet
Semantic Director IM
Etc. DARPA has
Interoperability Navy
requires Assistant
Director Intelligence
Reza
Ann Brad
Howard
knows
Example: : Large Ontology
Most General Thing
Processes Locations Upper Ontology

(Generic Common
Knowledge)
Organizations
Products/Services
Middle Ontology
(Domain-spanning
Knowledge)
Machine Lower Ontology
Tooling Electronic (individual domains)
Components
Lowest Ontology
(sub-domains)
Milling
Inserts

Example: UN/SPSC-Rausoft (Indexable Inserts)
Overall Class Hierarchy
Turning machine
(was Lathes, [23171606])
Metal Turning
Turning toolholder
Equipment
[23] Industrial [2317] Turning insert
Manufacturing Metal working [231716] (was Lathe tools or dies,
and Processing machinery, Metal cutting [23171607])
Machinery equipment and machinery
Milling machine
and Accessories supplies
Metal Milling [23171612]
Equipment Milling cutter
Milling insert
KEY
Nodes Arcs
RAOSOFT UNSPSC class/subclass
Modified UNSPSC VERT class/slot
Class Structures
slot name/ slot slot type
RaoSoft column cardinality restriction
Manufacturer [1,1] Manufacturer
ID_Manufacturer

Auxiliary Class Hierarchies
EndMill FaceMilling
FaceMill ShoulderMilling
ExtendedFluteEndMill SlotMilling
CutterType
ExtendedFluteFaceMill ContourMilling
ExtendedFaceMillModular ExtendedFlute
MillingOperation
Chamfering
Other
PlungeCounterbore
PlungeCenterCutting
Neutral TSlotting
BallMilling
Direction LeftHanded
RightHanded
Steel
KEY
Etc.
Nodes Arcs
InsertMaterial
Class Structures
slot name/ slot slot type
ID_Manufacturer

Auxiliary Class Structures
Shape ID_Manufacturer
ReliefAngle GradeID [1,1] String
ID_Grade
Accuracy
InsertMtl [1,1] InsertMaterial
Geometry GrooveAndHole ID_InsertMtl
SizANSI
Name [1,1] String
Thickness GradeName
CornerRadius AnsiCode [1,1] String
GradeAnsiCode
ISOCode [1,1] String
GradeISOCode
Attributes [1,N] GradeAttribute
GradeAttrib
Grade CoatingDescription [1,1] String
GradeDescr
GradeDescription [1,1] String
GradeDescr2
KEY KRangeMin [1,1] Integer
I1
Nodes Arcs
KRangeMax [1,1] Integer
I2
MRangeMin [1,1] Integer
I3
Class Structures MRangeMax [1,1] Integer
slot name/ slot slot type I4
PRangeMin [1,1] Integer
Manufacturer [1,1] Manufacturer I5
ID_Manufacturer
PRangeMax [1,1] Integer
I6  VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.
Milling Cutter Series Class Structure
ID_Manufacturer
SeriesID [1,1] String

Series
SeriesType [1,1] CutterType

CutterSeriesType
CutterSeriesLeadAngle[1,1] ????
CutterSeriesLeadAngle
CutterSeriesDirection [1,1] Direction

Milling machine Milling cutter series CutterSeriesDirection
TableCutterSeriesM
AvailableDiameters [1,N] ThousdanthsOfInches
AvailableDiameters
ForWPMtl [1,N] Metal

ForWPMtl
KEY
Nodes Arcs Info [1,1] String
RAOSOFT UNSPSC class/subclass Info
MillingOperations [1,1] MillingOperation
ForWhatMill
Class Structures
slot name/ slot slot type Cutters [1,N] MillingCutter
ID_Manufacturer

Milling Cutter Class Structure
ID_Manufacturer
CutterSeries [1,1] CutterSeries
ID_Series
CutterID [1,1] Integer
ID_Cutter
CutterName [1,1] String
Cutter
Diameter [1,1] ThousdanthsOfInches
Diameter
Mount [1,1] Mount
Milling cutter Mount
Milling machine [23171612] Milling cutter
series
TableCuttersM NumberEffFlutes [1,1] Integer
TableCutterSeriesM
Numbereff_flutes
NumberIserts [1,1] Integer
NumberInserts
MaxDOC [1,N] ThousdanthsOfInches
Maxdoc_perpass
KEY
MaxRampAngle [1,1] Float
Nodes Arcs Max_ramp
RAOSOFT UNSPSC class/subclass Info [1,1] String
Modified UNSPSC VERT class/slot Info
MillingOperations[1,N] MillingOperation
Class Structures ForWhatMill
slot name/ slot slot type Inserts [1,N] Milling insert
RaoSoft column cardinality restriction TableToolsForMilling
ID_Manufacturer

Milling Insert Class Structure
ID_Manufacturer
ToolID (?) [1,1] String

ID_Tool
Geometry [1,1] Geometry

ID_GeoDesignator
Grade [1,1] Grade

ID_ Grade
Milling Milling cutter
[23171612] Milling cutter Milling insert Chipformer [1,1] Chipformer
achine series
TableToolsForMilling ID_ Chipformer
TableCutterSeriesM TableCuttersM
Direction [1,1] Direction

Direction
NumberIndices [1,1] Integer

NumberIndices
ForWPMtl [1,N] Metal

KEY ForWPMtl
Nodes Arcs
CutterSeries [1,N] CutterSeries
RAOSOFT UNSPSC class/subclass CutterSeries
InsertInfo [1,1] String
InsertInfo
Class Structures
slot name/ slot slot type AsEntered [1,1] String
RaoSoft column cardinality restriction AsEntered
ID_Manufacturer MillingOperations [1,1] MillingOperation
ForWhatMill
Electronic Commerce: What Problems Do
Ontologies Solve?
 Heterogeneous vendor database problem
– Distributors, Manufacturers, Service Providers have
radically different databases
– Different syntactically: what’s the format?
– Different structurally: how are they structured?
– Different semantically: what do they mean?
– They all speak different languages
 Standards and Common vertical conceptual model
problem
– Ontologies act as semantic conceptual model representing
common standards
– Well-defined, sound, consistent, extensible, reusable,
modular

Electronic Commerce and Ontologies
 Two Aspects of Use:
– Informational (Search/Find): Parametric search
and navigation using Product and Service
Knowledge to discover what to buy, price, and
availability
Relatively static knowledge of Ontology maps
to relatively dynamic data of vendors
Future: user role knowledge (buyer/seller)
– Technical Engineer
– Purchasing Analyst
– Transactional (Transact): Use Knowledge of
Company Organizational Structure, Workflow,
Processes, and Product/Services to actually buy
and sell
Example: Electronic Commerce
Ontology Buyers
Meta-Knowledge
Upper Ontology: Generic Base

Products & C2 Server
Services
Product Meta-data
Agents
Active Active Active Active

Business Business Business Business
Agent Agent Agent Agent
Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier
Semantic
Mappings Databases
Ontology Buyers
Meta-Knowledge

Products & C2 Server
Services
Product Meta-data
Company Meta-data
Agents

Agent Agent Agent Agent
Semantic
Mappings Databases
Ontology Buyers
Meta-Knowledge

C2 Server
Processes Workflow
Products & Mapping
Organizations
Services Knowledge
Interaction
Knowledge Agents
Product Meta-data
Ontology & Company Meta-data Agent Agent Agent Agent
Reasoning
Services
Semantic
Mappings Databases
Ontology of Applications: Context
Meta-Knowledge
Processes Workflow Problem Benefits/Quality

Products &
Organizations Application User
Example:
Services
Interaction Mapping
Knowledge Knowledge
View/ Context
Presentation
Context Application:
Application Buyer’s Guide
Proc
Prob
B
U
Proc
P
V
Prob
Context Context B
Application Application
Proc Proc
Prob
B
Prob
B
U
U U
P P
V V P
Sub-ontology of Applications
V
Ontology to Database Mapping
(Distributors & Manufacturers)
Ontology Milling
Insert
Catalog No.
Shape Size
Price
Manufacturer Catalog No. Shape Size (in) Price ($US) …

Catalog No. Shape Size (in) Price ($US) …
Iscar 330296 Round 1.5 2.35
Part No. Geom. Diam (mm) Price ($US) …
CNM023 Round 2.75 Kennametal CNM023 Round 1.5 2.75
1.5
330296 R 37 2.35 Iscar 330298 Square 1.25 2.45
CNM035 Square 1.25 2.25
330298 S 31 2.45 Kennametal CNM035 Square 1.25 2.25
Kennametal
Iscar

Ontologies and The Future
 Ontology can include:
– Objects Models for Applications and Systems

– Database Schemas (and Schemas of Schemas for
federations)
 Ontologies used by Intelligent Agents across the Internet
 Ontologies will learn and extend themselves
 Ontologies will enable hard applications: Natural Language

Understanding (for search)
 Ontologies as Executable Models for Automation of
Enterprises and Commerce

E-Commerce Ontology Today & Tomorrow
 Taxonomic & Ontological Standards and Consortia:
– UN/SPSC, NAICS, etc.
– Ontology.org
– RosettaNet
– CommerceNet
– Federation of Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA)
 Languages:
– XML, BizTalk, etc.
– XML Semantic Languages:
 XML Ontology Interchange Language (XOL)
 Ontology Markup Language/Conceptual Knowledge Modeling Language
(OML/CKML)
 Simple HTML Ontology Extension (SHOE)
 Resource Definition Framework (RDF)
 XML Schema
 DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML)
– Open Knowledge Base Connectivity (OKBC)
– Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF)
– Knowledge Query Manipulation Language (KQML)
– Process Specification Language (PSL)
The Point
 What is the whole point of our ontologies?
 It is:
– to specify as semantically precisely as possible
– and as needed for VerticalNet applications
– though not necessarily completely
– a conceptual model and the constraints on that
model
– so that one actually models what one intends to
– thereby enabling informational and transactional
capabilities for B2B E-Commerce

Conclusions: Some Philosophers and Ontology
 Aristotle: “To be is to be”
 Nietzsche: “To do is to be”
 Sartre: “To be is to do”
 Husserl: “To do should be to be”
 Sinatra: “Shoo be do be do”

Next
 Ontology 102: More on Semantics, Forthcoming

Selected References
 Abramsky, S.; Gabbay, Dov; Maibaum, T.S.E. 1992. Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Volume 1, Background:
Mathematical Structures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 Artale, A.; Franconi, E.; Guarino, N.; Pazzi, L. 1996. Part-Whole Relations in Object-Centered Systems: An Overiview. Data and
Knowledge Engineering, 20(3), pp. 347-383.
 Biller, H; Neuhold, E. 1989. Semantics of Databases: The Semantics of Data Models. In: Mylopoulos, & Brodie, ed. Readings
in Artificial Intelligence and Databases. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 273-292.
 Borgo S., Guarino N., and Masolo C., A Pointless Theory of Space Based on Strong Connection and Congruence. In L.
Carlucci Aiello and J. Doyle (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR96), Morgan Kaufmann 1996
 Borgo, S.; Guarino, N.; Masolo, C. 1997. An Ontological Theory of Physical Objects. In Proceedings of Qualitative Reasoning,
11th International Workshop, Cortona, Italy, IAN-CNR, Pavia, pp. 223-231.
 Brachman, Ronald; Levesque, Hector; Reiter, Raymond. 1989. Proceedings of First International Conference on Knowledge
Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, CA, May 15-18, 1989. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 157-169
 Brewka, Gerhard, ed. 1996. Principles of Knowledge Representation. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and
Information (CSLI), and The European Association for Logic, Language, and Information (FoLLI).
 Fox, Mark; Gruninger, M. 1994. Ontologies for Enterprise Integration, in Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Cooperative
 Gallaire, H; Minker, J.; Nicolas, J-M. 1989. Logic and Databases: A Deductive Approach. In: Mylopoulos, & Brodie, ed.
Readings in Artificial Intelligence and Databases. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 231-247.
 Gardarin, Georges; Valduriez, Patrick. 1989. Relational Databases and Knowledge Bases. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
 Gruber, Thomas. 1993. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, pp. 199-220.
 Gruber, Thomas. 1995. Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies used for Knowledge Sharing. International Journal
of Human and Computer Studies, 43(5/6), pp. 907-928.
 Gruninger, Michael; Fox, M.S. 1994. An Activity Ontology for Enterprise Modelling", Workshop on Enabling Technologies -
Infrastructures for Collaborative Enterprises, West Virginia University.
 Guarino, N, ed. 1998. Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Amsterdam.: IOS Press. Proceedings of the First International
Conference (FOIS’98), June 6-8, Trent, Italy.
 Guarino, N.; Giaretta, P. 1995. Ontologies and Knowledge Bases: Towards a Terminological Clarification. In: N. Mars, ed.
Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases: Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing. IOS Press, Amsterdam: 25-32.

Selected References (continued)
 Hajnicz, Elzbieta. 1996. Time Structures: Formal Description and Algorithmic Representation. Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence 1047. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
 Hirst, Graeme. 1989. Ontological Assumptions in Knowledge Representation. In: Brachman, Ronald; Levesque, Hector;
Reiter, Raymond. Proceedings of First International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, CA,
May 15-18, 1989. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 157-169
 Information Systems (CoopIS'94), pp. 82-89, Michael Brodie and Mathias Jarke and Michael Papazoglou, Eds, University of
Toronto, 1994.
 Kanellakis, Paris; Lécluse; Richard, Philippe. 1992. Introduction to the Data Model. In: Bancilhon, Francois; Delobel, Claude;
Kanellakis, Paris. Building an Object-Oriented Database System: The Story of O2. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 61-
76.
 Kim, Won; Lochovsky, Frederick ed., Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
 Lang, E. 1991. The LILOG Ontology from a Linguistic Point of View. In: Herzog, O.; Rollinger, C.R., ed. Text Understanding in
LILOG. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
 Makowsky, J.A. 1992. Model Theory and Computer Science: An Appetizer. In: Abramsky, S.; Gabbay, Dov; Maibaum, T.S.E.
Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Volume 1, Background: Mathematical Structures. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 763-
814
 Meseguer, Jose. 1998. Formal Interoperabilility. Proceedings of Fifth International Symposium on ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE AND MATHEMATICS, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Jan 4-6, 1998.
 Mylopoulos, John; Brodie, Michael L., ed. 1989. Readings in Artificial Intelligence and Databases. San Mateo, CA: Morgan
Kaufman.
 Nijssen, G.M.; Halpin, T.A. 1989. Conceptual Schema and Relational Database Design: A Fact Oriented Approach. New York:
Prentice Hall.
 Reiter, R. 1989. Towards a Logical Reconstruction of Relational Database Theory., In: Mylopoulos, & Brodie, ed. Readings in
Artificial Intelligence and Databases. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 301-326.
 Rumbaugh, James; Blaha, Michael; Premerlani, William; Eddy, Frederick; Lorensen, William. 1991. Object-Oriented Modeeling
and Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 Ullman, J. 1988, 1989, Database and Knowledge Base Systems, Volumes 1-2, New York: Computer Science Press.
 Uschold, M.; Clark, P.; Healy, M.; Williamson, K.; Woods, S. 1998. Ontology Reuse and Application. In: Guarino, N., ed. Formal
Ontology in Information Systems, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 179-194.
 Uschold, Michael; Gruninger, Michael. 1996. Ontologies: Principles, Methods, and Applications. The Knowledge Engineering
Review, 11(2), pp. 93-136.

Selected References (concluded)
 Varzi, A.C. 1998. Basic Problems of Mereotopology. In: Guarino, N., ed. Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Amsterdam: IOS Press,
pp. 29-38.
 Wand, Yair. 1989. A Proposal for a Formal Model of Objects. In: Kim, Won; Lochovsky, Frederick ed., Object-Oriented Concepts,
Databases, and Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
 Wiederhold, Gio. 1994. An Algebra for Ontology Composition. Proceedings of 1994 Monterey Workshop on Formal Methods, Sept 1994,
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA, pages 56-61.
 Zdonik, Stanley B.; Maier, David, ed. 1990. Readings in Object-Oriented Database Systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

Selected URLs
 IRST Ontology Page:http://krr.irst.itc.it:1024/ontology.html
 HBKB: http://www.teknowledge.com/HPKB/
 Knowledge Engineering Methods and Languages: ftp://swi.psy.uva.nl/pub/keml/keml.html
 Ontological Foundations of Knowledge Engineering at Ladseb-CNR:
http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/Ontology/ontology.html
 Formal Ontology in Information Technology, Special issue of the International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, vol 43, no. 5/6, 1995, Nicola Guarino and Roberto Poli, eds.:
http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/Ontology/IJHCS/IJHCS.html
 Ontologies: What Are They, and Where's The Research? A panel held at KR'96, the Fifth International
Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning November 5, 1996, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/KR96/Panel.html
 Toronto Ontologies for a Virtual Enterprise (TOVE): http://www.ie.utoronto.ca/EIL/tove/toveont.html
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University: http://ksl-web.stanford.edu/
 Gio Wiederhold’s Scalable Knowledge Composition Algebra: http://www-db.stanford.edu/SKC/index.html
 ISI’s LOOM Home Page: http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/
 Common KADS Home Page: http://swi.psy.uva.nl/projects/CommonKADS/home.html

OntologyPresentation4527 NoBackup

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OntologyPresentation4527 NoBackup

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ontology 101

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

constraint satisfaction, partial knowledge

Human interpreted Computer interpreted

display all find & correlate store and automatically automatically

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

to interpret the world, their fellow

constraint satisfaction, partial knowledge

human beings, themselves

 We want our machines to do so too,

information retrieval summarization, ontology induction

display all find & correlate store and automatically automatically

assuming some of the interpretation

burden and our work agent: computer assuming roles of human

 We want to do it as right, as declaratively as

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

Vocabulary and Types: Entities, Relations,

Syntax/Format, Structure, Semantics

Animal Conceptual Model

Bird Syntax/Format & NL Definition Telecommunications Leo

Intended models IM(L)

* Guarino, 98, p. 7  VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

 Bottom Line: an Ontology is the entities (usually

 Ontological Engineering: applies the principles and

 Related technical disciplines:

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

Mathematics Logic Philosophy Enterprise Engineering

Knowledge Knowledge Representation

Knowledge Engineering Software/Data Engineering

Design * Wielinga et al, 1992

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

Knowledge Project Management Staff Division

Processes Locations Upper Ontology

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

SeriesID [1,1] String

SeriesType [1,1] CutterType

CutterSeriesDirection [1,1] Direction

ForWPMtl [1,N] Metal

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

ToolID (?) [1,1] String

Geometry [1,1] Geometry

Grade [1,1] Grade

Direction [1,1] Direction

NumberIndices [1,1] Integer

ForWPMtl [1,N] Metal

 VerticalNet, Inc. 2000 All rights reserved.

Upper Ontology: Generic Base

Active Active Active Active

Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier

Upper Ontology: Generic Base

Active Active Active Active

Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier

Upper Ontology: Generic Base

Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier

Upper Ontology: Generic Base

Processes Workflow Problem Benefits/Quality

Manufacturer Catalog No. Shape Size (in) Price ($US) …