Re: Modeling large scale ontologies in OWL: Unmet needs

All

Yes!

One of the reasons for pushing so hard to restore qualified  
cardinality constraints in OWL 1.1 was so that one did not need a  
plethora of specific subproperties.

You can mitigate the problem below by making all the parthood  
relations subproperties of has_part, but it is much better to be able  
to say

has_part SOME Finger, has_part SOME Toe, etc.

Care does need to be taken if using this approach with cardinality  
constraints.  For MAX and therefore Exactly (equivalent to MAX plus  
MIN) the logic doesn't match intuitions.  (MAX 2 ForeLimbs) implies  
(MAX 2 Arms), hence "Animal and MAX 2 ForeLimbs" is a kind of "Animal  
and MAX 2 Arms" and not the other way around.

(QCRs are avaialble in most of the classifiers now and simulated by  
Protege even with Pellet that doesn't yet support them. They should  
be in all of the classifiers RSN)

Optional properties and min-cardinality 0 are tricky and need a  
longer email.

Regards

Alan



On 20 Sep 2006, at 15:25, David Decraene wrote:

>
> I would like to bring to discussion/debate what I believe is a flaw  
> in the design of the OWL web ontology language, at least if OWL  
> will also serve a purpose in representing large scale ontologies.  
> I'll start the discussion by listing some general examples of OWL  
> 'properties' from the OWL tutorials: HasFinger, HasSpouse,  
> HasTopping, HasVintageYear, HasBrother, HasParent, HasUncle,  
> HasMaker, HasSugar, etc ...
> We have a problem with this, seeing that these are not properties,  
> but concatenated Property - Target combinations. For a large scale  
> (formal) ontology, imagine the amount of duplication would occur if  
> we would treat every parthood relation as such; HasFinger, HasToe,  
> HasNail, HasHair, HasSkin, HasVein, HasCell, HasBone, HasMuscle,  
> etc...
> In large scale ontologies, one link should suffice, HasPart, and  
> whether the part is a finger, toe, nail, muscle or anything else is  
> not a task for the property to describe, but for the target, e.g.  
> the ISA hierarchy where the respective parts are situated in. Now  
> this might seem trivial, and it might seem that OWL allows the  
> second approach as well, but the fact is that OWL propagates this  
> line of thought in how properties should be constructed and  
> restricted: Some of the existing expressivity of OWL (mainly:  
> assigning cardinalities) can not be applied if we decide to  
> generalize property types (formal modeling) to represent the nature  
> of the relation, e.g. without a description of what the target is  
> (which is a task for the target hierarchy).
>
> Lost expressivity: cardinality.
> In OWL optional properties can be used by setting mincardinality to 0:
> <Hand> Has6thFinger mincardinality 0
> See how in the above example we do NOT state a target. As a matter  
> of fact the above named property only has a meaning when the range  
> is specified, in this case the range might be <6th finger>. So we  
> can use optional properties, but only if we create a unique  
> property for every property - target combination. In formal  
> ontology you could express this relation on a general level of  
> parthood: <Hand> HasPart <6thfinger>, cardinality 0. This is not  
> possible in OWL.
>
> In OWL absence of properties can be modeled by setting cardinality  
> to 0:
> <Undiagnosed hyperbilirubinemia> IsDiagnosisParticipant cardinality 0
> <Untreated hyperbilirubinemia> IsTreatmentParticipant cardinality 0
> Again in these examples we do NOT state the target, and again these  
> above stated examples might be referring to anything, the only way  
> we (and a reasoner) are able to figure that the properties are  
> about <Diagnosis> and <Treatment> is if we set the range of those  
> properties as such. In formal ontology you would express this  
> relation on a general level of participation:
> <Undiagnosed hyperbilirubinemia> IsParticipantOf <Diagnosis>  
> Cardinality 0
> <Untreated hyperbilirubinemia> IsParticipantOf <Treatment>  
> Cardinality 0
>
> Conclusion:
> OWL offers great expressivity, but only IF we use the above  
> mentioned approach of proliferating redundant properties at a large  
> scale. This is not a luxury we have in (formal) modeling of large  
> scale ontologies. As an example, the core domain of LinkBase (our  
> inhouse formal, medicine-oriented ontology) exists of about 700.000  
> concepts (classes) which are related to each other with more than  
> 700.000 relation instantiations. The OWL approach would lead to  
> hundred thousands of properties, which in many ways would duplicate  
> the classhierarchy.
>
> It would be great to receive some feedback on this matter.
>
> David Decraene
> PH.D. BioMedical sciences/Ontology modeller.
> Language and Computing
>
>
>
>
>

-----------------------
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6149/6188
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
www.clinical-esciences.org
www.co-ode.org

Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 07:42:16 UTC