Kese-Andreea

7/23/2019 Kese-Andreea

1/8

Universitatea Politehnica din Bucuresti

Facultatea de Automatica si Calculatoare

Programul de master Administrarea Bazelor de Date

Ontologies KESE

Masterand: Anghelescu Andreea Maria

Question 1.


2/8

i. Add short textual definitions for the concepts Shirt, Collar, Cuff and Sleeve. Use the comment field in

the annotations window, and save the modified OWL file. In your written answer, explain the existin

!escription Loic definitions of Shirt, ShirtCollar, and ShirtSleeve in plain "nlish or #omanian.

$ar%s& '()

Shirt is a subclass of arment! Sgt Pe""er shirts line has the follo#ing subclasses: eorgeShirt$

%ohnShirt$ PaulShirt and &ingoShirt!ShirtCollar is a subclass of Collar! An individual is a member of the class ShirtCollar onl' if it(s a

member of Collar and it is "art of at least one shirt!

ShirtSleeve is a subclass of Sleeve! An individual is a member of the class ShirtSleeve onl' if it(s

a member of Sleeve$ it(s "art of at least one shirt and has at least one cuff!

Shirt ) A long) or short)sleeved garment for the u""er "art of the bod'$ usuall' light#eight and

having a collar and a front o"ening!

Collar *he "art of a shirt$ coat$ dress$ blouse$ etc!$ that encom"asses the nec+line of the garment

and is se#n "ermanentl' to it$ often so as to fold or roll over!

Cuff A fold or band serving as a trimming or finish for the bottom of a sleeve!

Sleeve ) *he "art of a garment that covers the arm$ var'ing in form and length but commonl' tubular!

ii. "xtend the ontoloy *y addin + types of a*ric. "nsure that the appropriate axioms are added.!escri*e the new concepts and axioms in your written answer, and save the modified OWL file.

$ar%s& '()

, added the follo#ing t'"es of fabric: CottonFabric$ -nitFabric $ .eatherFabric$ Pol'esterFabric$Sil+Fabric and /oolFabric! *hese classes are dis0oint: a shirt can onl' be made of a single fabric!

iii. "xplain why a #inoShirtSleeve must have a Cuff and at least one -utton *y referrin to the

definitions of these concepts, and those of the relations used in the definitions. Show that the reasoner can

ma%e these inferences *y addin a superclass to #inoShirtSleeve that asserts the contrary and then

classifyin the ontoloy. State the class restriction used in each case, and descri*e the result of

classification. #eturn the ontoloy to its state on completion of part ii. *efore answerin the followin

uestions. /ote that the parts of a arment may have a specific desin that is reflected in their name 0e..#inoShirtSleeve1, or may *e eneric 0e.. Cuff and -utton1.

$ar%s& '()

ShirtSleeve "arent class re1uires to have a Cuff ) necessar' condition for an ob0ect to be included

in the class! *he condition a""ears at .east 2ne Button Cuff Some of restriction hasPart because thisclass contains also restrictions 3hasPart Some Button4 and 3"art2f Some Sleeve4! ,t follo#s that an'

&ingoShirtSleeve must have a Cuff$ an' Cuff must have a Button$ and an' &ingoShirtSleeve must have a

Button!

1


3/8

iv. Add a loical definition for a #inoShirt to reuire that these items have some #inoShirtSleeve and

lac% a Collar. $odify any conflictin definitions to ensure that the ontoloy remains consistent when it is

classified. "xtend the definion of #inoShirt once more to specify the a*ric to *e used 0use one of the

classes introduced in part ii.1. !efine any new relationships reuired, and save the ontoloy once more.

$ar%s& '()

, added the definition for &ingoShirt hasPart e5actl' 6 Collar and hasPart some&ingoShirtSleeve! , deleted the definition hasPart some Collar$ because interfered #ith the ne# definition

#ith e5actl' 6 Collar$ and the &easoner #as giving some errors$ and the ontolog' #asn7t an'more

consistent!

, also e5tend the definition of &ingoShirt as 8hasPart some CottonFabric9$ and the ontolog' is

still consistent after using the &easoner!

Question 2.

Choose an ontoloy that is pu*licly availa*le, and summarise its development process, level

of formalisation and applications. $a%e sure to cover the domain, purpose, scope and

ranularity when discussin the desin, and to ive examples of concept definitions.

2ou may select the !OLC" Ontoloy, Cyc Ontoloy 0www.cyc.com1, 3ene Ontoloy

0www.eneontoloy.or1, oundational $odel of Anatomy0http&44www.diitalanatomist.com41, or the "nterprise Ontoloy, *ut you are not reuired to do

so. 5owever, ensure that the ontoloy you do select can *e cited 0i.e. there are papers

pu*lished a*out it1 and ensure that you can access the class definitions.

Include the citations, example concept definitions and diarams in your answer.$ar%s& 67) 8 you should su*mit an answer of approximately 97( words 0excludin

citations1.

DOLCE Ontology

Develo"ed b' icola uarino and his associates at the .aborator' for A""lied 2ntolog' 3.2A4$

the Descri"tive 2ntolog' for .inguistic and Cognitive ;ngineering 3D2.C;4 is the first module of the

/onder/eb foundational ontologies librar'! As im"lied b' its acron'm$ D2.C; has a clear cognitivebias$ in that it aims at ca"turing the ontological categories underl'ing natural language and human

common sense! D2.C;$ ho#ever$ does not commit to a strictl' referentialist meta"h'sics related to the

intrinsic nature of the #orld! &ather$ the categories it introduces are thought of as cognitive artifacts$

#hich are ultimatel' de"ending on human "erce"tion$ cultural im"rints and social conventions! ,n this

sense$ the' intend to be 0ust descri"tive 3vs "rescri"tive4 notions$ that assist in ma+ing alread' formed

conce"tualizations e5"licit! D2.C; is an ontolog' of "articulars$ in the sense that its domain of discourseis restricted to them! 2f course$ universals are used to organize and characterize the "articulars$ but the'

are not themselves sub0ect to being organized and characterized 3e!g!$ b' means of meta"ro"erties4!

*he develo"ment of this librar' has been guided b' the need of a reliable set of foundational

ontologies that can serve as) Starting "oint for building other ontologies$

) &eference "oint for eas' and rigorous com"arisons among different ontological a""roaches$) &igorous basis for anal'zing$ harmonizing and integrating e5isting ontologies and metadata

standards 3b' manuall' ma""ing them into some general module3s4 in the librar'4!

A basic choice ado"ted b' D2.C; is the so)called multi"licative a""roach: different entities can

be co)located in the same s"ace)time! *his assum"tion allo#s us to ma+e 0ustice of incom"atible essential

"ro"erties! A classical e5am"le is the distinction bet#een a vase and its amount of cla': the vase does not

survive a radical change in sha"e or to"olog' #hile the amount of cla' does! D2.C; assumes that the

vase and the corres"onding amount of cla' are t#o distinct things$ 'et colocated$ so that #e can tal+ of

2


4/8

the sha"e of the vase 3but not of the cla'4 or the mass of the cla' 3inherited b' the vase4 #ithout fear of

contradictor' claims!

Another foundamental feature of D2.C; is the distinction bet#een enduring and "erduring

entities$ i!e! bet#een #hat "hiloso"hers usuall' call continuants and occurrents! For instance$ m' co"' of

the ne#s"a"er , bought toda' is #holl' "resent 3and endurant4$ #hile some tem"oral "arts of m' readingthe ne#s"a"er is not 3a "erdurant4! *he main relation bet#een endurants and "erdurants is that of

"artici"ation: an endurant lives in time b' "artici"ating in some "erdurant3s4! 2ther im"ortant notions andrelations are characterized in D2.C;$ among the notions #e recall


5/8

? 2b0ects 3D continuants4

? 2b0ects "artici"ate to ;vents


6/8

? ot necessaril' de"endent on other ob0ects

? on)"h'sical ob0ects

? o inherent s"atial localization

? De"endent on agents

? mental 3de"ending on singular agents4? social 3de"ending on communities of agents4

? Agentive: a com"an'$ an institution? on)agentive: a la#$ the Divine Comed'$ a linguistic s'stem

? Descri"tions$ an e5tension of D2.C;

Citations:

From the 8/onder/eb Deliverable D *he /onder/eb .ibrar' of Foundational 2ntologies

Preliminar' &e"ort9 Pa"er 3Claudio Masolo$ Stefano Borgo$ Aldo angemi$ icola uarino$ Alessandro

2ltramari$ .uc Schneider ,S*C)C& c>o ,S,B)C&$ C!so Stati Uniti$ E Padova ,tal'4!

8O*;ects

*he main characteristic of ob0ects is that the' are endurants #ith unit'! Go#ever$ the' have no common

unit' criterion$ since different subt'"es of ob0ects ma' have different unit' criteria! Differentl' from

aggregates$ 3most4 ob0ects change some of their "arts #hile +ee"ing their identit'$ the' can have therefore

tem"orar' "arts! 2ften ob0ects 3indeed$ all endurants4 are ontologicall' inde"endent from occurrences3discussed belo#4! Go#ever$ if #e admit that ever' ob0ect has a life$ it is hard to e5clude a mutual

s"ecific constant de"endence bet#een the t#o! evertheless$ #e ma' still use the notion of de"endence to

3#ea+l'4 characterize ob0ects as being not s"ecificall' constantl' de"endent on other ob0ects!

eatures*'"ical e5am"les of features are 8"arasitic entities9 such as holes$ boundaries$ surfaces$ or stains$ #hich

are genericall' constantl' de"endent on "h'sical ob0ects 3their hosts4! All features are essential #holes$

but$ as in the case of ob0ects$ no common unit' criterion ma' e5ist for all of them! Go#ever$ t'"ical

features have a to"ological unit'$ as the' are singular entities! Some features ma' be relevant "arts of

their host$ li+e a bum" or an edge$ or "laces li+e a hole in a "iece of cheese$ the underneath of a table$ the

front of a house$ #hich are not "arts of their host9

Question 3.!escri*e the proposals made *y Carl Linnaeus for oranisin livin thins into a taxonomy,

and the leacy of his wor%. Academic review articles should *e cited? *ein with those on the

/ature we*site& http&44www.nature.com4nature4focus4linnaeus@((4 Include the citations in

your answer.

$ar%s& 67) 8 you should su*mit an answer of approximately 7(( words 0excludin citations1.

Su*mission. Su*mit your written answers on paper. Su*mit the edited clothin.owl file

electronically.

Carl .innaeus$ also +no#n after his ennoblement as Carl von .innH$ #as a S#edish botanist$

"h'sician$ and zoologist$ #ho laid the foundations for the modern biological naming scheme of binomial

nomenclature! Ge is +no#n as the father of modern ta5onom'$ and is also considered one of the fathers of

modern ecolog'! Man' of his #ritings #ere in .atin$ and his name is rendered in .atin as Carolus.innIus 3after J Carolus a .innH4!

,n his ,m"erium aturae$ .innaeus established three +ingdoms$ namel' &egnum Animale$

&egnum Kegetabile and &egnum .a"ideum! *his a""roach$ the Animal$ Kegetable and Mineral

-ingdoms$ survives toda' in the "o"ular mind$ notabl' in the form of the "arlour game 1uestion: @,s it

animal$ vegetable or mineralL@! *he #or+ of .innaeus had a huge im"act on science= it #as indis"ensable

as a foundation for biological nomenclature$ no# regulated b' the nomenclature codes! *#o of his #or+s$

the first edition of the S"ecies Plantarum 3E4 for "lants and the tenth edition of the S'stema aturae3E4$ are acce"ted as "art of the starting "oints of nomenclature= his binomials 3names for s"ecies4 and

5


7/8

generic names ta+e "riorit' over those of others! Go#ever$ the im"act he had on science #as not because

of the value of his ta5onom'!

*he establishment of universall' acce"ted conventions for the naming of organisms #as

.innaeus( main contribution to ta5onom'Nhis #or+ mar+s the starting "oint of consistent use of binomial

nomenclature! During the th centur' e5"ansion of natural histor' +no#ledge$ .innaeus also develo"ed#hat became +no#n as the .innaean ta5onom'= the s'stem of scientific classification no# #idel' used in

the biological sciences!

*he .innaean s'stem classified nature #ithin a nested hierarch'$ starting #ith three +ingdoms!

-ingdoms #ere divided into classes and the'$ in turn$ into orders$ and thence into genera 3singular:

genus4$ #hich #ere divided into S"ecies 3singular: s"ecies4! Belo# the ran+ of s"ecies he sometimes

recognized ta5a of a lo#er 3unnamed4 ran+= these have since ac1uired standardised names such as variet'

in botan' and subs"ecies in zoolog'! Modern ta5onom' includes a ran+ of famil' bet#een order and

genus and a ran+ of "h'lum bet#een +ingdom and class that #ere not "resent in .innaeus( original

s'stem!

.innaeus( grou"ings #ere based u"on shared "h'sical characteristics$ and not sim"l' u"on

differences! 2f his higher grou"ings$ onl' those for animals are still in use$ and the grou"ings themselves

have been significantl' changed since their conce"tion$ as have the "rinci"les behind them! evertheless$

.innaeus is credited #ith establishing the idea of a hierarchical structure of classification #hich is basedu"on observable characteristics and intended to reflect natural relationshi"s! /hile the underl'ing details

concerning #hat are considered to be scientificall' valid @observable characteristics@ have changed #ith

e5"anding +no#ledge 3for e5am"le$ DA se1uencing$ unavailable in .innaeus( time$ has "roven to be a

tool of considerable utilit' for classif'ing living organisms and establishing their evolutionar'relationshi"s4$ the fundamental "rinci"le remains sound!

Citations from htt":>>###!nature!com>nature>focus>linnaeus66>

8*he legac' of .innaeus

;ver' "lant and animal has a mitochondrial c'tochrome o5idase , gene$ and its se1uence hel"s

researchers assign that "lant or animal to a given s"ecies$ #ith some degree of certaint'! *he "recise

degree of the certaint' obtained using this (barcode( se1uence is a matter of some debate$ but such

se1uences are clearl' useful to both ta5onomists and those #ho use a""lied ta5onom'! And the industrial)

scale se1uencing that allo#ed Craig Kenter(s ocean)metagenomics consortium to de"osit billions of lettersof se1uence from hundreds of thousands of microbe genes into the enBan+ database this #ee+ o"ens u"

even more "ossibilities!

*he abilit' to "eer into living things and ins"ect the evolutionar' scorecard encoded in their

genes has transformed the #hole of biolog'$ but fe# fields have had their core assum"tions challenged as

dee"l' as ta5onom'! From the time of Carl .innaeus$ born 66 'ears ago this Ma'$ ta5onom' has relied

on the observation and com"arison of "h'sical forms! o# it is su""lemented b' access to #hat #ouldonce have been seen not as form$ but as essence!

.innaeus himself sought a universal classification of all creation$ animal$ vegetable and mineral!

Gis categorizations #ere not uniforml' valuable$ but his s'stematic s"irit$ his stress on the conce"t of

s"ecies$ and the formal but ada"table conventions of nomenclature he introduced have endured! ature isglad to celebrate his legac' in this s"ecial issue!

Oet .innaeus(s classification #as itself a res"onse to a changing #orld N a #orld in #hich;uro"e(s gro#ing hegemon' #as bringing ne# s"ecies into the realm at headlong s"eed! .innaeus(s o#n

e5"erience of it #as bounded b' France to the south and .a"land to the north$ but the (a"ostles( #ho

carried forth his #ords and sent bac+ sam"les and descri"tions sailed out from S#eden to Arabia$ the

Americas north and south$ China$ %a"an and the Pacific! *#o sailed #ith Ca"tain Coo+$ sending bac+

sam"les from the "arts of the Pacific no# being sieved for genes!9

8*he various inventories that .innaeus "roduced gre# ever longer! But #hile toda'(s #orld

continues to e5"and in man' #a's$ in some$ including those most im"ortant to ta5onom'$ it is shrin+ing!

*he creationist .innaeus #as able to assert that @#e can count as man' s"ecies no# as #ere created at the

6


8/8

beginning@$ but toda'(s ta5onomists sus"ect #ith near certaint' that s"ecies are being irretrievabl' lost to

science at an ever)1uic+ening rate!9

7

Kese-Andreea

Documents

Transcript of Kese-Andreea