• Aucun résultat trouvé

Where is the Semantics in the Semantic Web?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Where is the Semantics in the Semantic Web?"

Copied!
21
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Where is the Semantics on the Semantic Web?

Ontologies and Agents Workshop Autonomous Agents

Montreal, 29 May 2001

Mike Uschold

Mathematics and Computing Technology Boeing Phantom Works

(2)

Acknowledgements

Material from this lecture was drawn from many fruitful discussions with:

Peter Clark

John Thompson

Rob Jasper

Anita Tyler

Dieter Fensel

Frank vanHarmlen

Michael Gruninger

(3)

The Evolving Web

Locating Resources

free text & keyword search Æ semantic search

Web Users

primarily humans Æ both humans and machines

Web Tasks & Services

a place to find things Æ a place to do things

Semantics is the Core Requirement

web content with no semantics Æ with semantics

(4)

Agents and the Semantic Web

Semantic Web: killer ‘app’ for agents?

Agents need to communicate and understand meaning.

Advertise and require capabilities

Locate meaningful information resources on web

& combine them in meaningful ways to perform tasks

How to interpret communication acts?

But what do we mean by the Semantic Web?

(5)

TBL’s Vision

Extension of current web;

Layered, extendible, composable;

Meta-data, Ontologies, KBs, Agents, WWKB

Inference, proofs, queries

‘Semantics’ – in machine processible form.

(6)

What do we mean by ‘Semantics’?

Semantics of What?

language?, term?, expression?

communication protocol?

domain ontology & markup!

Plicity:

Are the semantics implicit or explicit?

Formality:

How are semantics expressed?

Semantics Processing:

Who are they for?

human only – fully manual

human and computer – partially automated

computer only – fully automated

Implicit

Informal

Formal Comments

Automated

(7)

Examples

Implicit:

based on human consensus, shared understanding

Typical XML tags

<price> 200 </price>

<address> </address>

<delivery-date> … </delivery-date>

Used by screen-scrapers, wrappers

Rife with ambiguity.

Informal:

only humans can use (until NLP solved)

Text specification document for HTML e.g. <h2>

UML semantics document

Java language definition, for compiler writers

Still ambiguous

(8)

Examples

‘Formal Comments’

Semantics of FIPA ACL ‘inform’ in modal logic

Formal definitions in any requirements spec (e.g. Z)

Many axioms in Ontolingua ontologies

Much less ambiguous

Still error-prone, human in the loop.

Automated

RDF(S), DAML+OIL term definitions

e.g. mammal, date

How does the machine process the semantics?

(9)

Machine Processible Semantics

How can an agent learn the meaning of a term?

Procedural Semantics

How does an agent system know what to do when it sees the term ‘inform

The (possibly informal) semantics of ‘inform’ is embedded in a procedure by a human.

The system places a call to the procedure when it encounters ‘inform’.

The ‘meaning’ of ‘inform’ is what happens when this procedure is called.

Machine processible semantics? – perhaps.

(10)

Machine Processible Semantics

Learning the meaning of a term from a formal declarative specification of the semantics…

General case: no assumptions, nothing shared

all symbols might as well be in ‘Greek’ script

no knowledge of language syntax, or semantics

Cryptography, impossible to automate

So, we have to cheat…

We must make some assumptions…

(11)

Assumptions: language

Shared language syntax and semantics,

e.g. KIF, RDF(S), DAML+OIL

But: may have incompatible assumptions in conceptualization.

Time point, vs. time interval

Agent can never incorporate meaning of new term in its axioms.

(12)

More Assumptions: compatibility

Logical compatibility as well as language.

But: Different people build different ontologies for the same domain.

Two terms, same meaning, or vica versa;

Same concept modeled at different level of detail;

Different language primitives used for same concept;

e.g. red an attribute, or RedThings a class.

Computationally intractable to determine if two terms actually mean the same thing.

I.e. have same set of models

(13)

More Assumptions: sharing

Term explicitly mapped to a shared concept

Encounter new term, leprechaun, a subclass of mammal.

‘mammal’ defined in shared animal ontology in OIL.

Machine can learn something about meaning.

I.e. there are now more things that it cannot be.

Still plenty of scope for ambiguity;

Definition of mammal in OIL can never be complete.

Can do some inference

e.g. for search application looking for content about mammals.

(14)

Processing Semantics

Relies on a formal semantics of OIL to infer semantics of terms and expressions in OIL.

OIL semantics is for humans

it helps build inference engines;

not machine processible.

Humans may still embed some meaning in code

May be dangerous to do so – or –

May be necessary to do so…

The shared concept referred to may not be

formally defined (e.g. Dublin Core terms)

(15)

Enter:

Opinion and Speculation Mode

(16)

When is Semantic Web Needed?

Good Question! Where are the use cases?

No case made for search, at least not for humans. Google works brilliantly!

Build it and they will come! Or will they?

Analogy: So what if my toaster can talk to my washing machine!

What would they say?

Does this improve my life?

(17)

Law of the Semantic Web?

The more agreement there is, the less it is necessary to have

“machine sensible semantics”.

E.g. <h2> in HTML specification;

No need to do inference;

Just embed the semantics in the browsers.

(18)

Two Show Stoppers

Mapping

There will never be global standards

Mapping will always be necessary

Hard to automate

Time-consuming to do manually

Markup

Noone will do this unless it is painless.

Can’t get anywhere without it.

(19)

How to Cope?

Mapping

Get agreement where possible, standards in limited communities and scope;

Create mappings as necessary;

Do lots of research!

Markup

Many good statistical techniques from IR

– Limited to putting things in buckets, not fine grained semantic markup

Markup for ‘free’ – ala Hendler’s recent paper

“Agents on the Semantic Web” (or similar)

(20)

Summary:

Where IS the semantics?

Often just in the human.

Informally in specification documents.

Embedded in implemented code.

Formal Comments to help humans understand and/or write code.

Formally encoded for machine processing

In the representation language specification

(21)

Summary:

Characterizing the Semantic Web

Purpose, Benefits, Mechanisms of semantics

Needs a lot more work!

What has the semantics?

Language? Terms? Communication protocols?

Representing and Processing semantics

Implicit or Explicit?

Formal or Informal?

For human or for computer?

Agreement and Sharing of semantics

Does agreement reduce need for explicit semantics?

Références

Documents relatifs

Her recent works were devoted to the semantic annotation of brain MRI images (IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 2009), and to the Foundational Model of Anatomy in OWL

The current uptake of “semantic technologies” requires an effort to design some in- teroperability for the representation practices among fields as diverse as knowledge

Errors or deficiencies affect  at different  levels the following issues:  intelligibility  (Rules 1, 2, 3 of verbal system);  the thought logic 

Next, requirements on reliable statements are specified serving as a basis for the development of conceptual models towards seamless integration of relevant security technologies

in many aspects: (1) users are able to build groups of arbitrary (multimedia) Web resources by simple drag &amp; drop operations, (2) resources contained in such groups can

We asked some subjects (for method comparison) to choose between the paraphrases or between the truth condi- tions, and others (for consistency measurement) to choose

As pointed out in [2], trust is essential for agents collaboration; each agent will have to make subjective trust judgements about other agents with respect to the services they

Thus, if either the base class or one of its super classes is visible within the external ontology, the semantic fact that this virtual class subsumes those classes must be