签订房屋租赁合同的注意事项(ppt)课件

1,Open Ontology Repository Session OOR-Team Presentation Ontology Summit 2008 Interoperability Week, NIST Gaithersburg, MD,MikeDean, LeoObrst, PeterYim, et al. April 29, 2008 v 1.02,太原房产网 ,2,Agenda: Presenting the OOR Initiative,What is the OOR? Overview, rationale and motivations Leo Obrst What do users expect? How do these needs align with the rationale? Ken Baclawski How do these needs translate into OOR system requirements? How do these satisfy the rationale? Evan Wallace What are some existing efforts? How do these address or satisfy the rationale? Bruce Bargmeyer What is the roadmap to developing/delivering these requirements in an OOR implementation effort? How does the roadmap satisfy the rationale? Mike Dean,3,Overview, Rationale & Motivations,Leo Obrst,4,Overview,Recognizing of the need for an Open Ontology Repository, the co-conveners got their act together: 2001 DAML Ontology Library (Mike Dean) 2005 MITRE Study on OWL/RDF Registry & Repository (Leo Obrst) 2002/2005 CIM3-CWE / CODS initiative (Peter Yim) 2008-01-03: Open Ontology Repository initiative - Planning Meeting Proposed to have OOR as the theme for Ontology Summit 2008 2008-01-23: OOR Initiative - Founding Members Conference Call “Open Ontology Repository (OOR) Initiative” came into being, with about 40 participants (active participants, as well as observers) Team adopts Mission Statement 2008-02-07: OOR team adopts their “Ontology Repository” definition 2008-02-2804.10: joined with the OntologySummit2008 effort and co-organized four OOR-Panel Sessions: Covering: “Technology Landscape,” “Expectations & Requirements,” and “Ontology of Ontologies” OOR team virtual activities being hosted within the Ontolog collaborative work environment, for the time being,5,The charter of the Open Ontology Repository (OOR) Initiative is to the promote the global use and sharing of ontologies by:,1. establishing a hosted registry-repository; 2. enabling and facilitating open, federated, collaborative ontology repositories, and 3. establishing best practices for expressing interoperable ontology and taxonomy work in registry-repositories. where, “An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed.” - definition as adopted by the OOR-team / 2008.02.07 Homepage: /cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository,6,Rationale & Motivations (1),Why are we interested in an OOR and what purpose does it serve? Isnt the Semantic Web notion of distributed islands of semantics sufficient as a de facto repository? If you put it out there, will they come? If you build it better and put it out there, will they prefer yours? History does not show this laissez faire “field of dreams” is good reality The “clickable“ web has been very successful in employing this strategy for html documents However the use and content of the semantic web has different characteristics that make it far less tolerant of the change and frequent errors which are commonplace on the clickable web. Distinguishing characteristics of the Semantic Web Machines rather than humans are the primary consumers of content. Errors that a human may be able to diagnose and fix (such as a change in location of a document) are likely fatal for machine processing The use of owl:imports creates a strong transitive dependency between ontology documents; changes in any imported document (imported directly or through nested import) can cause the resulting import closure to be inconsistent or to change its meaning or computational characteristics significantly. Ontologies convey a precise meaning with an unambiguous machine interpretation. This means that, when using this content, careful selection and precise reference is critical.,7,Rationale & Motivations (2),Value Added to the content by an Open Ontology Repository/Registry: The OOR is reliably available The OOR is persistent and sustainable, so you can be confident when committing to its use The OOR has information about when, why, and how an ontology has changed, so you can be aware of changes that may effect its usability You can find ontologies easily Ontologies are registered, so you know who built them Metadata provides the ontology purpose, KR language, user group, content subject area, etc. The OOR includes mappings, so you can connect ontologies to other ontologies The OOR content has quality and value, as gauged by recognized criteria The OOR supports services, so that ontologies can map and be mapped, find and be found, can review/certify and be reviewed/certified, can hook your own services into and can use the services others have hooked in Ontologies can reuse or extend other ontologies, including common middle and upper ontologies The OOR can be easily extended Ref. also opening post to the OOR-team ref “definition: registry vs. repository; goals, etc.” - /forum/oor-forum/2008-01/msg00016.html,8,Open Ontology Repository User Needs & Requirements,Ken Baclawski,9,“OOR” - what is in scope?,Repository: “An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed“ first: the persistent store for ontologies then, the registry for ontologies in the repository then progressively, the value-added services Ontology: all types of artifacts on the ontology spectrum from folksonomies, terminologies, controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, thesauri, . to data-schema, data-models . to OWL ontologies . and, axiomatized logical theories from shared understanding . to ontological commitments . to the future of standards Open: open access; compliance with open standards; open technology (with open source); open knowledge (open content); open collaboration (with transparent community process) open to integration with “non-open” repositories via an open interface,10,OOR Users Needs (1),Who are the users of an OOR ontology developers (individuals or distributed teams) ontology centers and institutions end-users (human) who need to search/browse an ontology software agents (machine) who need to use the ontologies application developers When design time run-time (dynamic, real-time, on-the-fly, .),11,OOR Users Needs (2),Through the two virtual panel sessions and our online discourse, we heard from experts among the panelists and participants coming from different domains: 2008_03_27 - Thursday: Joint OOR-OntologySummit2008 Panel Discussion: “An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations Panelists: DougLenat, DekeSmith, MarciaZeng, DeniseBedford, PatHayes, MalaMehrotra & RobRaskin - /cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_04_03,12,OOR Users Needs (3),The top needs came out to: that there is a well-maintained persistent store (with high availability and performance) where ontological work can be stored, shared and accessed having “ontologies” properly registered and “governed,” with provenance and versioning support, and made available (logically) in one place so that they can be browsed, discovered, queried, analysed, validated and reused allow ontologies to be “open” and unencumbered by IPR constraints, in terms of access and reuse services that can be provided across disparate ontological artifacts to support cross-domain interoperability, mapping, application and making inferences and having such semantic services be properly registered and available to support peer OORs (in addition to the panel proceedings cited above) ref. IM chat/discussion: /cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_03_27#nid1CJJ and, for example, input from AndrewSchain (NASA/HQ): /forum/ontology-summit/2008-04/msg00010.html,13,A sample of the input on Needs and Expectations, based on summary slides received from some of the OOR-Panelists on the 2008.03.27 & 2008.04.03 “Requirements Panel” Sessions,References to the Rationale are shown in green boxes,“What is impossible to do right now, but, if you could do it, would fundamentally change your business?” 1990 Joel Arthur Barker Codification at source ! Common metadata (ISO 22745-20/eOTD) an end to data mapping Requirement specifications (ISO 22745-30/eOTD-i-xml ) an end to incomplete data Data provenance (ISO 8000-120) an end to inaccurate information,Vision of the Future Peter Benson NATO codification system as the foundation for the eOTD, ISO 22745 and ISO 8000,Faster data Better data Cheaper data,Ask (22745-35/eOTD-q-xml) and you shall receive (22745-40/eOTD-r-xml),Quality and value,Metadata,Reliable, available,Codification at Source - Peter Benson Using standards to automate the data supply chain,Data requestor,Data provider,Sub,eOTD-i-xml (data requirements statement) ISO 22745-30,eOTD-q-xml (query) ISO 22745-35,Sub-Tier eOTD-q-xml,Sub-Tier eOTD-r-xml,eOTD-r-xml (data exchange) ISO 22745-40,Faster data Better data Cheaper data,16,Rex Brooks: Content Provider-Repository Builder Focus on Architecture, Registry-Repository & Emergency Data Exchange Language Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM),Find Ontologies,Ontology Registration,17,Rex Brooks: Content Provider-Repository Builder Focus on Architecture, Registry-Repository & Emergency Data Exchange Language Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM),Find Ontologies,Ontology Registration,18,Developer Requirements - Neil Sarkar,Must have the ability to browse and query small segments of an ontology. Good to have the ability to dynamically curate and suggest changes via the user community. Ideally, it can be used to navigate across inferred information that is associated with a small set of terms and that comes from many ontologies.,Ontology Services,Change Management,Ontology Mapping,19,End User Requirements Neil Sarkar,Must have Ability to efficiently navigate multiple hierarchies Consistency across multiple ontologies Good to have Ability to provide live feedback Allow annotating relationships or propose new terms Ideally, it can Support scientific hypothesis testing,Ontology Mapping,Change Management,OOR Extensions,Metadata,20,OOR needs for content /application providers Mala Mehrotra,Content developers: Discover related terms/axioms/models for reuse Context collaboration groups of concepts region (geographic, biological, political) Depth/detail month in SUMO vs. monthDescription in DAML time ontologies Differences in competing models TimeInterval in SUMO vs DurationDescription in DAML Degree of Crossover/Overlap More than just imports closure Orthogonality measures across ontologies Application developers: Interoperate using multiple ontologies Create formalized mapping relationships Find mapping relationships,Reuse and Extension,Ontology Mapping,21,Infrastructure Needs Mala Mehrotra,Cognitive Tools for discovery Collaborating groups of concepts used in applications Implicit relationships across resources Ontological/Taxonomy hierarchy browsing Human-machine collaboration mode Mapping Tools for capturing inter-resources relationships Need formal representation of relationships for reasoners A large repertoire of relationships Multiple ontological representations Mechanisms to represent formalism in human-readable form Pragatis Expos tool addresses these issues ,Reuse and Extension,Ontology Mapping,22,What Wed Want a Good Host to Provide,A commitment to use to have contributors all provide content under some Creative Commons license, as opposed to e.g. a GNU license Retention of the provenance/lineage of contributed ontological content Agreement on some of the most fundamental ontological relations Agreement on a small set of inter-ontology alignment relations,Doug Lenat Cycorp D,Content that Cycorp could provide to be be hosted: * OpenCyc () 100% free even for commercial purposes * ResearchCyc () free for R&D purposes In both cases, there are ontologies plus inference engines and API-level and graphical interface tools,Meta-level message: Look at OKKAM, LarKC, etc., and decide what role, if any, OOR can/should play, and how it should tie in with those other efforts.,Unencumbered by IP constraints,Registration, Metadata,Ontology Mapping,23,Whats in OpenCyc Doug Lenat,(#$isa 596215) (#$genls 99198) (#$disjointWith 6114) (#$resultIsa 4277) (#$resultGenl 1206) (#$argIsa 35617 (#$argGenl 5398) (#$arg1Isa 16748) (#$arg1Genl 2354) (#$arg2Isa 14114 (#$arg2Genl 2283) (#$arg3Isa 3486),(#$argFormat 5493) (#$arg2Format 3320) (#$functionalInArgs 1427) (#$arity 16416) (#$arityMin 958) (#$comment 57305) (#$genlPreds 7440) (#$negationInverse 990) (#$genlMt 26078) (#$denotationInEnglish 409745) (#$synonymousExternalConcept 13916),Explicitly: 300k terms; 14k predicates; 57k classes; 2 million assertions Implicitly: There are infinitely more nonatomic terms and inferred assertions More subtle but crucial point: There are infinitely many contexts (microtheories) defined compositionally rather than having only explicitly reified contexts,This means there are 596k “isa” assertions in OpenCyc,E.g., mapping between a term in OpenCyc and a WordNet synset,24,Needs vs. Rationale,The “Needs and Expectations” map well to the “Rationale” cited in the previous slide A community OOR will provide us with (from slide #11 from Denise Bedfords 2008.04.03 brief) Knowledge value Collaboration value Shared process value However, further to the intellectual discourse on what an OOR should be, the implementors of the OOR will also need to answer questions like: How could we make sure the OOR is still around in 100 years? What can be done about assuring the sustainability of the resources, expertise, quality of the ontologies in the OOR and the services provided? How can we ensure long term value, commitment and continuous improvement to the OOR?,25,Open Ontology Repository Translating User Needs into Requirements for OOR Implementation,Evan Wallace,26, more input from the OOR-Panel sessions, based on summary slides received from the panelists on the virtual panel sessions,27,Current ontology reuse challenges - Elisa Kendall & Evan Wallace,Ontologies developed for programs such as the DARPA DAML program are aging Ontology pages have not been revised since 2004 (see /ontologies/) Most recent submission was actually in 2003 (see /ontologies/submission.html) Community knowledge about development methodology & facts about the world relevant to the IC community have continued to evolve Ontologies are often published in an authors user space which is ephemeral. When these ontologies move, references to them are invalidated and references within the artifacts must be updated but sometimes are not (e.g. OWL Time) Research ontologies tend to be focused on demonstration-related content and are by nature incomplete, with varying coverage and levels of granularity due to funding limitations,28,Challenges in deploying an effective OOR - Elisa Kendall & Evan Wallace,Linking among models built from different metamodels and for different CoPs (business modelers versus knowledge engineers) Intellectual Property concerns particularly w.r.t. content based on International Standards Ensuring availability and persistence Maintenance and refreshment of content Need long term resource commitment Need staff with correct technical skills/knowledge What policies, processes, tools and automation are needed? How will freshness be monitored?,29,“good practices” for reusability - Elisa Kendall,Well-specified policies for vocabulary management, metadata, and provenance enable trust Commitment to forming, accommodating, serving, & working with a community of users is critical Emerging portals (e.g., NCBOs BioPortal) provide the repository, publish relevant metadata, manage versions, and provide web-based access to facilitate collaboration & reuse Minimal principles for vocabulary publication & management* Use URIs for naming publish not only the URIs but policies for URI persistence, ownership, delegation of responsibility for specific vocabularies, etc. Provide adequate readable documentation Articulate maintenance policies that specify whether or not changes can be made, the process for doing so, a feedback loop for user community involvement Identify versions Publish a formal schema in a recommended standard Essential metadata Identify sources, creation & revision dates, etc. at the ontology level (minimum) Knowledge provenance for business & government intelligence may require detail at the fact/individual level* Quality, trustworthiness assessment metrics for the vocabulary & source materials Licensing, IP limitations * /2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles,30,Steps towards an OOR enabling reuse - Elisa Kendall,Design a repository structure, version strategy, & naming conventions Determine metrics for content assessment / evaluation Create rules & procedures for content acceptance Adopt metadata schema for annotation & assessment information Determine mechanisms for content annotation / classification & querying Create a strategy/schedule for deployment,31,Translating Needs to Requirements,Active discussion on the matter evolved on the oor-forum list, initiated from threads like: post from EvanWallace (NIST): /forum/oor-forum/2008-04/msg00011.html & post from ToddSchneider (Raytheon): /forum/oor-forum/2008-04/msg00012.html breaking it down to: general requirements (scalability, distributed repository support, platform independence, .) requirements to support search and discovery requirements to support subscription and notification management requirements, & governance requirements,32,Ontology Language Requirements,Bare minimum OWL Common Logic (CL) Expected evolution OWL OWL2 + SWRL CL IKL Desirable additions RDFS Topic Maps SBVR exchange form ?,33,Top User Needs (1st bullet),Well-maintained persistent store with high availability and performance for storage, s