The ontological commitments embedded in a representation language

Just like programming language preferences generate heated debates, this happens every now and then with languages to represent ontologies as well. Passionate dislikes for description logics or limitations of OWL are not unheard of, in favour of, say, Common Logic for more expressiveness and a different notation style, or of OBO because of its graph-based fundamentals, or that abuse of UML Class Diagram syntax  won’t do as approximation of an OWL file. But what is really going on here? Are they practically all just the same anyway and modellers merely stick with, and defend, what they know? If you could design your pet language, what would it look like?

The short answer is: they are not all the same and interchangeable. There are actually ontological commitments baked into the language, even though in most cases this is not explicitly stated as such. The ‘things’ one has in the language indicate what the fundamental building blocks are in the world (also called “epistemological primitives” [1]) and therewith assume some philosophical stance. For instance, a crisp vs vague world (say, plain OWL or a fuzzy variant thereof) or whether parthood is such a special relation that it deserves its own primitive next to class subsumption (alike UML’s aggregation). Or maybe you want one type of class for things indicated with count nouns and another type of element for stuffs (substances generally denoted with mass nouns). This then raises the question as to what the sort of commitments are that are embedded in, or can go into, a language specification and that have an underlying philosophical point of view. This, in turn, raises the question about which philosophical stances actually can have a knock-on effect on the specification or selection of an ontology language.

My collaborator, Pablo Fillottrani, and I tried to answer these questions in the paper entitled An Analysis of Commitments in Ontology Language Design that was published late last year as part of the proceedings of the 11th Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems 2020 that was supposed to have been held in September 2020 in Bolzano, Italy. In the paper, we identified and analysed ontological commitments that are, or could have been, embedded in logics, and we showed how they have been taken for well-known languages for representing ontologies and similar artefacts, such as OBO, SKOS, OWL 2DL, DLRifd, and FOL. We organised them in four main categories: what the very fundamental furniture is (e.g., including roles or not, time), acknowledging refinements thereof (e.g., types of relations, types of classes), the logic’s interaction with natural language, and crisp vs various vagueness options. They are discussed over about 1/3 of the paper.

Obviously, engineering considerations can interfere in the design of the logic as well. They concern issues such as how the syntax should look like and whether scalability is an issue, but this is not the focus of the paper.

We did spend some time contextualising the language specification in an overall systematic engineering process of language design, which is summarised in the figure below (the paper focuses on the highlighted step).

(source: [2])

While such a process can be used for the design of a new logic, it also can be used for post hoc reconstructions of past design processes of extant logics and conceptual data modelling languages, and for choosing which one you want to use. At present, the documentation of the vast majority of published languages do not describe much of the ‘softer’ design rationales, though.  

We played with the design process to illustrate how it can work out, availing also of our requirements catalogue for ontology languages and we analysed several popular ontology languages on their commitments, which can be summed up as in the table shown below, also taken from the paper:

(source: [2])

In a roundabout way, it also suggests some explanations as to why some of those transformation algorithms aren’t always working well; e.g., any UML-to-OWL or OBO-to-OWL transformation algorithm is trying to shoe-horn one ontological commitment into another, and that can only be approximated, at best. Things have to be dropped (e.g., roles, due to standard view vs positionalism) or cannot be enforced (e.g., labels, due to natural language layer vs embedding of it in the logic), and that’ll cause some hick-ups here and there. Now you know why, and that won’t ever work well.

Hopefully, all this will feed into a way to help choosing a suitable language for the ontology one may want to develop, or assist with understanding better the language that you may be using, or perhaps gain new ideas for designing a new ontology language.

References

[1] Brachman R, Schmolze J. An overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System. Cognitive Science. 1985, 9:171–216.

[2] Fillottrani, P.R., Keet, C.M. An Analysis of Commitments in Ontology Language Design. Proc. of FOIS 2020. Brodaric, B. and Neuhaus, F. (Eds.). IOS Press. FAIA vol. 330, 46-60.

On computer program being a whole

Who cares whether some computer program is a whole, how, and why? Turns out, more people than you may think—and so should you, since it can be costly depending on the answer. Consider the following two scenarios: 1) you download a ‘pirated’ version of MS Office or Adobe Photoshop (the most popular ones still) and 2) you take the source code of a popular open source program, such as Notepad++, add a little code for some additional function, and put it up for sale only as an executable app called ‘Notepad++ extreme (NEXT)’ so as to try to earn money quickly. Are these actions legal?

In both cases, you’d break the law, but how many infringements took place, of the one that you potentially could be fined for or face jail time? For the piracy case, is that once for the MS Office suite, or for each progam in the suite, or for each file created upon installing MS office, or for each source code file that went into making the suite during software development? For the open source case, was that violating its GNU GLP open source licence once for the zipped&downloaded or cloned source code or for each file in the source code, of which there are hundreds? It is possible to construct similar questions for trade secret violations and patent infringements for programs, as well as other software artefacts, like illegal downloads of TV series episodes (going strong during COVID-19 lockdowns indeed). Just in case you think this sort of issue is merely hypothetical: recently, Arista paid Cisco $400 million for copyright damages and just before that, Zenimax got $500 million from Oculus (yes, the VR software) for trade secret violations, and Google vs Oracle is ongoing with “billions of dollars at stake”.

Let’s consider some principles first. To be able to answer the number of infringements, we first need to know whether a computer program is a whole or not and why, and if so, what’s ‘in’ (i.e., a part of it) and what’s ‘out’ (i.e., definitely not part of it). Spoiler alert: a computer program is a functional whole.

To get to that conclusion, I had to combine insights from theories of parthood (mereology), granularity, modularity, unity, and function and add a little more into the mix. To provide less and more condensed versions of the argumentation, there is a longer technical report [1], of which I hope it is readable by a wider audience, and a condensed version for a specialist audience [2] that was published in the Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems (FOIS’20) two weeks ago. Very briefly and informally, the state of affairs can be illustrated with the following picture:

(Source: adapted from [2])

This schematic representation shows, first, two levels of granularity: level 1 and level 2. At level 1, there’s some whole, like the a1 and a2 in the figure that could be referring to, say, a computer program, a module repository, an electorate, or a human body. At a more fine-grained level 2, there are different entities, which are in some way linked to the respective whole. This ‘link’ to the whole is indicated with the vertical dashed lines, and one can say that they are part of the whole. For the blue dots on the right residing at level 2, i.e., the parts of a1, there’s also a unifying relation among the parts, indicated with the solid lines with arrows, which makes a1 an integral whole. Moreover, for that sort of whole, it holds that if some object x (residing at level 2) is part of a1 then if there’s a y that is also part of a1, it participates in that unifying relation with x and vice versa (i.e., if y is in that unifying relation with x, then it must also be part of a1). For the computer program’s source code, that unifying relation can be the source tree graph.

There is some nitty gritty detail also involving the notion of function—a source code file contributes to doing something—and optional vs mandatory vs essential part that you can read about in the report or in the paper [1,2], covering the formalisation, more argumentation, and examples.

How would it pan out for the infringements? The Notepad++ exploitation scenario would simply be a case of one infringement in total for all the files needed to create the executable, not one for each source code file. This conclusion from the theory turns out remarkably in line with the GNU GPL’s explanation of their licence, albeit then providing a theoretical foundation for their intuition that there’s a difference between a mere aggregate where different things are bundled, loose coupling (e.g., sockets and pipes) and a single program (e.g., using function calls, being included in the same executable). The order of things perhaps should have been from there into the theory, but practically, I did the analysis and stumbled into a situation where I had to look up the GPL and its explanatory FAQ. On the bright side, in the other direction now then: just  in case someone wants to take on copyleft principles of open source software, here are some theoretical foundations to support that there’s probably much less money to be gained than you might think.

For the MS Office suite case mentioned at the start, I’d need a look under the hood to determine how it ties together and one may have to argue about the sameness of, or difference between, a suite and a program. The easier case for a self-standing app, like the 3rd-place most pirated Windows app Internet Download Manager, is that it is one whole and so one infringement then.

It’s a pity that FOIS 2020 has been postponed to 2021, but at least I got to talk about some of this as expert witness for a litigation case and I managed to weave an exercise about the source tree with open source licences into the social issues and professional practice module I thought to some 750 students this past winter.

References

[1] Keet, C.M. Why a computer program is a functional whole. Technical report 2008.07273, arXiv. 21 July 2020. 25 pages.

[2] Keet, C.M. The computer program as a functional whole. Proc. of FOIS 2020. Brodaric, B. and Neuhaus, F. (Eds.). IOS Press. FAIA vol. 330, 216-230.

Digital Assistants and AMAs with configurable ethical theories

About a year ago, there was a bit of furore in the newspapers on digital assistants, like Amazon Echo’s Alexa, Apple’s Siri, or Microsoft’s Cortana, in a smart home to possibly snitch on you if you’re the marijuana-smoking family member [1,2]. This may be relevant if you live in a conservative state or country, where it is still illegal to do so. Behind it is a multi-agent system that would do some argumentation among the stakeholders (the kids, the parents, and the police). That example sure did get the students’ attention in the computer ethics class I taught last year. It did so too with an undergraduate student—double majoring in compsci and philosophy—who opted to do the independent research module. Instead of the multiple actor scenario, however, we considered it may be useful to equip such a digital assistant, or an artificial moral agent (AMA) more broadly, with multiple moral theories, so that a user would be able to select their preferred theory and let the AMA make the appropriate decision for her on whichever dilemma comes up. This seems preferable over an at-most-one-theory AMA.

For instance, there’s the “Mia the alcoholic” moral dilemma [3]: Mia is disabled and has a new model of the carebot that can fetch her alcoholic drinks in the comfort of her home. At some point, she’s getting drunk but still orders the carebot to bring her one more tasty cocktail. Should the carebot comply? The answer depends on one’s ethical viewpoint. If you had answered with ‘yes’, you probably would not want to buy a carebot that would refuse to serve you, and likewise vv. But how to make the AMA culturally and ethically more flexible to be able to adjust to the user’s moral preferences?

The first step in that direction has now been made by that (undergrad) research student, George Rautenbach, which I supervised. The first component is a three-layered approach, with at the top layer a ‘general ethical theory’ model (called Genet) that is expressive enough to be able to model a specific ethical theory, such as utilitarianism, ethical egoism, or Divine Command Theory. This was done for those three and Kantianism, so as to have a few differences in consequence-based or not, the possible ‘patients’ of the action, sort of principles, possible thresholds and such. These reside in the middle layer. Then there’s Mia’s egoism, the parent’s Kantian viewpoint about the marijuana, a train company’s utilitarianism to sort out the trolley problem, and so on at the bottom layer, which are instantiations of the respective specific ethical theories in the middle layer.

The Genet model was evaluated by demonstrating that those four theories can be modelled with Genet and the individual theories were evaluated with a few use cases to show that the attributes stored are relevant and sufficient for those reasoning scenarios for the individuals. For instance, eventually, Mia’s egoism wouldn’t get her another drink fetched by the carebot, but as a Kantian, she would have been served.

The details are described in the technical report “Toward Equipping Artificial Moral Agents with multiple ethical theories” [4] and the models are also available for download as XML files and an OWL file. To get all this to work in a device, there’s still the actual reasoning component to implement (a few architectures exist for that) and for a user to figure out which theory they actually subscribe to so as to have the device configured accordingly. And of course, there is a range of ethical issues with digital assistants and AMAs, but that’s a topic perhaps better suited for the SIPP (FKA computer ethics) module in our compsci programme [5] and other departments.

 

p.s.: a genet is also an agile cat-like animal mostly living in Africa, just in case you were wondering about the abbreviation of the model.

 

References

[1] Swain, F. AIs could debate whether a smart assistant should snitch on you. New Scientist, 22 February 2019. Online: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2194613-ais-could-debatewhether-a-smart-assistant-should-snitch-on-you/ (last accessed: 5 March 2020).

[2] Liao, B., Slavkovik, M., van der Torre, L. Building Jiminy Cricket: An Architecture for Moral Agreements Among Stakeholders. ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society 2019, Hawaii, USA. Preprint: arXiv:1812.04741v2, 7 March 2019.

[3] Millar, J. An ethics evaluation tool for automating ethical decision-making in robotsand self-driving cars. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 30(8):787–809, 2016.

[4] Rautenbach, G., Keet, C.M. Toward equipping Artificial Moral Agents with multiple ethical theories. University of Cape Town. arxiv:2003.00935, 2 March 2020.

[5] Computer Science Department. Social Issues and Professional Practice in IT & Computing. Lecture Notes. 6 December 2019.

Computer ethics (SIPP) notes relevant to South Africa

Social issues and Professional Practice in IT & Computing (formerly known as ‘computer ethics’ in our curriculum) increased in prominence in curriculum guidelines in recent years. Also, there is an increase in popular and scientific literature on computer ethics especially since Big Data, the popularisation of Artificial Intelligence, and now the 4th Industrial Revolution. Most of the articles and books are focussed on ethical and social issues where SIPP is taught mostly, being in ‘the West’.

It is taught elsewhere as well. For instance, since the early 2000s, the Computer Science Department at the University of Cape Town has taught it as part of a Masters in IT conversion course and as a block in a first-year computer science course. While initial material and lecture notes were reused from one of those universities in ‘the West’, over time, attempts have been made to localise it to some extent at least. For instance, South Africa has its own version of EU’s GDPR (the POPI Act), there is a South African IT organisation (IITPSA) with its code of conduct, and is the textbook case that illustrates the concept of leapfrogging with its wireless network (and perhaps also with the digital divide). In addition, some ‘aspects’ look different from a country that is classified as an emerging economy than for a high-income country; e.g., as patent protection and Silicon Valley’s data collection vs. potentially stifling emerging local tech companies and digital colonialism, respectively.

Updating lecture notes takes time, and so it is typically a multi-author effort carried out every few years, as it is in this case. Differently from the previous main update, is that, in line with teaching and with the times, the lecture notes are now publicly available for free on UCT’s “Open Educational Resources” site. It is with some hesitation, as it clearly does not have the quality of a textbook and we know of certain limitations that I would have liked to be better. Yet, I hope that it may be of some use already nonetheless, be it for people in the region or from ‘outside’ looking in.

I have contributed some sections as well, partially because I think it’s an interesting theme and partially because I have to teach it. I would have liked to add more, but time was running out (i.e., it’s a balancing act with other commitments, like research, teaching, and admin). With more time, the privacy chapter would have been updated better (e.g., also touching upon privacy in the context of the common practice of mobile phone sharing), emerging concepts would have been better integrated (e.g., digital colonialism, surveillance capitalism), some of the separate exercises could have been integrated, and so on and so forth. Alas, maybe a next time. (To any of my students reading this: some of these aspects are already integrated in the slides that are used in the CSC1016S lectures, which are running ahead in content compared to the written notes, and that is examinable content as well.)

Tutorial: OntoClean in OWL and with an OWL reasoner

The novelty surrounding all things OntoClean described here, is that we made a tutorial out of a scientific paper and used an example that is different from the (in?)famous manual example to clean up a ‘dirty’ taxonomy.

I’m assuming you have at least heard of OntoClean, which is an ontology-inspired method to examine the taxonomy of an ontology, which may be useful especially when the classes (/universals/concepts/..) have no or only a few properties or attributes declared. Based on that ontological information provided by the modeller, it will highlight violations of ontological principles in the taxonomy so that the ontologist may fix it. Its most recent overview is described in Guarino & Welty’s book chapter [1] and there are handouts and slides that show some of the intermediate steps; a 1.5-page summary is included as section 5.2.2 in my textbook [2].

Besides that paper-based description [1], there have been two attempts to get the reasoning with the meta-properties going in a way that can exploit existing technologies, which are OntOWLClean [3] and OntOWL2Clean [4]. As the names suggest, those existing and widely-used mechanisms are OWL and the DL-based reasoners for OWL, and the latter uses OWL2-specific language features (such as role chains) whereas the former does not. As it happened, some of my former students of the OE course wanted to try the OntoOWLClean approach by Welty, and, as they were with three students in the mini-project team, they also had to make their own example taxonomy, and compare the two approaches. It is their—Todii Mashoko, Siseko Neti, and Banele Matsebula’s—report and materials we—Zola Mahlaza and I—have brushed up and rearranged into a tutorial on OntoClean with OWL and a DL reasoner with accompanying OWL files for the main stages in the process.

There are the two input ontologies in OWL (the domain ontology to clean and the ‘ontoclean ontology’ that codes the rules in the TBox), an ontology for the stage after punning the taxonomy into the ABox, and one after having assigned the meta-properties, so that students can check they did the steps correctly with respect to the tutorial example and instructions. The first screenshot below shows a section of the ontology after pushing the taxonomy into the ABox and having assigned the meta-properties. The second screenshot illustrates a state after having selected, started, and run the reasoner and clicked on “explain” to obtain some justifications why the ontology is inconsistent.

section of the punned ontology where meta-properties have been assigned to each new individual.

A selection of the inconsistencies (due to violating OntoClean rules) with their respective explanations

Those explanations, like shown in the second screenshot, indicate which OntoClean rule has been violated. Among others, there’s the OntoClean rule that (1) classes that are dependent may have as subclasses only those classes that are also dependent. The ontology, however, has: i) Father is dependent, ii) Male is non-dependent, and iii) Father has as subclass Male. This subsumption violates rule (1). Indeed, not all males are fathers, so it would be, at least, the other way around (fathers are males), but it also could be remodelled in the ontology such that father is a role that a male can play.

Let us look at the second generated explanation, which is about violating another OntoClean rule: (2) sortal classes have only as subclasses classes that are also sortals. Now, the ontology has: i) Ball is a sortal, ii) Sphere is a non-sortal, and iii) Ball has as subclass Sphere. This violates rule (2). So, the hierarchy has to be updated such that Sphere is not subsumed by Ball anymore. (e.g., Ball has as shape some Sphere, though note that not all balls are spherical [notably, rugby balls are not]). More explanations of the rule violations are described in the tutorial.

Seeing that there are several possible options to change the taxonomy, there is no solution ontology. We considered creating one, but there are at least two ‘levels’ that will influence what a solution may look like: one could be based on a (minimum or not) number of changes with respect to the assigned meta-properties and another on re-examining the assigned meta-properties (and then restructuring the hierarchy). In fact, and unlike the original OntoClean example, there is at least one case where there is a meta-property assignment that would generally be considered to be wrong, even though it does show the application of the OntoClean rule correctly. How best to assign a meta-property, i.e., which one it should be, is not always easy, and the student is also encouraged to consider that aspect of the method. Some guidance on how to best modify the taxonomy—like Father is-a Male vs. Father inheres-in some Male—may be found in other sections and chapters of the textbook, among other resources.

 

p.s.: this tutorial is the result of one of the activities to improve on the OE open textbook, which are funded by the DOT4D project, as was the tool to render the axioms in DL in Protégé. A few more things are in the pipeline (TBC).

 

References

[1] Guarino, N. and Welty, C. A. (2009). An overview of OntoClean. In Staab, S. and Studer, R., editors, Handbook on Ontologies, International Handbooks on Information Systems, pages 201-220. Springer.

[2] Keet, C. M. (2018). An introduction to ontology engineering. College Publications, vol 20. 344p.

[3] Welty, C. A. (2006). OntOWLClean: Cleaning OWL ontologies with OWL. In Bennett, B. and Fellbaum, C., editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2006), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, November 9-11, 2006, volume 150 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 347-359. IOS Press.

[4] Glimm, B., Rudolph, S., Volker, J. (2010). Integrated metamodeling and diagnosis in OWL 2. In Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Yue Pan, Pascal Hitzler, Peter Mika, Lei Zhang, Je_ Z. Pan, Ian Horrocks, and Birte Glimm, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference, LNCS vol 6496, pages 257-272. Springer.

FOIS’18 conference report

To some perhaps surprisingly, despite being local organizer, I could attend all sessions of the 10th International Conference Formal Ontology in Information Systems as participant (cf. running around for last-minute things). It just wasn’t as much of a trip as it usually is: only 15 minutes to town at the Atlantic Imbizo conference venue, which is situated between the Clock Tower and (award-winning) Zeitz MOCAA at Cape Town’s V&A Waterfront. This blog post has turned into a longer post than intended—yet, there’s still so much left out to talk about—and it is divided up into sections on keynotes, presentations, ontologies, and the (ontologically inappropriate basket of) other things.

 

Keynotes

The first keynote was presented by (emeritus) professor in philosophy Peter Simons from Trinity College Dublin and Universität Salzburg, on the ontology of aboutness (slides).

Peter Simon during his keynote talk

That may sound a bit abstract, but it is not unusual for some information system that it will have to record statements about something, such as different medical opinions, changes of policies, plans or expectations, and we need a way to represent that and deal with it. Simons discussed several earlier proposals before proposing his own, which includes as main entities a bearer, act, time, act-type, mental content, mental content type, intentional objects, referent, and referent type (slide 16), and then variants for pictorial and linguistic (speech and writing). And, in closing, his advice of “Don’t get involved in irrelevant philosophical disputes”.

The second keynote was presented by Alessandro Oltramari, who works at Bosch Research and Technology Centre in Pittsburgh, USA. He presented several of Bosch’s projects where ontologies are used in one way or another (slides) and that he was involved in. One of them was about knowledge-based intelligent IoT and another on an emergency assistant, or, in business sales parlance, a “personal guardian angel” mobile device that has location awareness, safety information of those locations, a decision support system for alternate route computation, and automatic escalation. The ontologies used include the foundational ontology DOLCE, the domain ontology of semantic sensor networks (SSN) from the W3C, and specific schemas developed in-house. Another project on a knowledge-based chatbot for healthcare policies links up DOLCE, schema.org, and some in-house schemas with Highmark-specific information (and is not ashamed of using SKOS). Om my question what methods and methodologies were used for the in-house ontology development, the (disappointing) answer was, unfortunately, only “DOLCE and OntoClean”, but the former is neither a method nor a methodology (it implies a top-down approach), and the latter is some 15 years old, as if nothing has happened in ontology engineering in the meantime (more about that further below). Regardless, it was good to see that ontologies are being used in industry.

The third keynote (slides) was by Riichiro Mizoguchi from the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST), on a state-centric methodology, which I’ll leave for a separate post.

Riichiro Mizoguchi during his keynote talk.

 

Presentations

The report on the presentations easily could take up several pages, but I’ll try to keep it short, lest otherwise this post never gets posted. The first session of the conference was on foundations. This included Antony Galton’s assessment of the treatment of time in upper ontologies [1]. It was mildly entertaining in that it turned out that BFO would need abstract things for its treatment of time (which it doesn’t have and doesn’t like) and adheres to Newtonian physics cf. the latest scientific theories. It is definitely on my list of papers to read in more detail. Another paper-for-printing to read is Torsten Hahmann’s work on mereotopology, which extends it to multidimensional space [2]. A nice bonus (though it ought not to be perceived as such) is that at least the theorems in the paper have been proved with Prover9 and Vampire (cf. having to double-check them manually). Laure Vieu presented a proposal for a graph-based approach to represent structure among the components of an entity [3], which is apparently different from the graph-based approach for representing molecules (within the Semantic Web context); I’ll have to look at that in more detail, for it sounds like it might be of some use for the parts aspects of part-whole relations.

Besides such theoretical contributions that are rather distant from applications, there were two of note that were motivated from praxis more clearly. One was about the ontological foundations of competition and the sort of competitive relations there are [4], which was presented by Tiago Prince Sales. The other one was presented by Pawel Garbacz, whose presentation conveyed more than the paper so as to get a real feel of the problem, being identity criteria for localities [5], with complicating use cases extracted from a Polish history project. He presented some examples of changes and a proposal for how to identify a locality/settlement. For instance, settlements can get moved altogether, have a population-only move, split into two, be merged, renamed and renamed again, deserted by a population and repopulated and renamed, and so on. When is it the same settlement and when is it another one? The paper [5] describes a first solution for identity criteria with an event-based approach to identity of localities.

My presentation on part-whole relations in Zulu language and culture [6] was scheduled in the ‘applications’ session, which had positive feedback and some pointers that may assist with future work.

 

venue during a Q&A session

Ontologies

Besides presentations, there was a discussion session on “what constitutes a good ontology paper?” for the Applied Ontology journal. Seeing the ontology papers at FOIS now, they should have done such as session for FOIS as well. There are four papers in the proceedings describing OWL files: “Amnestic forgery” (AF, conceptual metaphors) [7] presented by Mehwish Alam, UNiCS for research and innovation policy [8] presented by Fernando Roda, SAREF4Health [9] presented by João Moreira, and religious and spiritual belief (ORSB) [10] presented by Stefan Schulz. Skimming through each paper, AF, UNiCS and ORSB do not use a methodology explicitly, none of them uses existing methods, but they all do use a foundational or top-level ontology or the WordNet material, and then it’s cool enough to get into FOIS, apparently. This is a bit disappointing. At least SAREF4Health presented a set of competency questions, a systematic approach and broader framework, and some evaluation, and ORSB reuses not only top-level and top-domain ontologies but also tests some patterns. AF and ORSB have some interest to it as they’re addressing relatively novel modeling issues to solve and the ORSB discussion could be used more broadly for any “terms of dubious reference”. UNiCS is not really an ontology but an information model or, at best, a conceptual data model (e.g. calling “SCOPUS subject” an ontology is pushing it a bit too far); it makes their OBDA scenario easier to realize, true, but that’s a separate discussion. Fig 1 of SAREF4Health doesn’t look any better either, which has all the hallmarks of a plain UML Class Diagram (attributes with data types and such), with object diagram components attached and coloured in and annotated with OntoUML. SAREF4Health’s other downsides are things like “implementing the ontology as RDF” that just hurts to read (it is left implicit for AF that is plugged into the LOD cloud), as is the download in Turtle format (cf. the required exchange syntax of OWL 2), which isn’t even available at the provided link when you click on it (copy-paste gets you in the right direction), but is [I think] in some github sub-directory that has a whole bunch of ttl files with neither head nor tail, but one of them is called saref4health.ttl. On first inspection, it has plenty of data properties and data type use, and the class-as-instance issue here and there (e.g., ‘Rechargeable Lithium Polymer battery’ as instance cf. class), and others (e.g., a ‘series’ of measurements is not a subclass of a measurement) and very many classes directly subsumed by top, though some are knock-on effects from imports.

And then ontologists at FOIS deplored that there are many domain ontologies that are of poor quality and artifacts presented as ontologies but aren’t. The FOIS reviewers themselves apparently can’t even get their act together in the reviewing process, where artifacts that are sold as domain ontologies but aren’t (UNiCS, SAREF4Health) make it not only through the reviewing process but, moreover, even get a best paper award from the PC chairs (SAREF4Health). The PC chairs wanted to make a political statement to communicate that FOIS accepts domain ontology papers. It is good that the FOIS topics are becoming less narrow and I’m not saying they are pointless papers or lousy artifacts per sé—they are useful reference papers and UNiCS and SAREF4Health perform the application tasks they’re supposed to be performing, which is a good thing. Maybe, collectively, ontology developers can’t do better or don’t need to do better w.r.t. applied ontology? Either way, once upon a time there were principles for what ontologies are; what happened to that? Also, there are multiple methodologies for domain ontology development, and there are a myriad of methods and tools, which have been mostly ignored. For instance, using one foundational ontology over another ‘just because I know x’ is neither a scientific nor a sound engineering approach. There are comparisons, requirements, and a mix of the two to help you figure out which one is the best to use; an early tool for that is ONSET, the ONtology Selection and Explanation Tool, developed by Zubeida Khan (more data). To name one example.

Coincidentally, ontology engineering papers with such a content do not, or very rarely, make it into FOIS; but just that they don’t (because they’re typically not philosophical enough), doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Just in case a FOIS ontologist would like to explore methods, methodologies and tools for ontology development: ESWC, EKAW, and K-CAP are good/top conferences covering such topics in whole or in part, and Chapter 5 of the ontology engineering textbook provides a sampling as well (as do some other sections in Block II). Considering my critical comments, one may ask whether my ontologies and ontology papers are any better, or anyone else’s for that matter. Perhaps, perhaps not. You can check for yourself some of my recent papers on domain ontologies that also have OWL files[1] that I was involved in developing; one paper was intended as a reference paper for the domain ontology [11], another paper was a bit of both domain ontology and some framework [12], and yet another turned into a core ontology [13] (v1, with the main categories; there’s an updated version for the relations).

Anyway, returning to the first sentence of this section: the open forum discussion did not make it any clearer as to what would be the characteristics of a good ontology paper for the Applied Ontology journal (or FOIS, for that matter). Mainly just Protégé screenshots certainly is not, but opinions varied as to what would be. Going by examples of the ontology papers that made it through: use of a top-level or foundational ontology and some modeling issues and solutions seems to be preferred, evaluation and usage & uptake as a nice-to-have. Is developing an (domain) ontology science? That question wasn’t answered unanimously; I think it was leaning towards a ‘mostly no’ w.r.t. applied ontology but it may be if it’s the first to solve a modeling issue. How to evaluate the ontology? Another question without a satisfactory answer. Overall, the criteria for an ontology paper—let alone for the ontology itself—are “TBD” and meanwhile one has to hope that one will get a supportive ‘reviewer 2’.

 

Other

In case you have clicked-though to one or more of the listed papers, you may have noticed that the FOIS’18 proceedings are Open Access—paid for by those who registered for the conference (it was calculated in the registration fee). I suppose the next FOIS organisers and the IAOA exec may like your opinion on that approach.

mentors of the early career symposium papers

Besides the best paper award for SAREF4Health [9], there were two “distinguished paper awards”, which went to aforementioned paper on the graph-based approach for structured universals by Laure Vieu and Claudio Masolo [3] and to the foundational ontologies for units of measure by Michael Grüninger and co-authors [14]. The early career symposium went well and from hearsay they had a good social activity, too. There were lots of interesting conversations, networking, good food, and so on, and lots more to write about. There are also more photos.

Some of the postgraduate students and a recent PhD graduate in the spotlight at the closing ceremony, being thanked for chairing the sessions.

Last, but not least: the next FOIS in 2020 will be in Bolzano, Italy, as part of a ‘Bolzano summer of knowledge’ with more co-located conferences, workshops, and summer schools.

 

References

[1] Antony Galton. The treatment of time in upper ontologies. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 33-46.

[2] Thorsten Hahmann. On Decomposition Operations in a Theory of Multidimensional Qualitative Space. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 173-186.

[3] Claudio Masolo, Laure Vieu. Graph-Based Approaches to Structural Universals and Complex States of Affairs. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 69-82.

[4] Tiago Prince Sales, Daniele Porello, Nicola Guarino, Giancarlo Guizzardi, John Mylopoulos. Ontological Foundations of Competition. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 96-112.

[5] Pawel Garbacz, Agnieszka Ławrynowicz, Bogumił Szady. Identity criteria for localities. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 47-56.

[6] C. Maria Keet, Langa Khumalo. On the Ontology of Part-Whole Relations in Zulu Language and Culture. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 225-238.

[7] Aldo Gangemi, Mehwish Alam, Valentina Presutti. Amnestic Forgery: An Ontology of Conceptual Metaphors. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 159-172.

[8] Alessandro Mosca, Fernando Roda, Guillem Rull. UNiCS – The Ontology for Research and Innovation Policy Making. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 200-210.

[9] João Moreira, Luís Ferreira Pires, Marten van Sinderen, Laura Daniele. SAREF4health: IoT Standard-Based Ontology-Driven Healthcare Systems. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 239-252.

[10] Stefan Schulz, Ludger Jansen. Towards an Ontology of Religious and Spiritual Belief. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 253-260.

[11] Keet, C.M., Lawrynowicz, A., d’Amato, C., Kalousis, A., Nguyen, P., Palma, R., Stevens, R., Hilario, M. The Data Mining OPtimization ontology. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2015, 32:43-53.

[12] Chavula, C., Keet, C.M. An Orchestration Framework for Linguistic Task Ontologies. 9th Metadata and Semantics Research Conference (MTSR’15), Garoufallou, E. et al. (Eds.). Springer CCIS vol. 544, 3-14.

[13] Keet, C.M. A core ontology of macroscopic stuff. 19th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW’14). K. Janowicz et al. (Eds.). 24-28 Nov, 2014, Linkoping, Sweden. Springer LNAI vol. 8876, 209-224.

[14] Michael Grüninger, Bahar Aameri, Carmen Chui, Torsten Hahmann, Yi Ru. Foundational Ontologies for Units of Measure. Proc. of FOIS’18. IOS Press, 306: 211-224.

[1] I have others developed as part of methods & tools research

ISAO 2018, Cape Town, ‘trip’ report

The Fourth Interdisciplinary School on Applied Ontology has just come to an end, after five days of lectures, mini-projects, a poster session, exercises, and social activities spread over six days from 10 to 15 September in Cape Town on the UCT campus. It’s not exactly fair to call this a ‘trip report’, as I was the local organizer and one of the lecturers, but it’s a brief recap ‘trip report kind of blog post’ nonetheless.

The scientific programme consisted of lectures and tutorials on:

The linked slides (titles of the lectures, above) reveal only part of the contents covered, though. There were useful group exercises and plenary discussion with the ontological analysis of medical terms such as what a headache is, a tooth extraction, blood, or aspirin, an exercises on putting into practice the design process of a conceptual modelling language of one’s liking (e.g.: how to formalize flowcharts, including an ontological analysis of what those elements are and ontological commitments embedded in a language), and trying to prove some theorems of parthood theories.

There was also a session with 2-minute ‘blitztalks’ by participants interested in briefly describing their ongoing research, which was followed by an interactive poster session.

It was the first time that an ISAO had mini-projects, which turned out to have had better outcomes than I expected, considering the limited time available for it. Each group had to pick a term and investigate what it meant in the various disciplines (task description); e.g.: what does ‘concept’ or ‘category’ mean in psychology, ontology, data science, and linguistics, and ‘function’ in manufacturing, society, medicine, and anatomy? The presentations at the end of the week by each group were interesting and most of the material presented there easily could be added to the IAOA Education wiki’s term list (an activity in progress).

What was not a first-time activity, was the Ontology Pub Quiz, which is a bit of a merger of scientific programme and social activity. We created a new version based on questions from several ISAO’18 lecturers and a few relevant questions created earlier (questions and answers; we did only questions 1-3,6-7). We tried a new format compared to the ISAO’16 quiz and JOWO’17 quiz: each team had 5 minutes to answer a set of 5 questions, and another team marked the answers. This set-up was not as hectic as the other format, and resulted in more within-team interaction cf. among all participants interaction. As in prior editions, some questions and answers were debatable (and there’s still the plan to make note of that and fix it—or you could write an article about it, perhaps :)). The students of the winning team received 2 years free IAOA membership (and chocolate for all team members) and the students of the other two teams received one year free IAOA membership.

Impression of part of the poster session area, moving into the welcome reception

As with the three previous ISAO editions, there was also a social programme, which aimed to facilitate getting to know one another, networking, and have time for scientific conversations. On the first day, the poster session eased into a welcome reception (after a brief wine lapse in the coffee break before the blitztalks). The second day had an activity to stretch the legs after the lectures and before the mini-project work, which was a Bachata dance lesson by Angus Prince from Evolution Dance. Not everyone was eager at the start, but it turned out an enjoyable and entertaining hour. Wednesday was supposed to be a hike up the iconic Table Mountain, but of all the dry days we’ve had here in Cape Town, on that day it was cloudy and rainy, so an alternative plan of indoor chocolate tasting in the Biscuit Mill was devised and executed. Thursday evening was an evening off (from scheduled activities, at least), and Friday early evening we had the pub quiz in the UCT club (the campus pub). Although there was no official planning for Saturday afternoon after the morning lectures, there was again an attempt at Table Mountain, concluding the week.

The participants came from all over the world, including relatively many from Southern Africa with participants coming also from Botswana and Mauritius, besides several universities in South Africa (UCT, SUN, CUT). I hope everyone has learned something from the programme that is or will be of use, enjoyed the social programme, and made some useful new contacts and/or solidified existing ones. I look forward to seeing you all at the next ISAO or, better, FOIS, in 2020 in Bolzano, Italy.

Finally, as a non-trip-report comment from my local chairing viewpoint: special thanks go to the volunteers Zubeida Khan for the ISAO website, Zola Mahlaza and Michael Harrison for on-site assistance, and Sam Chetty for the IT admin.

An Ontology Engineering textbook

My first textbook “An Introduction to Ontology Engineering” (pdf) is just released as an open textbook. I have revised, updated, and extended my earlier lecture notes on ontology engineering, amounting to about 1/3 more new content cf. its predecessor. Its main aim is to provide an introductory overview of ontology engineering and its secondary aim is to provide hands-on experience in ontology development that illustrate the theory.

The contents and narrative is aimed at advanced undergraduate and postgraduate level in computing (e.g., as a semester-long course), and the book is structured accordingly. After an introductory chapter, there are three blocks:

  • Logic foundations for ontologies: languages (FOL, DLs, OWL species) and automated reasoning (principles and the basics of tableau);
  • Developing good ontologies with methods and methodologies, the top-down approach with foundational ontologies, and the bottom-up approach to extract as much useful content as possible from legacy material;
  • Advanced topics that has a selection of sub-topics: Ontology-Based Data Access, interactions between ontologies and natural languages, and advanced modelling with additional language features (fuzzy and temporal).

Each chapter has several review questions and exercises to explore one or more aspects of the theory, as well as descriptions of two assignments that require using several sub-topics at once. More information is available on the textbook’s page [also here] (including the links to the ontologies used in the exercises), or you can click here for the pdf (7MB).

Feedback is welcome, of course. Also, if you happen to use it in whole or in part for your course, I’d be grateful if you would let me know. Finally, if this textbook will be used half (or even a quarter) as much as the 2009/2010 blogposts have been visited (around 10K unique visitors since posting them), that would mean there are a lot of people learning about ontology engineering and then I’ll have achieved more than I hoped for.

UPDATE: meanwhile, it has been added to several open (text)book repositories, such as OpenUCT and the Open Textbook Archive, and it has been featured on unglue.it in the week of 13-8 (out of its 14K free ebooks).

Ontology, part-whole relations, isiZulu and culture

The title is a mouthful, but it can go together. What’s interesting, is that the ‘common’ list of part-whole relations are not exactly like that in isiZulu and Zulu culture.

Part-whole relations have been proposed over the past 30 years, such as to relate a human heart to the human it is part of, that Gauteng is located in South Africa (geographically a part of), and the slice of the cake is a portion of the cake, and they seemed well-established by now. The figure below provides an informal view of it.

Informal taxonomy of common part-whole relations (source: [2])

My co-author, Langa Khumalo, and I already had an inkling this hierarchy probably would not work for isiZulu, based, first, on a linguistic analysis to generate natural language [1], and, second, the Shuter & Shooter English-isiZulu dictionary already lists 18 translations for just ‘part’ alone. Yet, if those ‘common’ part-whole relations are universal, the differences observed ought to be just an artefact of language, not ontological differences. To clear up the matter, we guided ourselves with the following questions:

  1. Which part-whole relations have been named in isiZulu, and to what extent are they not only lexically but also semantically distinct?
  2. Can all those part-whole relations be mapped with equivalence relations to the common part-whole relations?
  3. For those that cannot be mapped with equivalence relations: is the difference in meaning ontologically possibly interesting for ontology engineering?
  4. Is there something different as gleaned from isiZulu part-whole relations that is useful in improving the theoretical appreciation of part-whole relations?

To figure this out, we first took a bottom-up approach with evidence gathering, and then augmented it with further ontological analysis. Plodding though the isiZulu-English dictionaries got us 81 terms that had something to do with parts. 41 were discarded because they were not applicable upon closer inspection (e.g., referring to creating parts cf. relating parts, idioms). Further annotations and examples were added, which reduced it to 28 (+ 3 we had missed and were added). Of those 28, we selected 13 for ontological analysis and formalisation. That selection was based on importance (like ingxenye) and some of them that seemed a bit overly specific, like iqatha for portions of meat, and meat only. The hierarchy of the final selection is shown in the figure below, with an informal indication of what the relation relates.

Selected isiZulu terms with informal descriptions. (Source: [2])

They held up ontologically, i.e., some are the same as the ‘common’ ones, yet some others are really different, like the hlanganyela for a collective (cf. individual object) being part of (participating in) an event. Admitted, some of the domains/ranges aren’t very clearly delineated. For instance, isiqephu relates solid and ‘solid-like’ portions, as in, e.g., Zonke izicezu zesinkwa ziyisiqephu sesinkwa esisodwa ‘all slices of bread are a portion of some loaf of bread’. Where exactly that border of ‘solid-like’ is and when it really counts as a liquid (and thus isiqephu applies no more), is not yet clear—that’s a separate question orthogonal to the relation. Nonetheless, the investigation did clear up several things, especially the more precise umunxa that took me a while to unravel, which turned out to be a chain of parthood relations; e.g., the area where the fireplace is in the hut is a portion of the hut (sample use with the verbaliser: Onke amaziko angumunxa wexhiba). We didn’t touch upon really thorny issues that probably will deserve a paper of their own. For instance, the temporalised parthood isihlephu is used to relate a meaningful scattered part with identity to the whole it was part of, such as the broken-off ear of a cup that was part of the cup (but it cannot be used for the chip of the cup, as a chip isn’t identifiable in the same way as the ear is).

We did try to test the terms against the isiZulu National Corpus to see how the terms are used, but with the limited functionalities and tooling, not as much came out of it as we had hoped for. In any case, the detailed assessment of a section of the corpus did show the relevant uses were not contradicting the formalisation.

Further details can be found in our paper “On the ontology of part-whole relations in Zulu language and culture” that will be presented at the 10th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems 2018 (FOIS’18) that will be held from 17 to 21 September in Cape Town, South Africa.

As far as I know, this is the first such investigation. Checking out other languages a bit (mainly Spanish and German), and some related works on Turkish and Chinese, it might be the case that also there the ‘common’ part-whole relations may not be exactly the same. We carried out whole process systematically, which is described as such in the paper, so that anyone who’d like to do something like this for another language region and culture, could follow the same procedure.

 

References

[1] Keet, C.M., Khumalo, L. On the verbalization patterns of part-whole relations in isiZulu. 9th International Natural Language Generation conference (INLG’16), September 5-8, 2016, Edinburgh, UK. ACL, 174-183.

[2] Keet, C.M., Khumalo, L. On the ontology of part-whole relations in Zulu language and culture. 10th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems 2018 (FOIS’18). IOS Press. 17-21 September, 2018, Cape Town, South Africa. (in print)

Ontology pub quiz questions of ISAO 2016 and JOWO 2017

In 2016 when I was a PC chair of the International School for Applied Ontology (ISAO 2016), the idea of organising a contest for the participants turned into a pub quiz somehow. The lecturers provided one or more questions on the topics they’d be teaching and I added a few as well. This set of ISAO16 ontology pub quiz questions is now finally online. It comes with the warning that it is biased toward the topics covered at ISAO 2016, and it turned out that there were a few questions not well formulated and/or not everyone agreed with the answer.

Notwithstanding, it was deemed sufficiently ok as idea in that the general chair of the Joint Ontology Workshops (JOWO 2017) wanted one for JOWO 2017 as well. Several questions were thrown out of the ISAO16 set for various reasons and more general Ontology questions made their way in, as well as a few ‘fun’ and trivia ones in the hope to add some more entertainment to the ontology pub quiz. The JOWO17 pub quiz question set with answers is now also online to play with, which, in my opinion, is a nicer set than the ISAO16 one. Here are a few questions to give you a taste of it:

  • Where/when can a pointless theory be relevant?
  • What is the goal of guerrilla ontology?
  • No Italian pizza has fruit as topping. Which of the following is (an)/are Italian pizza(s)? Pizza Hawaii, Pizza margherita, Pizza bianca romana (‘white roman pizza’)
  • When was the earliest published occurrence of the word “ontology”?

It turned out that it still was not entirely free of debate. If you disagree with one of the answers now, then let me paraphrase Stefano Borgo, who co-ran the JOWO17 pub quiz at the Irish pub in Bolzano on 23 September: maybe there’s something there to write up and submit a paper to FOIS 2018 :-). Or you can write it in the blog post comments section below, so that those questions will/should not be recycled and I can add longer answers to the questions.