# Conference report: SWAT4HCLS 2022

The things one can do when on sabbatical! For this week, it’s mainly attending the 13th Semantic Web Applications and tools for Health Care and Life Science (SWAT4HCLS) conference and even having some time to write a conference report again. (The last lost tagged with conference report was FOIS2018, at the end of my previous sabbatical.) The conference consisted of a tutorial day, two conference days with several keynotes and invited talks, paper presentations and poster sessions, and the last day a ‘hackathon’/unconference. This clearly has grown over the years from the early days of the event series (one day, workshop, life science).

It’s been a while since I looked in more detail into the life sciences and healthcare semantics-driven software ecosystems. The problems are largely the same, or more complex, with more technologies and standards to choose from that promise that this time it will be solved once and for all but where practitioners know it isn’t that easy. And lots of tooling for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, of course. I’ll summarise and comment on a few presentations in the remainder of this post.

Keynotes

The first keynote speaker was Karin Verspoor from RMIT in Melbourne, Australia, who focussed her talk on their COVID-SEE tool [1], a Scientific Evidence Explorer for COVID-19 information that relies on advanced NLP and some semantics to help finding information, notably taking open questions where the sentence is analysed by PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) or part thereof, and using UMLS and MetaMap to help find more connections. In contrast to a well-known domain with well-known terminology to formulate very specific queries over academic literature, that was (and still is) not so for COVID-19. Their “NLP+” approach helped to get better search results.

The second keynote was by Martina Summer-Kutmon from Maastricht University, the Netherlands, who focussed on metabolic pathways and computation and is involved in WikiPathways. With pretty pictures, like the COVID-19 Disease map that culminated from a lot of effort by many research communities with lots of online data resources [2]; see also the WikiPathways one for covid, where the work had commenced in February 2020 already. She also came to the idea that there’s a lot of semantics embedded in the varied pathway diagrams. They collected 64643 diagrams from the literature of the past 25 years, analysed them with ML, OCR, and manual curation, and managed to find gaps between information in those diagrams and the databases [3]. It reminded me of my own observations and work on that with DiDOn, on how to get information from such diagrams into an ontology automatically [4]. There’s clearly still lots more work to do, but substantive advances surely have been made over the past 10 years since I looked into it.

The last keynote at the end of the conference was by Amit Shet, with the University of South Carolina, USA, whose talk focussed on how to get to augmented personalised health care systems, with as one of the cases being asthma. Big Data augmented with Smart Data, mainly, combining multiple techniques. Ontologies, knowledge graphs, sensor data, clinical data, machine learning, Bayesian networks, chatbots and so on—you name it, somewhere it’s used in the systems.

Papers

Reporting on the papers isn’t as easy and reliable as it used to be. Once upon a time, the papers were available online beforehand, so I could come prepared. Now it was a case of ‘rock up and listen’ and there’s no access to the papers yet to look up more details to check my notes and pad them. I’m assuming the papers will be online accessible soon (CEUR-WS again presumably). So, aside from our own paper, described further below, all of the following is based on notes, presentation screenshots, and any Q&A on Discord.

Ruduan Plug elaborated on the FAIR & GDPR and querying over integrated data within that above-mentioned VODAN-Africa project [5]. He also noted that South Africa’s PoPIA is stricter than the GDPR. I’m suspecting that is due to the cross-border restrictions on the flow of data that the GDPR won’t have. (PoPIA is based on the GDPR principles, btw).

Deepak Sharma talked about FHIR with RDF and JSON-LD and ShEx and validation, which also related to the tutorial from the preceding day. The threesome Mercedes Arguello-Casteleiro, Chloe Henson, and Nava Maroto presented a comparison of MetaMap vs BERT in the context of covid [6], which I have to leave here with a cliff-hanger, because I didn’t manage to make a note of which one won because I had to go to a meeting that we were already starting later because of my conference attendance. My bet would be on the semantics (those deep learning models probably need more reliable data than there is available to date).

Besides papers related to scientific research into all things covid, another recurring topic was FAIR data—whether it’s findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Fuqi Xu  and collaborators assessed 11 features for FAIR vocabularies in practice, and how to use them properly. Some noteworthy observations were that comparing a FAIR level makes more sense before-and-after changing a single resource compared to pitting different vocabularies against each other, “FAIR enough” can be enough (cf. demanding 100% compliance) [7], and a FAIR vocabulary does not imply that it is also a good quality vocabulary. Arriving at the topic of quality, César Bernabé presented an analysis on the use of foundational ontologies in bioinformatics by means of a systematic literature mapping. It showed that they’re used in a range of activities of ontology engineering, there’s not enough empirical analysis of the pros and cons of using one, and, for the numbers game: 33 of the ontologies described in the selected literature used BFO, 16 DOLCE, 7 GFO, and 1 SUMO [8]. What to do next with these insights remains to be seen.

Last, but not least—to try to keep the blog post at a sort of just about readable length—our paper, among the 15 that were accepted. Frances Gillis-Webber, a PhD student I supervise, did most of the work surveying OWL Ontologies in BioPortal on whether, and if so how, they take into account the notion of multilingualism in some way. TL;DR: they barely do [9]. Even when they do, it’s just with labels rather than any of the language models, be they the ontolex-lemon from the W3C community group or another, and if so, mainly French and German.

Does it matter? It depends on what your aims are. We use mainly the motivation of ontology verbalisation and electronic health records with SNOMED CT and patient discharge note generation, which ideally also would happen for ‘non-English’. Another use case scenario, indicated by one of the participants, Marco Roos, was that the bio-ontologies—not just health care ones—could use it as well, especially in the case of rare diseases, where the patients are more involved and up-to-date with the science, and thus where science communication plays a larger role. One could argue the same way for the science about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, and thus that also the related bio-ontologies can do with coordinated multilingualism so that it may assist in better communication with the public. There are lots of opportunities for follow-up work here as well.

Other

There were also posters where we could hang out in gathertown, and more data and ontologies for a range of topics, such as protein sequences, patient data, pharmacovigilance, food and agriculture, bioschemas, and more covid stuff (like Wikidata on COVID-19, to name yet one more such resource). Put differently: the science can’t do without the semantic-driven tools, from sharing data, to searching data, to integrating data, and analysis to develop the theory figuring out all its workings.

The conference was supposed to be mainly in person, but then on 18 Dec, the Dutch government threw a curveball and imposed a relatively hard lockdown prohibiting all in-person events effective until, would you believe, 14 Jan—one day after the end of the event. This caused extra work with last-minute changes to the local organisation, but in the end it all worked out online. Hereby thanks to the organising committee to make it work under the difficult circumstances!

References

[1] Verspoor K. et al. Brief Description of COVID-SEE: The Scientific Evidence Explorer for COVID-19 Related Research. In: Hiemstra D., Moens MF., Mothe J., Perego R., Potthast M., Sebastiani F. (eds). Advances in Information Retrieval. ECIR 2021. Springer LNCS, vol 12657, 559-564.

[2] Ostaszewski M. et al. COVID19 Disease Map, a computational knowledge repository of virus–host interaction mechanisms. Molecular Systems Biology, 2021, 17:e10387.

[3] Hanspers, K., Riutta, A., Summer-Kutmon, M. et al. Pathway information extracted from 25 years of pathway figures. Genome Biology, 2020, 21,273.

[4] Keet, C.M. Transforming semi-structured life science diagrams into meaningful domain ontologies with DiDOn. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2012, 45(3): 482-494. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2012.01.004.

[5] Ruduan Plug, Yan Liang, Mariam Basajja, Aliya Aktau, Putu Jati, Samson Amare, Getu Taye, Mouhamad Mpezamihigo, Francisca Oladipo and Mirjam van Reisen: FAIR and GDPR Compliant Population Health Data Generation, Processing and Analytics. SWAT4HCLS 2022. online/Leiden, the Netherlands, 10-13 January 2022.

[6] Mercedes Arguello-Casteleiro, Chloe Henson, Nava Maroto, Saihong Li, Julio Des-Diz, Maria Jesus Fernandez-Prieto, Simon Peters, Timothy Furmston, Carlos Sevillano-Torrado, Diego Maseda-Fernandez, Manoj Kulshrestha, John Keane, Robert Stevens and Chris Wroe, MetaMap versus BERT models with explainable active learning: ontology-based experiments with prior knowledge for COVID-19. SWAT4HCLS 2022. online/Leiden, the Netherlands, 10-13 January 2022.

[7] Fuqi Xu, Nick Juty, Carole Goble, Simon Jupp, Helen Parkinson and Mélanie Courtot, Features of a FAIR vocabulary. SWAT4HCLS 2022. online/Leiden, the Netherlands, 10-13 January 2022.

[8] César Bernabé, Núria Queralt-Rosinach, Vitor Souza, Luiz Santos, Annika Jacobsen, Barend Mons and Marco Roos, The use of Foundational Ontologies in Bioinformatics. SWAT4HCLS 2022. online/Leiden, the Netherlands, 10-13 January 2022.

[9] Frances Gillis-Webber and C. Maria Keet, A Survey of Multilingual OWL Ontologies in BioPortal. SWAT4HCLS 2022. online/Leiden, the Netherlands, 10-13 January 2022.

# BFO decision diagram and alignment tool

How to align your domain ontology to a foundational ontology? It’s a well-known question, and one that I’ve looked into before as well. In some of that earlier work, we used DOLCE to align one’s ontology to. We devised the DOLCE decision diagram as part of the FORZA method to assist with the alignment process and implemented that in the MoKI ontology development tool [1]. MoKI is no more, but the theory and the algorithm’s design approach still stand. Instead of re-implementing it as a Protégé plugin and have it go defunct in a few years again (due to incompatible version upgrades, say), it sounded like more fun to design one for BFO and make a stand-alone tool out of it. And that design and the evaluation thereof is precisely what two of my ontology engineering course students—Chiadika Emeruem and Steve Wang—did for their mini-project of the course. That was then finalised and implemented in a tool for general use as part of the DOT4D project extension for my (award-winning) OE textbook afterward.

More precisely, as first part, there’s a diagram specifically for BFO – well, for one of its 2.0-ish versions in existence at least. Deciding on which version to use and what would be good questions was not as trivial as it may sound. While the questions seem to work (as evaluated with several ontologies), it might still be of use to set up an experiment to assess usability from a modeller’s viewpoint.

Be this as it may, this decision diagram was incorporated into the tool that wraps around it with a nice interface with user guidance and feedback, and it has the option to load an ontology and save the alignment into the ontology (along with BFO). The decision tree itself is stored as a separate XML file so that it easily can be replaced with any update thereto, be it to reflect changes in question formulation or to adjust it to some later version of BFO. The stand-alone tool is a jar file that can be downloaded from the GitHub repo, and the repo also has the source code that may be used/adapted (i.e., has an open source licence). There’s also a user guide with explanations and screenshots. Here’s another screenshot of the tool in action:

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either of us.

References

[1] Keet, C.M., Khan, M.T., Ghidini, C. Ontology Authoring with FORZA. 22nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’13). ACM proceedings, pp569-578. Oct. 27 – Nov. 1, 2013, San Francisco, USA.

# Progress on generating educational questions from ontologies

With increasing student numbers, but not as much more funding for schools and universities, and the desire to automate certain tasks anyhow, there have been multiple efforts to generate and mark educational exercises automatically. There are a number of efforts for the relatively easy tasks, such as for learning a language, which range from the entry level with simple vocabulary exercises to advanced ones of automatically marking essays. I’ve dabbled in that area as well, mainly with 3rd-year capstone projects and 4th-year honours project student projects [1]. Then there’s one notch up with fact recall and concept meaning recall questions, and further steps up, such as generating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with not just obviously wrong distractors but good distractors to make the question harder. There’s quite a bit of work done on generating those MCQs in theory and in tooling, notably [2,3,4,5]. As a recent review [6] also notes, however, there are still quite a few gaps. Among others, about generalisability of theory and systems – can you plug in any structured data or knowledge source to question templates – and the type of questions. Most of the research on ‘not-so-hard to generate and mark’ questions has been done for MCQs, but there are multiple of other types of questions that also should be doable to generate automatically, such as true/false, yes/no, and enumerations. For instance, with an axiom such as $impala \sqsubseteq \exists livesOn.land$ in a ontology or knowledge graph, a suitable question generation system may then generate “Does an impala live on land?” or “True or false: An impala lives on land.”, among other options.

We set out to make a start with tackling those sort of questions, for the type-level information from an ontology (cf. facts in the ABox or knowledge graph). The only work done there, when we started with it, was for the slick and fancy Inquire Biology [5], but which did not have their tech available for inspection and use, so we had to start from scratch. In particular, we wanted to find a way to be able to plug in any ontology into a system and generate those non-MCQ other types of educations questions (10 in total), where the questions generated are at least grammatically good and for which the answers also can be generated automatically, so that we get to automated marking as well.

Initial explorations started in 2019 with an honours project to develop some basics and a baseline, which was then expanded upon. Meanwhile, we have some more designed, developed, and evaluated, which was written up in the paper “Generating Answerable Questions from Ontologies for Educational Exercises” [7] that has been accepted for publication and presentation at the 15th international conference on metadata and semantics research (MTSR’21) that will be held online next week.

In short:

• Different types of questions and the answer they have to provide put different prerequisites on the content of the ontology with certain types of axioms. We specified those for 10 types of educational questions.
• Three strategies of question generation were devised, being ‘simple’ from the vocabulary and axioms and plug it into a template, guided by some more semantics in the ontology (a foundational ontology), and one that didn’t really care about either but rather took a natural language approach. Variants were added to cater for differences in naming and other variations, amounting to 75 question templates in total.
• The human evaluation with questions generated from three ontologies showed that while the semantics-based one was slightly better than the baseline, the NLP-based one gave the best results on syntactic and semantic correctness of the sentences (according to the human evaluators).
• It was tested with several ontologies in different domains, and the generalisability looks promising.

To be honest to those getting their hopes up: there are some issues that cause it never to make it to the ‘100% fabulous!’ if one still wants to designs a system that should be able to take any ontology as input. A main culprit is naming of elements in the ontology, which varies widely across ontologies. There are several guidelines for how to name entities, such as using camel case or underscores, and those things easily can be coded into an algorithm, indeed, but developers don’t stick to them consistently or there’s an ontology import that uses another naming convention so that there likely will be a glitch in the generated sentences here or there. Or they name things within the context of the hierarchy where they put the class, but in the question it is out of that context and then looks weird or is even meaningless. I moaned about this before; e.g., ‘American’ as the name of the class that should have been named ‘American Pizza’ in the Pizza ontology. Or the word used for the name of the class can have different POS tags such that it makes the generated sentence hard to read; e.g., ‘stuff’ as a noun or a verb.

Be this as it may, overall, promising results were obtained and are being extended (more to follow). Some details can be found in the (CRC of the) paper and the algorithms and data are available from the GitHub repo. The first author of the paper, Toky Raboanary, recently made a short presentation video about the paper for the yearly Open Evening/Showcase, which was held virtually and that page is still online available.

References

[1] Gilbert, N., Keet, C.M. Automating question generation and marking of language learning exercises for isiZulu. 6th International Workshop on Controlled Natural language (CNL’18). Davis, B., Keet, C.M., Wyner, A. (Eds.). IOS Press, FAIA vol. 304, 31-40. Co. Kildare, Ireland, 27-28 August 2018.

[2] Alsubait, T., Parsia, B., Sattler, U. Ontology-based multiple choice question generation. KI – Kuenstliche Intelligenz, 2016, 30(2), 183-188.

[3] Rodriguez Rocha, O., Faron Zucker, C. Automatic generation of quizzes from dbpedia according to educational standards. In: The Third Educational Knowledge Management Workshop. pp. 1035-1041 (2018), Lyon, France. April 23 – 27, 2018.

[4] Vega-Gorgojo, G. Clover Quiz: A trivia game powered by DBpedia. Semantic Web Journal, 2019, 10(4), 779-793.

[5] Chaudhri, V., Cheng, B., Overholtzer, A., Roschelle, J., Spaulding, A., Clark, P., Greaves, M., Gunning, D. Inquire biology: A textbook that answers questions. AI Magazine, 2013, 34(3), 55-72.

[6] Kurdi, G., Leo, J., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Al-Emari, S. A systematic review of automatic question generation for educational purposes. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Edu, 2020, 30(1), 121-204.

[7] Raboanary, T., Wang, S., Keet, C.M. Generating Answerable Questions from Ontologies for Educational Exercises. 15th Metadata and Semantics Research Conference (MTSR’21). 29 Nov – 3 Dec, Madrid, Spain / online. Springer CCIS (in print).

# Automatically simplifying an ontology with NOMSA

Ever wanted only to get the gist of the ontology rather than wading manually through thousands of axioms, or to extract only a section of an ontology for reuse? Then the NOMSA tool may provide the solution to your problem.

There are quite a number of ways to create modules for a range of purposes [1]. We zoomed in on the notion of abstraction: how to remove all sorts of details and create a new ontology module of that. It’s a long-standing topic in computer science that returns every couple of years with another few tries. My first attempts date back to 2005 [2], which references modules & abstractions for conceptual models and logical theories to works published in the mid-1990s and, stretching the scope to granularity, to 1985, even. Those efforts, however, tend to halt at the theory stage or worked for one very specific scenario (e.g., clustering in ER diagrams). In this case, however, my former PhD student and now Senior Research at the CSIR, Zubeida Khan, went further and also devised the algorithms for five types of abstraction, implemented them for OWL ontologies, and evaluated them on various metrics.

The tool itself, NOMSA, was presented very briefly at the EKAW 2018 Posters & Demos session [3] and has supplementary material, such as the definitions and algorithms, a very short screencast and the source code. Five different ways of abstraction to generate ontology modules were implemented: i) removing participation constraints between classes (e.g., the ‘each X R at least one Y’ type of axioms), ii) removing vocabulary (e.g., remove all object properties to yield a bare taxonomy of classes), iii) keeping only a small number of levels in the hierarchy, iv) weightings based on how much some element is used (removing less-connected elements), and v) removing specific language profile features (e.g., qualified cardinality, object property characteristics).

In the meantime, we have added a categorisation of different ways of abstracting conceptual models and ontologies, a larger use case illustrating those five types of abstractions that were chosen for specification and implementation, and an evaluation to see how well the abstraction algorithms work on a set of published ontologies. It was all written up and polished in 2018. Then it took a while in the publication pipeline mixed with pandemic delays, but eventually it has emerged as a book chapter entitled Structuring abstraction to achieve ontology modularisation [4] in the book “Advanced Concepts, methods, and Applications in Semantic Computing” that was edited by Olawande Daramola and Thomas Moser, in January 2021.

Since I bought new video editing software for the ‘physically distanced learning’ that we’re in now at UCT, I decided to play a bit with the software’s features and record a more comprehensive screencast demo video. In the nearly 13 minutes, I illustrate NOMSA with four real ontologies, being the AWO tutorial ontology, BioTop top-domain ontology, BFO top-level ontology, and the Stuff core ontology. Here’s a screengrab from somewhere in the middle of the presentation, where I just automatically removed all 76 object properties from BioTop, with just one click of a button:

The embedded video (below) might keep it perhaps still readable with really good eyesight; else you can view it here in a separate tab.

The source code is available from Zubeida’s website (and I have a local copy as well). If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact either of us. Under the fair use clause, we also can share the book chapter that contains the details.

References

[1] Khan, Z.C., Keet, C.M. An empirically-based framework for ontology modularization. Applied Ontology, 2015, 10(3-4):171-195.

[2] Keet, C.M. Using abstractions to facilitate management of large ORM models and ontologies. International Workshop on Object-Role Modeling (ORM’05). Cyprus, 3-4 November 2005. In: OTM Workshops 2005. Halpin, T., Meersman, R. (eds.), LNCS 3762. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2005. pp603-612.

[3] Khan, Z.C., Keet, C.M. NOMSA: Automated modularisation for abstraction modules. Proceedings of the EKAW 2018 Posters and Demonstrations Session (EKAW’18). CEUR-WS vol. 2262, pp13-16. 12-16 Nov. 2018, Nancy, France.

[4] Khan, Z.C., Keet, C.M. Structuring abstraction to achieve ontology modularisation. Advanced Concepts, methods, and Applications in Semantic Computing. Daramola O, Moser T (Eds.). IGI Global. 2021, 296p. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6697-8.ch004

# About modelling styles in ontologies

As any modeller will know, there are pieces of information or knowledge that can be represented in different ways. For instance, representing ‘marriage’ as class or as a ‘married to’ relationship, adding ‘address’ as an attribute or a class in one’s model, and whether ‘employee’ will be positioned as a subclass of ‘person’ or as a role that ‘person’ plays. In some cases, there a good ontological arguments to represent it in one way or the other, in other cases, that’s less clear, and in yet other cases, efficiency is king so that the most compact way of representing it is favoured. This leads to different design decisions in ontologies, which hampers ontology reuse and alignment and affects other tasks, such as evaluating competency questions over the ontology and verbalising ontologies.

When such choices are made consistently throughout the ontology, one may consider this to be a modelling style or representation style. If one then knows which style an ontology is in, it would simplify use and reuse of the ontology. But what exactly is a representation style?

While examples are easy to come by, shedding light on that intuitive notion turned out to be harder than it looked like. My co-author Pablo Fillottrani and I tried to disentangle it nonetheless, by characterising the inherent features and the dimensions by which a style may differ. This resulted in 28 different traits for the 10 identified dimensions.  For instance, the dimension “modular vs. monolithic” has three possible options: 1) ‘Monolithic’, where the ontology is stored in one file (no imports or mergers); 2) ‘Modular, external’, where at least one ontology is imported or merged, and it kept its URI (e.g., importing DOLCE into one’s domain ontology, not re-creating it there); 3) ‘Modular, internal’, where there’s at least one ontology import that’s based on having carved up the domain in the sense of decomposition of the domain (e.g., dividing up a domain into pizzas and drinks at pizzerias).  Other dimensions include, among others, the granularity of relations (many of few), how the hierarchy looks like, and attributes/data properties.

We tried to “eat our own dogfood” and applied the dimensions and traits to a set of 30 ontologies. This showed that it is feasible to do, although we needed two rounds to get to that stage—after the first round of parallel annotation, it turned out we had interpreted a few traits differently, and needed to refine the number of traits and be more precise in their descriptions (which we did). Perhaps unsurprising, some tendencies were observed, and we could identify three easily recognisable types of ontologies because most ontologies had clearly one or the other trait and similar values for sets of trait. Of course, there were also ontologies that were inherently “mixed” in the sense of having applied different and conflicting design decisions within the same ontology, or even included two choices. Coding up the results, we generated two spider diagrams that visualise that difference. Here’s one:

Details of the dimensions, traits, set-up and results of the evaluation, and discussion thereof have been published this week [1] and we’ll present it next month at the 1st Iberoamerican Conference on Knowledge Graphs and Semantic Web (KGSWC’19), in Villa Clara, Cuba, alongside 13 other papers on ontologies. I’m looking forward to it!

References

[1] Keet, C.M., Fillottrani, P.R.. Dimensions Affecting Representation Styles in Ontologies. 1st Iberoamerican conference on Knowledge Graphs and Semantic Web (KGSWC’19). Springer CCIS vol 1029, 186-200. 24-28 June 2019, Villa Clara, Cuba. Paper at Springer

# Logics and other math for computing (LAC18 report)

Last week I participated in the Workshop on Logic, Algebra, and Category theory (LAC2018) (and their applications in computer science), which was held 12-16 February at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. It’s not fully in my research area, so there was lots of funstuff to learn. There were tutorials in the morning and talks in the afternoon, and, of course, networking and collaborations over lunch and in the evenings.

I finally learned some (hardcore) foundations of institutions that underpins the OMG-standardised Distributed Ontology, Model, and Specification Language DOL, whose standard we used in the (award-winning) KCAP17 paper. It concerns the mathematical foundations to handle different languages in one overarching framework. That framework takes care of the ‘repetitive stuff’—like all languages dealing with sentences, signatures, models, satisfaction etc.—in one fell swoop instead of repeating that for each language (logic). The 5-day tutorial was given by Andrzej Tarlecki from the University of Warsaw (slides).

Oliver Kutz, from the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, presented our K-CAP paper as part of his DOL tutorial (slides), as well as some more practical motivations for and requirements that went into DOL, or: why ontology engineers need DOL to solve some of the problems.

Dirk Pattinson from the Australian National University started gently with modal logics, but it soon got more involved with coalgebraic logics later on in the week.

The afternoons had two presentations each. The ones of most interest to me included, among others, CSP by Michael Jackson; José Fiadeiro’s fun flexible modal logic for specifying actor networks for, e.g., robots and security breaches (that looks hopeless for implementations, but that as an aside); Ionuț Țuțu’s presentation on model transformations focusing on the maths foundations (cf the boxes-and-lines in, say, Eclipse); and Adrian Rodriguez’s program analysis with Maude (slides). My own presentation was about ontological and logical foundations for interoperability among the main conceptual data modelling languages (slides). They covered some of the outcomes from the bilateral project with Pablo Fillottrani and some new results obtained afterward.

Last, but not least, emeritus Prof Jennifer Seberry gave a presentation about a topic we probably all should have known about: Hadamard matrices and transformations, which appear to be used widely in, among others, error correction, cryptography, spectroscopy and NMR, data encryption, and compression algorithms such as MPEG-4.

Lots of thanks go to Daniel Găină for taking care of most of the organization of the successful event. (and thanks to the generous funders, which made it possible for all of us to fly over to Australia and stay for the week 🙂 ). My many pages of notes will keep me occupied for a while!

# 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.

# Aligning different relations: the case of part-whole relations—LDK2017

Despite the best intentions, I did not get around to writing a post on the paper that I presented last week at the First International Conference on Language, Data and Knowledge 2017, 19-20 June, Galway, Ireland, and now Paul Groth also ‘beat’ me to it writing a nice conference report of it. On the bright side, it is an opportunity to say upfront I really enjoyed the conference and look forward to the next edition in 2019. The ESWC’17 organisers might be slightly disappointed that there was no special track on the multilingual semantic web after all, but I did get the distinct impression that the LDK17 authors might just all have gambled on LDK17—an opportunity to binge two days on all things natural language & Semantic Web—rather than on one track at an overpriced conference (despite the allure of it being A-rated).

So, what was my paper about that could have been submitted to either? I ended up struggling—and solving—an issue with aligning OWL object properties that were not simple 1:1 mappings, in a similar scope as our ESWC17 paper (introduced here) [4], but then with too many complications. Complications were due to the different conceptualisations of part-whole relations and that one of the requirements was to solve what to do with an object property (relation, relationship) that does not have a neat, single, label, and therewith neither fitting with the common OWL modelling paradigm nor with the recently agreed-upon ontolex-lemon model for linguistic annotations.

The start of all this sounded nice and doable: we need to generate natural language for healthcare, using, e.g., SNOMED CT, in local languages in South Africa, focussing on the largest one, being isiZulu. Medical terminologies are riddled with part-whole relations, so we sought to address that one (simple existentials already having been solved), availing of a standard list of part-whole relations (e.g. [1]). That turned out to be a non-trivial exercise, but doable eventually [2]. What wasn’t addressed in [2] was that some ‘common’ part-whole relations, such as membership and containment, weren’t like that in isiZulu, at all. Moreover, it wasn’t just a language issue, but ontological as well. The LDK17 paper “Representing and aligning similar relations: parts and wholes in isiZulu vs English” [3] describes this in some detail.

Here’s a (simplified) list of (assumed to be) common part-whole relations, which takes into account both transitivity differences and domain and range:

Now here’s the one based on the isiZulu language and some ontological analysis of that:

That is: there are both generalisations—some distinctions are not being made—and specialisations—some distinctions are made here but not elsewhere. For instance, ‘musician is part of some orchestra’ and ‘heart is part of some human’ (or vv.) is all done and described in the same way (ingxenye ‘part of’ and SC+CONJ for ‘has part’ [more about that below]). Yet, there is a difference between an individual (e.g., a voter) participating in some process and a collective (e.g., the electorate) participating in a process, or vv. The paper describes this more precisely, going into some detail regarding the differences in categories of domain and range and into the consequences on transitivity of mereological parthood.

The other ‘odd thing’—cf. current multilingual Semantic Web assumptions and technologies, that is—is that while the conceptualisation of ‘has part’ exists, it does not have a single label as in English (or in several other languages, such as heeft as deel), but it is dependent on the noun class of the noun of the class that play the part and play the whole in the relation. It combines the subject concord (~conjugation) of the noun class of the noun that plays the whole with a conjunction that is phonologically conditioned based on the first letter of the noun that plays the part; with verbalisation in the plural and three phonological cases, there are 18 possible strings all denoting ‘has part’. This still could be sorted with a language with inverses, provided the part-of direction has a name, like the ingxenye. This is not the case for containment, however. Instead of the relation (object property) having a name—be this a verb like ‘contained in’ or some noun phrase—it is the noun that plays the whole (the container, if you will) that gets modified. For instance, imvilophu ‘envelope’ and emvilophini denoting ‘contained in the envelope’, or, for individuals and locations, the city iTheku ‘Durban’ and eThekwini meaning ‘located in Durban’ (no typo—there’s some phonological conditioning I’m brushing over). While I have gotten used to such constructions, it generated some surprise among several attendees that one can have notions, concepts, views on or interpretations or descriptions of reality, that exist but do not have even one single string of text throughout to refer to regardless the context it is used.

The naming issue was solved by adding some arbitrary string as ‘name’ of the object property, and relating that to the function that verbalises that specific part-whole relation. The former issue, i.e., not all the same part-whole relations, required a bit more work, using ontology pattern alignments, by extending one correspondence pattern from the ODP catalogue and introducing a new one (see paper for the formal details), using the same broad framework of formalisation as proposed in [4].

All this was then implemented and aligned, and verified to not result in some unsatisfiable classes, object properties, or inconsistency (files). This also works in the isiZulu verbalisation tool we demo-ed at ESWC17 (described in the previous post) [5], all as part of the NRF-funded GeNI project.

Now, ideally, I already would have had the time to read the papers I flagged in my LDK17 conference notes with “check paper”. I haven’t yet due to end-of-semester tasks. So, on the basis of just a positive-seeming presentation, here are a few that are on the top of my list to check out first, for quite different reasons:

• Interaction between natural language reading capabilities and math education, focusing on language production (i.e., ‘can you talk about it?’) [6], mainly because math education in South Africa faces a lot of problems. It also generated a lively discussion in the Q&A session.
• The OnLiT ontology for linguistic [7] and LLODifying linguistic glosses [8] terminology (also: one of the two also won the best paper award).
• Deep text generation, for it was looking at trying to address skewed or limited data to learn from [9], which is an issue we face when trying to do some NLP with most South African languages.

References

[1] Keet, C.M., Artale, A. Representing and Reasoning over a Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations. Applied Ontology, 2008, 3(1-2):91-110.

[2] 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.

[3] Keet, C.M. Representing and aligning similar relations: parts and wholes in isiZulu vs English. In: Gracia J., Bond F., McCrae J., Buitelaar P., Chiarcos C., Hellmann S. (eds) Language, Data, and Knowledge LDK 2017. Springer LNAI vol 10318, 58-73.

[4] Fillottrani, P.R., Keet, C.M. Patterns for Heterogeneous TBox Mappings to Bridge Different Modelling Decisions. 14th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’17). Springer LNCS. Portoroz, Slovenia, May 28 – June 2, 2017.

[5] Keet, C.M. Xakaza, M., Khumalo, L. Verbalising OWL ontologies in isiZulu with Python. 14th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’17). Springer LNCS. Portoroz, Slovenia, May 28 – June 2, 2017. (demo paper)

[6] Crossley, S., Kostyuk, V. Letting the genie out of the lamp: using natural language processing tools to predict math performance. In: Gracia J., Bond F., McCrae J., Buitelaar P., Chiarcos C., Hellmann S. (eds) Language, Data, and Knowledge LDK 2017. Springer LNAI vol 10318, 330-342.

[7] Klimek, B., McCrae, J.P., Lehmann, C., Chiarcos, C., Hellmann, S. OnLiT: and ontology for linguistic terminology. In: Gracia J., Bond F., McCrae J., Buitelaar P., Chiarcos C., Hellmann S. (eds) Language, Data, and Knowledge LDK 2017. Springer LNAI vol 10318, 42-57.

[8] Chiarcos, C., Ionov, M. Rind-Pawlowski, M., Fäth, C., Wichers Schreur, J., Nevskaya. I. LLODifying linguistic glosses. In: Gracia J., Bond F., McCrae J., Buitelaar P., Chiarcos C., Hellmann S. (eds) Language, Data, and Knowledge LDK 2017. Springer LNAI vol 10318, 89-103.

[9] Dethlefs N., Turner A. Deep Text Generation — Using Hierarchical Decomposition to Mitigate the Effect of Rare Data Points. In: Gracia J., Bond F., McCrae J., Buitelaar P., Chiarcos C., Hellmann S. (eds) Language, Data, and Knowledge LDK 2017. Springer LNAI vol 10318, 290-298.

# On that “shared” conceptualization and other definitions of an ontology

It’s a topic that never failed to generate a discussion on all 10 instalments of the ontology engineering course I taught from BSc(hons) up to participants studying toward or already having a PhD: those pesky definitions of what an ontology is. To top it off, like I didn’t know, I also got a snarky reviewer’s comment about it on my Stuff ontology paper [1]:

A comment that might be superficial but I cannot help: since an ontology is usually (in Borst’s terms) assumed to be a ‘shared’ conceptualization, I find a little surprising for such a complex model to have been designed by a sole author. While I acknowledge the huge amount of literature carefully analyzed, it still seems that the concrete modeling decisions eventually relied on the background of a single ontologist

Is that bad? Does that make the Stuff Ontology a ‘nontology’? And, by the by, what about all those loner philosophers who write single-author papers on ontology; should that whole field be discarded because most of the ontology insights were “shared” only from paper submission and publication?

Anyway, let’s start from the beginning. There’s the much-criticized definition of an ontology from Gruber that, it seems, only novices seem to keep quoting (to my irritation, indeed):

An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization. [2]

If you wonder why quite a bit has been written about it: try to answer what “specification” really means and how it is specified, and what exactly a “conceptualization” is. The real fun starts with Borst et al.’s [3] and then Studer et al.’s [4] refinement of Gruber’s version, which the reviewer quoted above alluded to:

An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualization. [4]

At least there’s the “formal” (be it in the sense of logic or formal ontology), and “explicit”, so something is being made explicit and precise. But “shared”? Shared with whom? How? Is a logical theory that not one, but two, people write down an ontology, then? Or one person develops an ontology and then emails it to a few colleagues or puts it online in, say, the open BioPortal ontology repository. Does that count as “shared” then? Or is it only “shared” if at least one other person agrees with it as is (all reviewers of the Stuff Ontology did, btw), or perhaps (most or all of) the ‘conceptualization’ of it but a few axioms would need a bit of tweaking and cleaning up? Do you need at least a group of people to develop an ontology, and if so, how large should that group be, and should that group consist of independent sub-groups that adopt the ontology (and if so, how many endorsers)? Is a lightweight low-hanging-fruit ontology that is used by a large company a real or successful ontology, but a highly axiomatised ontology with a high tangledness that is used by a specialist organization, not? And even if you canvass and get a large group and/or organization to buy into that formal explicit specification, what if they are all wrong on the reality is supposed to represent? Does it still count as an ontology no matter how wrong the conceptualization is, just because it’s formal, explicit, and shared? Is a tailor-made module of, say, the DOLCE ontology not also an ontology, even if the module was made by one person and made available in an online repository like ROMULUS?

Perhaps one shouldn’t start top-down, but bottom-up: take some things and decide (who?) whether it is an ontology or not. Case one: the taxonomy of part-whole relations is a mini-ontology, and although at the start only ‘shared’ with my co-author and published in the Applied Ontology journal [5], it has been used by quite a few researchers for various (and unintended) purposes afterward, notably in NLP (e.g., [6]). An ontology? If so, since when? Case two: Noy et al. converted the representation of the NCI thesaurus into OWL DL [7]. Does changing the serialisation of a multi-authored thesaurus from one format into another make it an ontology? (more on that below.) Case three: a group of 5 people try to represent the subject domain of, say, breast cancer, but it is replete with mistakes both regarding the reality it ought to represent and unintended modelling errors (such as confusing is-a with part-of). Is it still an ontology, albeit a bad one?

It gets more muddled when the representation language is thrown in (as with case 2 above). What if the ontology turns out to be unsatisfiable? From a logic viewpoint, it’s not a theory then (a consistent set of sentences, is), but if it’s formal, explicit, and shared, is it acceptable that those people who developed the artefact simply have an inconsistent conceptualization and that it still counts as an ontology?

Horrocks et al. [8] simplify the whole thing by eliminating the ‘shared’ aspect:

an ontology being equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. [8]

However, this generates a set of questions and problems of its own that are practically also problematic. For instance: 1) whether transforming a UML Class Diagram into OWL ‘magically’ makes it an ontology (answer: no); 2) The NCI Thesaurus to OWL (answer: no); or 3) if you used, say, Common Logic to represent it, that then it could not be an ontology because it’s not formalised in Description Logics (answer: it sure can be one).

There are more attempts to give a definition or a description, notably by Nicola Guarino in [9] (a key paper in the field):

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the intended meaning of a formal vocabulary, i.e. its ontological commitment to a particular conceptualization of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models. [9]

That’s a mouthful, but at least no “shared” in there, either. And, finally, among the many definitions in [10], here’s Barry Smith and cs.’s take on it:

An ONTOLOGY is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them. [10]

And again, no “shared” either in this definition. Of course, also with Smith’s definition, there are things one can debate about and pose it against Guarino’s definition, like the “universals” vs. “conceptualization” etc., but that’s a story for another time.

So, to sum up: there is that problem on how to interpret “shared”, which is untenable, and one just as well can pick a definition of an ontology from a widely cited paper that doesn’t include that in the definition.

That said, all this doesn’t help my students to grapple with the notion of ‘an ontology’. Examples help, and it would be good if someone, or, say, the International Association for Ontology and its Applications (IAOA) would have a list of “exemplar ontologies” sooner rather than later. (Yes, I have a list, but it still needs to be annotated better). Another aspect that helps explaining it comes is from Guarino’s slides on going “from logical to ontological level” and on good and bad ontologies. This first screenshot (taken from my slides—easier to find) shows there’s “something more” to an ontology than just the logic, with a hint to reasons why (note to my students: more about that later in the course). The second screenshot shows that, yes, we can have the good, bad, and ugly: the yellow oval denotes the intended models (what it should be), and the other ovals denote the various approximations that one may have tried to represent in an ontology. For instance, representing ‘each human has exactly one brain’ is more precise (“good”) than stating ‘each human has at least one brain’ (“less good”) or not saying anything at all about it an ontology of human anatomy (“bad”), and even “worse” it would be if that ontology ware to state ‘each human has exactly two tails’.

Maybe we can’t do better than ‘intuition’ or ‘very wieldy explanation’. If this were a local installation of WordPress, I’d have added a poll on definitions and the subjectivity on the shared-ness factor (though knowing well that science isn’t governed as a democracy). In lieu of that: comments, preferences for one definition or the other, or any better suggestions for definitions are most welcome! (The next instalment of my Ontology Engineering course will start in a few week’s time.)

References

[1] 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.

[2] Gruber, T. R. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 1993, 5(2):199-220.

[3] Borst, W.N., Akkermans, J.M. Engineering Ontologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1997, 46(2-3):365-406.

[4] Studer, R., Benjamins, R., and Fensel, D. Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 1998, 25(1-2):161-198.

[5] Keet, C.M., Artale, A. Representing and Reasoning over a Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations. Applied Ontology, 2008, 3(1-2):91-110.

[6] Tandon, N., Hariman, C., Urbani, J., Rohrbach, A., Rohrbach, M., Weikum, G.: Commonsense in parts: Mining part-whole relations from the web and image tags. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’16). pp. 243-250. AAAI Press (2016)

[7] Noy, N.F., de Coronado, S., Solbrig, H., Fragoso, G., Hartel, F.W., Musen, M. Representing the NCI Thesaurus in OWL DL: Modeling tools help modeling languages. Applied Ontology, 2008, 3(3):173-190.

[8] Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7.

[9] Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

[10] Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

# More stuff: relating stuffs and amounts of stuff to their parts and portions

With all the protests going on in South Africa, writing this post is going to be a moment of detachment of it (well, I’m trying), for it concerns foundational aspects of ontologies with respect to “stuff”. Stuff is the philosophers’ funny term for those kind of things that cannot be counted, or only counted in quantities, and are in natural language generally referred to by mass nouns. For instance, water, gold, mayonnaise, oil, and wine as kinds of things, yet one can talk of individual objects of them only in quantities, like a glass of wine, a spoonful of mayonnaise, and a litre of oil. It is one thing to be able to say which types of stuff there are [1], it is another matter how they relate to each other. The latter is described in the paper recently accepted at the 20th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge management (EKAW’16), entitled “Relating some stuff to other stuff” [2].

Is something like that even relevant, when students are protesting for free education, among other demands? Yes. At the end of the day, it is part and parcel of a healthy environment to live in. For instance, one should be able to realise traceability in food and medicine supply chains, to foster practices, and check compliance, of good production processes and supply chains, so that you will not buy food that makes you ill or take medicines that are fake [3,4]. Such production processes and product logistics deal with ‘stuffs’ and their portions and parts that get separated and put together to make the final product. Current implementations have only underspecified ‘links’ (if at all) that doesn’t let one infer automatically what (or who) the culprit is. Existing theoretical accounts from philosophy and in domain ontologies are incomplete, so they wouldn’t help you further either. The research described in the paper solves this issue.

Seven relations for portions and stuff-parts were identified, which have a temporal dimension where needed. For instance, the upper-half of the wine in your wine glass is a portion of the whole amount of wine in the glass, yet that amount of wine was a portion of the amount of wine in the bottle when you opened it, and yet it has as part some amount of alcohol. (Some reader may not find this example nice, for it being with alcohol, but Western Cape, where Cape Town is situated, is the wine region of the country.) The relations are structured in a little hierarchy, as informally depicted in the figure below.

Section of the basic taxonomy of part-whole relations of [5] (less and irrelevant sections in grey or suppressed), extended with the stuff relations and their position in the hierarchy.

Their formal definitions are included in the paper.

Another aspect of the solution is that it distinguishes between 1) the extensional and intensional level—like, between ‘an amount of wine’ and ‘wine’—because different constraints apply (following from that latter can be instantiated the former cannot), and 2) the amount of stuff and the (repeatable) quantity, as one can have 1kg of many things.

Just theory isn’t good enough, though, for one would want to use it in some way to indeed get those benefits of traceability in the supply chains. After considering the implementation options (see paper for details), I settled for an extension to the Stuff Ontology core ontology that now also imports a special purpose module OMmini of the Ontology of Units of Measure (see also the Stuff Ontology page). The latter sounds easier than that it worked in praxis, but that’s a topic of a different post. The module is there, and the links between the OMmin.owl and stuff.owl have been declared.

Although the implementation is atemporal in the end, it is still possible to do some automated reasoning for traceability. This is mainly thought availing of property chains to approximate the relevant temporal aspects. For instance, with $scatteredPortionOf \circ portionOf \sqsubseteq scatteredPortionOf$ then one can infer that a scattered portion in my glass of wine that was a portion of bottle #1234 of organic Pinotage wine of an amount of wine, contained in cask #3, with wine from wine farm X of Stellar Winery from the 2015 harvest is a scattered portion of that amount of matter (that cask). Or take the (high-level) pharmaceutical supply chain from [4]: a portion (that is on a ‘pallet’) of the quantity of medicine produced by the manufacturer goes to the warehouse, of which a portion (in a ‘case’) goes to the distribution centre. From there, a portion ends up on the dispensing shelf, and someone buys it. Then tracing any customer’s portion of medicine—i.e., regardless the actual instance—can be inferred with the following chain: $scatteredPortionOf \circ scatteredPortionOf \circ scatteredPortionOf \sqsubseteq scatteredPortionOf$

Sure, the research presented hasn’t solved everything yet, but at least software developers now have a (better) way to automate traceability in supply chains. It also allows one to be more fine-grained in the analysis where a culprit may be, so that there are fewer cases of needless scares. For instance, we know that when there’s an outbreak of Salmonella, then we only have to trace where the batch of egg yolk went (typically in the tiramisu served in homes for the elderly), where it came from (which farm), and got mixed with in the production process, while the amounts of egg white on your lemon merengue still would be safe to eat even when it came from the same batch that had at least one infected egg.

I’ll be presenting the paper at EKAW’16 in November in Bologna, Italy, and hope to see you there! It’s not a good time of the year w.r.t. weather, but that’s counterbalanced by the beauty of the buildings and art works, and the actual venue room is in one of the historical buildings of the oldest university of Europe.

References

[1] 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.

[2] Keet, C.M. Relating some stuff to other stuff. 20th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management EKAW’16). Springer LNAI, 19-23 November 2016, Bologna, Italy. (accepted)

[3] Donnelly, K.A.M. A short communication – meta data and semantics the industry interface: what does the food industry think are necessary elements for exchange? In: Proc. of Metadata and Semantics Research (MTSR’10). Springer CCIS vol. 108, 131-136.

[4] Solanki, M., Brewster, C. OntoPedigree: Modelling pedigrees for traceability in supply chains. Semantic Web Journal, 2016, 7(5), 483-491.

[5] Keet, C.M., Artale, A. Representing and Reasoning over a Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations. Applied Ontology, 2008, 3(1-2):91-110.