David Thau
ABSTRACT
Taxonomically organized data pervade science, business and everyday life. Unfortunately, taxonomies are often underspecified, limiting their utility in contexts such as data integration, information navigation and autonomous agent communication. This work formalizes taxonomies and relationships between them as formulas in logic. This formalization concretizes notions such as consistency and inconsistency of taxonomies and articulations (inter-taxonomic relations) between them, enables the derivation of new articulations based on a given set of taxonomies and articulations and provides a framework for testing assumptions about underspecified taxonomies.
Given the typical intractability of reasoning with taxonomies and articulations, this research investigates many optimizations: from those that reduce the search space, to those that leverage parallel processing, to those investigating logics more tractable than first-order logic (e.g., monadic first-order logic, propositional logic, description logics, and subsets of the RCC-5 spatial algebra). Finally, in addition to reasoning with taxonomies and articulations, this research investigates how to repair inconsistent taxonomies and articulations, how to explain inconsistencies and discovered relations, and how to merge taxonomies given articulations. Critical to this research is the development of a framework for testing logics and support for the development of taxonomies and articulations. This framework, CleanTax is already well under way and has been used to study articulations between two large-scale biological taxonomies.
- The taxonomic concept schema. http://tdwg.napier.ac.uk/, February 2008.Google Scholar
- The taxonomic data working group. http://www.tdwg.org/, February 2008.Google Scholar
- L. Bachmair, H. Ganzinger, and U. Waldmann. Set constraints are the monadic class. In Logic in Computer Science, pages 75--83, 1993.Google Scholar
- J. H. Beach, S. Pramanik, and J. H. Beaman. Hierarchic taxonomic databases. In R. Fortuner, editor, Advances in Computer Methods for Systematic Biology: Artificial Intelligence, Databases, Computer Vision, chapter 15, pages 241--256. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1993.Google Scholar
- B. Bennett. Spatial Reasoning with Propositional Logics. In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso, editors, KR'94: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 51--62. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California, 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. D. Benson. A treatise on the north american ranunculi. American Midland Naturalist, 40:1--261, 1948.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. G. Berendsohn. The concept of "potential taxa" in databases. Taxon, 44:207--212, 1995.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. G. Berendsohn. MoReTax -- Handling Factual Information Linked to Taxonomic Concepts in Biology. Number 39 in Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2003.Google Scholar
- R. Brachman. What is-a is and isn't: An analysis of taxonomic links in semantic networks. IEEE Computer, 16:30--36, 1983. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. D. Cantino and K. de Queiroz. Phylocode: a phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. 2006.Google Scholar
- H. H. Do and E. Rahm. Coma - a system for flexible combination of schema matching approaches. In VLDB, pages 610--621. Morgan Kaufmann, 2002. Google Scholar
- B. Ganter and R. Wille. Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer, Heidelberg, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Geoffroy and A. Güntsch. Assembling and navigating the potential taxon graph. {8}, pages 71--82.Google Scholar
- F. Giunchiglia, M. Yatskevich, and P. Shvaiko. Semantic matching: Algorithms and implementation. J. Data Semantics, 9:1--38, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 18(1):1--31, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. T. Kartesz. Synthesis of north american flora. BONAP, North Carolina Botanical Garden, 2004.Google Scholar
- J. Kennedy, R. Kukla, and T. Paterson. Scientific names are ambiguous as identifiers for biological taxa: Their context and definition are required for accurate data integration. In 2nd Intl. Workshop on Data Integration in the Life Sciences (DILS), LNCS 3615, pages 80--95, July 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. McCune. Prover9 Manual. Argonne National Laboratory.Google Scholar
- W. McCune. Mace4 reference manual and guide. Technical Report ANL/MCS-TM-264, Argonne National Laboratory, August 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. L. McGuinness. Ontologies come of age. In D. Fensel, J. A. Hendler, H. Lieberman, and W. Wahlster, editors, Spinning the Semantic Web, pages 171--194. MIT Press, 2003.Google Scholar
- R. J. Miller, M. A. Hernández, L. M. Haas, L.-L. Yan, C. T. H. Ho, R. Fagin, and L. Popa. The clio project: Managing heterogeneity. SIGMOD Record, 30(1):78--83, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. F. Noy and M. A. Musen. The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6):983--1024, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. K. Peet. Ranunculus data set. June 2005.Google Scholar
- E. Rahm and P. A. Bernstein. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J., 10(4):334--350, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. A. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. Cohn. A Spatial Logic Based on Regions and Connection. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, and W. Swartout, editors, KR'92. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, pages 165--176. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1992.Google Scholar
- J. Renz and B. Nebel. On the complexity of qualitative spatial reasoning: A maximal tractable fragment of the region connection calculus. Artif. Intell., 108(1--2):69--123, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Serafini and A. Tamilin. Drago: Distributed reasoning architecture for the semantic web. In A. Gómez-Pérez and J. Euzenat, editors, ESWC, volume 3532 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 361--376. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Shvaido and J. Euzenat. Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Stuckenschmidt, L. Serafini, and H. Wache. Reasoning about ontology mappings. Technical report, ITC-IRST, Trento, 2005.Google Scholar
- G. Stumme and A. Maedche. FCA-MERGE: Bottom-Up Merging of Ontologies. In Proc. of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial, pages 225--234, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Thau and B. Ludascher. Reasoning about taxonomies in first-order logic. Ecological Informatics, 2(3):195--209, Oct 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Wessel. On spatial reasoning with description logics-position paper. In I. Horrocks and S. Tessaris, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop in Description Logics, pages 156--163, Touluse, France, April 2002. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Reasoning about taxonomies and articulations
Recommendations
Merging taxonomies under RCC-5 algebraic articulations
ONISW '08: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Ontologies and information systems for the semantic webTaxonomies are widely used to classify information, and multiple (possibly competing) taxonomies often exist for the same domain. Given a set of correspondences between two taxonomies, it is often necessary to "merge" the taxonomies, thereby creating a ...
Reasoning about ignorance and contradiction: many-valued logics versus epistemic logic
This paper tries to reinterpret three- and four-valued logics of partial ignorance and contradiction in the light of epistemic logic. First, we try to cast Kleene three-valued logic in the setting of a simplified form of epistemic logic. It is a two-...
Comments