Web Ontologies For Cultural Heritage and Their Validation Via A Set-Theory Based Reasoner

Web Ontologies for Cultural Heritage and their
validation via a set-theory based reasoner.
Claudia Cantale1,3 , Domenico Cantone2 ,

Manuela Lupica Rinato3 , Marianna Nicolosi-Asmundo2 ,
Daniele Francesco Santamaria2
Department of Humanistic Sciences, Univeristy of Catania1

Deparment of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Catania2
Officine Culturali, Catania3
SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018
Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 1 / 62

Summarizing
The Reasoner
Ontologies
Conclusions
Introduction
Computable set theory for knowledge representation.

The set-theoretic fragment 4LQS R .
The subfragment of 4LQS R : 4LQSR
DL . 4,×
D
DL4,× R
D : a description logic representable in 4LQSDL . 4,×
D
A C++ reasoner for DL4,×

D .
Features and desirables.
Ontologies representable via DL4,× R
D (4LQSDL ). 4,×
D
Ontologies representable via fragments of set-theory.

Summarizing
The Reasoner ×
DL4,
Ontologies D
Conclusions
Syntax of 4LQSRDL 4,×

D
(i) variables of sort 0: x, y , z, . . .

(ii) variables of sort 1: X 1 , Y 1 , Z 1 , . . .
(iii) variables of sort 3: X 3 , Y 3 , Z 3 . . .
Predicate symbols = and ∈

Pairing operator h·, ·i
4LQSR
DL -literals (atomic formulae or their negations)
4,×
D
level 0: x = y , x ∈ X 1 , hx, y i ∈ X 3 ,
¬(x = y ), ¬(x ∈ X 1 ), ¬(hx, y i ∈ X 3 ).

Summarizing
The Reasoner ×
DL4,
Ontologies D
Conclusions
Syntax of 4LQSRDL 4,×

D
4LQSR
DL -purely universally quantified formulae
4,×
D
level 1: (∀z1 ) . . . (∀zn )ϕ0 , ϕ0 propositional combination of

level 0 literals;
4LQSRDL -Formulae
4,×
D
Propositional combinations of literals of level 0 and of purely

universally quantified formulae of level 1.

Summarizing
The Reasoner ×
DL4,
Ontologies D
Conclusions
The Description Logic DL4,×

D
Existential quantification and at-least number restriction

(resp., universal quantification and at-most number
restriction) only on the left- (resp., right-) hand side of
inclusion axioms.
More liberal than SROIQ(D) in:
construction of role inclusion axioms (roles involved not
subject to any ordering relationship),
simple roles are not needed to define role inclusion axioms and
axioms involving number restrictions,
Boolean operators on roles are admitted.
Derived datatypes (inside inclusion axioms involving concrete
roles).
Higher Order Conjunctive Query Answering.
HOCQA via a variant of the KE-tableau (called KEγ -tableau).
Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Overview

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Phase I: Example
Phase I: reading a compatible OWL ontology.

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Phase I: Example
Phase I: a suitable mapping function θ is applied to KB thus

yielding the 4LQSR DL representation φKB of KB
4,×
D
Phase I: φKB is converted in conjunctive normal form,

universal quantifiers are moved as inward as possible, and
universally quantified variables are renamed so as to make
them pairwise distinct.
KB = {¬Mother (Eva, Ann), Relative(Ann, Ann),
Relative(Eva, Eva), Mother v Relative}
3
φKB =Def ¬(hxEva , xAnn i ∈ XMother )∧
3 3
hxAnn , xAnn i ∈ XRelative ∧ hxEva , xEva i ∈ XRelative ∧
3 3
(∀z1 )(∀z2 )(¬(hz1 , z2 i ∈ XMother ) ∨ hz1 , z2 i ∈ XRelative )

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Phase I: Example
Phase I: computing the internal representation of φKB

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Phase II: Example
KEγ -tableau is a variant of KE-tableau system where the

KE-elimination and γ-rule are incorporated in a rule called
Eγ -rule and applied to universally quantified formulae.
As usual, open and complete branches of the KEγ -tableau
induce the models of the knowledge base.
The initial KEγ -tableau TKB is constituted by the set of
formulae φKB .
TKB is expanded by systematically applying the Eγ -rule and
the PB-Rule to purely universally quantified formulae.
Then, if there are formulae of type x = y , the equivalence
class of x and y is computed for each open and complete
branch.

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Expansion rules
ψ S βi τ γ
E -rule PB-rule
βi τ A | A
where where A is a literal
ψ = (∀x1 ) . . . (∀xm )(β1 ∨ . . . ∨ βn ),
τ := {x1 /xo1 . . . xm /xom },
and S β i τ = Def {β 1 τ , ..., β n τ } \
{β i τ }, for i = 1, ..., n
τ is a substitution from QVar0 (ψ) = {x1 , . . . , xm } (the set of
quantified variables occurring in ψ) to Var0 (ϑ) (the set of variables
of sort 0 occurring free in ϑ).

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Phase II: Example

3
¬(hxEva , xAnn i ∈ XMother )
3
hxAnn , xAnn i ∈ XRelative
3
hxEva , xEva i ∈ XRelative
3 3
(∀z1 )(∀z2 )(¬(hz1 , z2 i ∈ XMother ) ∨ hz1 , z2 i ∈ XRelative )
PB-Rule
3 3
¬(hxAnn , xEva i ∈ XMother hxAnn , xEva i ∈ XMother
Complete (Open) Eγ -Rule
3
hxAnn , xEva i ∈ XRelative
Complete (Open)
Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Phase II: Example
Computing for each open complete branch the equivalent

classes for the individuals involved in formulae of type x = y
and checking for inconsistency.
KB 2 = ({Person(Ann), Person(Paul), Person(John), Person(Carl),

Annet 6= Ann, Ann = Anna, Paul = Paolo, Carl = Carlo})

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Phase II: Example
TKB2 . Equivalence classes for TKB2 .

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
The reasoner is now ready to evaluate queries.

In particular, DL4,×
D -Higher Order Conjunctive Queries.
4,×
HO DLD -conjunctive query, admitting variables of three
sorts: individual and data type variables, concept variables,
and role variables.
A HO-DL4,× D -conjunctive query is a conjunction of
HO-DL4,× D -literals.
R(w1 , w2 ), P(w1 , u), C (w1 ), t(u), r(w1 , w2 ), p(w1 , u), c(w1 ),
t(u), w1 = w2 .
and their negations.
u and wi are either query variables or elements of the domain,
R and P role names, C concept name, t datatype term, r and
p role query variables, c concept query variable, t datatype
term query variable.
Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
A suitable map function from DL4,×

D -HO query to
R 4,×
4LQSDL -literals, DLD -HO conjunctive queries, and
4,×
D
substitutions.
θ(R(w1 , w2 )) =Def hxw1 , xw2 i ∈ XR3 ,
θ(P(w1 , u)) =Def hxw1 , xu i ∈ XP3 ,
θ(C (w1 )) =Def xw1 ∈ XC1 ,
θ(t(u)) =Def xu ∈ Xt1
θ(w1 = w2 ) =Def xw1 = xw2 ,
θ(c(w1 )) =Def xw1 ∈ Xc1 ,
θ(r(w1 , w2 )) =Def hxw1 , xw2 i ∈ Xr3 ,
θ(p(w1 , u)) =Def hxw1 , xu i ∈ Xp3 .
θ(t(u)) =Def xu ∈ Xt1

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
A suitable substitution from the query variables to the

elements of the domain is a solution.
The collection Σ of the solutions for Q w.r.t. KB is the
Higher Order Answer Set of Q w.r.t. KB. Then the higher
order conjunctive query answering problem for Q w.r.t. KB
consists in finding the HO answer set Σ of Q w.r.t. KB.
The HOCQA problem for DL4,× D can be instantiated to the
most significant ABox reasoning problems for DL4,×
D .
Let φ be a 4LQSR DL -formula and let ψ be a conjunction of
4,×
D
R
4LQSDL -literals. The HOCQA problem for ψ w.r.t. φ
4,×
D
consists in computing the HO answer set of ψ w.r.t. φ,

namely the collection Σ0 of all the substitutions σ 0 such that
M |= φ ∧ ψσ 0 , for some 4LQSR DL -interpretation M.
4,×
D

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
Phase III: Example

3
¬(hxEva , xAnn i ∈ XMother )
3
hxAnn , xAnn i ∈ XRelative
3
hxEva , xEva i ∈ XRelative
3
(∀z1 )(∀z2 )(¬(hz1 , z2 i ∈ XMother 3
) ∨ hz1 , z2 i ∈ XRelative )
PB-Rule
¬(hxAnn , xEva i ∈ 3
XMother 3
hxAnn , xEva i ∈ XMother
Complete (Open)
Eγ -Rule
3
h, hxz , xEva i ∈ XMother i
3
hxAnn , xEva i ∈ XRelative
h, λi
Complete (Open)
3
h, hxz , xEva i ∈ XMother i
h{xz /xAnn }, λi

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next

Overview
Summarizing
Phase I
The Reasoner
Phase II
Ontologies
Phase III
Conclusions
What’s next
More OWL serializations.

More Expressiveness.
Ontology Classification.
Data type reasoning.
Plug-in for Protégé.
Widespread ontologies expressible in 4LQS R .
The ontology of the Catania’s Benedictine Monastery.
The ontology of the Saint Gall Plan.

Summarizing
The Reasoner ArchivioMuseoFabbrica
Ontologies SaintGall Ontology
Conclusions
The Catania’s Benedictine Monastery Ontology
The floor to Claudia Cantale

who will talk about the project of
the Catania’s Benedictine
Monastery.
Claudia Cantale, DISUM-UNICT,

Officine Culturali-Catania.

Summarizing
Conclusions
Structure of the ontology

Summarizing
Conclusions
Metrics of the ontology

Summarizing
Conclusions
The building

Summarizing
Conclusions
The building

Summarizing
Conclusions
The building

Summarizing
Conclusions
The building

Summarizing
Conclusions
The building

Summarizing
Conclusions
The building

Summarizing
Conclusions
The building

Summarizing
Conclusions
Workers

Summarizing
Conclusions
Documents

Summarizing
Conclusions
Documents

Summarizing
Conclusions
Constructions yard

Summarizing
Conclusions
Letters

Summarizing
Conclusions
Letters

Summarizing
Conclusions
Press

Summarizing
Conclusions
Press

Summarizing
Conclusions
Query

Summarizing
Conclusions
Query

Summarizing
Conclusions
The Saint Gall Ontology
What is a monastery?
What does ''canonic'' monastery mean?
Can we ontologically define ''canonic'' monastery?
Is the Catania’s Monastery a ''canonic'' monastery?
Implications?

Summarizing
Conclusions
The Saint Gall Ontology
(DeVecchi et al., 1995).
(Kubach, 2001).
(Gombrick, 1950).
(Willis, 1848).
The Saint Gall plan.
In the plan, the Saint Gall Monastery is idealized together
with its essential components.

Summarizing
Conclusions
The Saint Gall plan

Summarizing
Conclusions
The Saint Gall plan

... the scroll of the Saint Gall plan stored in the Stiftsbibliothek
Sankt Gallen and representing the Swiss Monastery in plant is a
precious document not only from historical and artistic points of
view – it presents itself as a conceptual map of an “ideal
monastery” –, but also because of the organization of the
information easily readable due to its high-resolution digitalization.
Thanks to the schematic nature of the Saint Gall plan and since it
has been conceived with the purpose of organizing the spaces
according to the monastic life-style, leaded by the San Benedict
rule, it is a perfect source for the development of an ontology for
the “ideal monastery”.
What does ''canonic'' monastery mean?
Can we ontologically define ''canonic monastery''?
Summarizing
Conclusions
Metrics

Summarizing
Conclusions
Buildings
The SaintGall Ontology describes buildings and green spaces

depicted in the plan of Saint Gall considering their cardinal
orientation, their position with respect to other entities inside
the plan, and their architectonic, structural, and functional
features.

Summarizing
Conclusions
Buildings

Summarizing
Conclusions
Areas

Summarizing
Conclusions
Areas

Summarizing
Conclusions
Shapes

Summarizing
Conclusions
Elements and related

Summarizing
Conclusions
Object properties

Summarizing
Conclusions
The abbot house

Summarizing
Conclusions
The abbot house

Summarizing
Conclusions
The cloister

Summarizing
Conclusions
The cloister

Summarizing
The Reasoner
Ontologies
Conclusions
What’s next
Integration of the SaintGall Ontology with the ontology for

the Benedictine Monastery of Catania and other widespread
ontologies for cultural heritage (i.e., CIDOC-CRM).
Reuse of the (ideas behind the) SaintGall ontology to
design ontologies for other architectural artifacts.
Space and types in Architecture.

Summarizing
The Reasoner
Ontologies
Conclusions
References
C. Cantale, D. Cantone, M. Lupica Rinato, M. Nicolosi-Asmundo, and
D.F. Santamaria. The Shape of a Benedictine Monastery: The SaintGall
Ontology. Proceedings of the third Joint Ontology Workshops
(JOWO-17), Bolzano, Italy, 21-23 September 2017. CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, ISSN 1613-0073, Vol. 2050.
C. Cantale, D. Cantone, M. Nicolosi-Asmundo, and D.F. Santamaria.
Distant Reading Through Ontologies: The Case Study of Catania’s
Benedictines Monastery. JIS.it, 8,3 (September 2017).
D. Cantone and M. Nicolosi Asmundo. On the satisfiability problem for a
4-level quantified syllogistic and some applications to modal logic.
Fundamenta Informaticae, 124(4):427–448, 2013.
D. Cantone, M. Nicolosi-Asmundo, and D. F. Santamaria. A set-theoretic
approach to ABox reasoning services. In Costantini S., Franconi E., Van
Woensel W., Kontchakov R., Sadri F., Roman D. Rules and Reasoning.
RuleML+RR 2017., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10364.
Springer, 2017.
Summarizing
The Reasoner
Ontologies
Conclusions
References
D. Cantone and M. Nicolosi-Asmundo and D. F. Santamaria. A C++

×
reasoner for the description logic DL4,
D . Proceedings of CILC 2017,
26-29 September 2017, Naples, Italy. CEUR WS, ISSN 1613-0073, Vol.
1949, pp. 276-280.
D. Cantone, M. Nicolosi-Asmundo, and D. F. Santamaria. A set-based
×
reasoner for the description logic DL4,
D . Submitted.

Summarizing
The Reasoner
Ontologies
Conclusions
Thank you

Web Ontologies For Cultural Heritage and Their Validation Via A Set-Theory Based Reasoner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Web Ontologies For Cultural Heritage and Their Validation Via A Set-Theory Based Reasoner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Web Ontologies for Cultural Heritage and their

validation via a set-theory based reasoner.

Claudia Cantale1,3 , Domenico Cantone2 ,

Department of Humanistic Sciences, Univeristy of Catania1

SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 1 / 62

Computable set theory for knowledge representation.

A C++ reasoner for DL4,×

Ontologies representable via fragments of set-theory.

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 2 / 62

Syntax of 4LQSRDL 4,×

(i) variables of sort 0: x, y , z, . . .

Predicate symbols = and ∈

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 3 / 62

Syntax of 4LQSRDL 4,×

level 1: (∀z1 ) . . . (∀zn )ϕ0 , ϕ0 propositional combination of

Propositional combinations of literals of level 0 and of purely

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 4 / 62

The Description Logic DL4,×

Existential quantification and at-least number restriction

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 6 / 62

Phase I: reading a compatible OWL ontology.

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 7 / 62

Phase I: a suitable mapping function θ is applied to KB thus

Phase I: φKB is converted in conjunctive normal form,

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 8 / 62

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 9 / 62

Phase II: Example

KEγ -tableau is a variant of KE-tableau system where the

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 10 / 62

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 11 / 62

Phase II: Example

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 13 / 62

Phase II: Example

Computing for each open complete branch the equivalent

KB 2 = ({Person(Ann), Person(Paul), Person(John), Person(Carl),

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 14 / 62

Phase II: Example

TKB2 . Equivalence classes for TKB2 .

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 15 / 62

The reasoner is now ready to evaluate queries.

A suitable map function from DL4,×

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 17 / 62

A suitable substitution from the query variables to the

consists in computing the HO answer set of ψ w.r.t. φ,

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 18 / 62

Phase III: Example

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 19 / 62

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 20 / 62

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 21 / 62

More OWL serializations.

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 22 / 62

The Catania’s Benedictine Monastery Ontology

The floor to Claudia Cantale

Claudia Cantale, DISUM-UNICT,

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 23 / 62

Structure of the ontology

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 24 / 62

Metrics of the ontology

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 25 / 62

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 26 / 62

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 27 / 62

Daniele Francesco Santamaria SWTHS 2018 - Catania, May 11, 2018 28 / 62