WOP:2010/Submission
From Odp
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
'''Current list of received pattern submissions''' | '''Current list of received pattern submissions''' | ||
{{#ask: [[Category: OntologyDesignPattern]] [[SubmittedToEvent::WOP:2010]] | {{#ask: [[Category: OntologyDesignPattern]] [[SubmittedToEvent::WOP:2010]] | ||
| - | | ?submittedBy ?HasIntent | + | | ?submittedBy | ?HasIntent |
}} | }} | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
'''Current list of received pattern submissions''' | '''Current list of received pattern submissions''' | ||
{{#ask: [[Category:ModelingIssue]] [[SubmittedToEvent::WOP:2010]] | {{#ask: [[Category:ModelingIssue]] [[SubmittedToEvent::WOP:2010]] | ||
| - | | ?submittedBy ?Description | + | | ?submittedBy | ?Description |
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 09:43, 4 August 2010
Submission Instructions for WOP 2010
This page will contain instructions for submitting to WOP 2010. Submission will be possible in the following four categories:
- Research papers (through easychair)
- Poster/demo papers (through easychair)
- Patterns (through the ODP portal)
- Ontology engineering problems (through the ODP portal)
Detailed instructions for paper and poster/demo submissions will follow shortly...
Pattern Submissions
We invite the submission of research results in the form of ontology design patterns (ODPs). Patterns submitted should have a general relevance to the ontology engineering field, or specific interest within a knowledge domain. Patterns should solve some particular problem, and be of significant interest for discussion at the workshop poster session. Patterns should be original, in the sense that they are the intellectual product of the author, however they may still be based on the collective experience of a community. Pattern submissions for the pattern part of the poster session will be collected through the ODP portal, and templates for submission are provided for the following types of patterns (see general typology for explanation of the types):
- Content ODPs
- Structural patterns:
- Logical ODPs
- Architectural ODPs
- Correspondence patterns:
- Re-engineering ODPs
- Alignment ODPs
For other types of patterns, or if the author wishes to elaborate on theoretical rather than practical aspects, a pattern description may be submitted as either a research paper or poster paper. A paper submission can thereby be accompanied by a pattern submission, however the submissions will be reviewed separately.
To submit a pattern, go to the pattern submission page, then read and follow the instructions on the page related to the type of pattern you want to submit. Once you have submitted your pattern, and before the final submission deadline (August 20), edit the pattern page. Choose the "Submit for event" tab, and enter "WOP:2010" as the event, by doing this you notify the workshop chairs of your submission and it will be included in the review process. You can check that you correctly submitted your pattern by verifying that it now appear in the list of submissions below.
Each submission will be reviewed by at least two members of the Pattern PC, consisting mainly of members of the ODP portal Quality Committee (in case of disagreement a third reviewer will be assigned). Note that all reviews an discussions are public and not anonymous, hence, all visitors of the portal can see the reviews and any subsequent discussion. Your pattern will be reviewed based on the following set of criteria:
- the practical utility and reusability of the pattern by a community,
- the relevance of the problem addressed by the pattern,
- if the pattern encodes some best practice within a community,
- and the completeness and clarity of the pattern submission, i.e., if all fields have been filled and all aspects properly explained.
If accepted, at least one author of each pattern must register for the workshop and attend the workshop poster session to present their pattern. Further instructions on poster size and other practical details will follow after the selection has been finalized. In the case of acceptance of both a pattern and a poster paper describing the same pattern, only one registration and presentation of one poster is required.
Current list of received pattern submissions
| SubmittedBy | HasIntent | |
|---|---|---|
| Context Slices | Chris Welty | |
| Faceted Classification Scheme | BenedictoRodriguezCastro | Ontological representation of a specific domain concept conceptualized using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS). |
| Summarization of an inverse n-ary relation | MariaPoveda MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa |
|
| Literal Reification | AldoGangemi SilvioPeroni FabioVitali |
This pattern promotes any literal as “first class object” in OWL by reifying it as a proper individual of the class litre:Literal. |
| SimpleOrAggregated | MariaPoveda MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa |
The goal of this pattern is to represent objects that can be simple or aggregated (that is, several objects gathered in another object acting as a whole). The main difference between the aggregation relation and other mereological relationships (such as part-of or componency) is that the aggregated object and its aggregated members should belong to the same concept. For example, a turbine is part of an engine, whereas an aggregated provider is formed by providers. |
| Symmetric n-ary relationship | MariaPoveda MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa |
Ontology Engineering Problem Submissions
We invite submissions of interesting problems for the "pattern writing" sessions. Problems should be in the scope of “ontology engineering problems” (in a broad sense), i.e., problems where currently no ODP exist. The most interesting problem proposals will be selected through a voting process, and at the workshop the participants will be divided into groups based on interests and background, where each group will be assigned one proposed problem. The goal is to develop and propose an initial pattern candidate corresponding to that issue, which is presented to the rest of the participants at the end of the session and can then be posted in the ODP portal for revision and scrutiny. If the problem is selected, the person who proposed the problem is required to register for the workshop and be present, to provide background information about the problem for the candidate ODP to be created and participate in the discussion.
Problem proposals can be general or related to some specific domain, but the envisioned solution should correspond to an ODP of one of the types listed here. The voting process will vote on problem proposals based on the following criteria:
- Relevance of the problem and importance of a solution to the general ontology engineering community or within some specific domain.
- Feasibility to arrive at a draft solution within the time frame of the workshop.
To submit a problem proposal, visit the " Post a modeling issue" page before the submission deadline (August 20). Describe your problem as carefully as possible, by editing the page of the modeling issue. Under the tab "Submit for event" enter "WOP:2010" as the event. Once you have saved the page check that it appears in the list below.
Current list of received pattern submissions
| SubmittedBy | Description | |
|---|---|---|
| Causal information and proportionality | Consider the following paragraph:
The logistics of carrying out metabolism set limits on cell size. Metabolic requirements also impose upper limits on the size that is practical for a single cell. As an object of a particular shape increases in size, its volume grows proportionately more than its surface area. Metabolic requirements also impose upper limits on the size that is practical for a single cell. As an object of a particular shape increases in size, its volume grows proportionately more than its surface area. Thus, the smaller the object, the greater its ratio of surface area to volume. A high surface-to-volume ratio facilitates the exchange of materials between a cell and its environment. |
|
| Different types of relationships | In real applications, we need a flexible ontology editor that helps the user represent taxonomies based on different types of relationships between concepts and with specific features, constraints and rules for each type of relationship. E.g., specialization (is-a) taxonomies, composition (part-whole) taxonomies, lists, etc. The reason is that some features for the specialization taxonomies (represented by the existing editors, e.g., the property inheritance) are not always appropriate for taxonomies based on other types of relationships.
Also, the editor should be flexible enough to represent taxonomies based on new types of relationships and specific features, proposed by the user. Our solution for a project in progress was to build an editor that allows the user choose the type of taxonomy and that automatically applies the property inheritance only for the specialization taxonomies. For the composition taxonomies, the concept properties are inherited on demand. And for the list-like taxonomies the inheritance is applicable only for properties defined at the ontology level (inherited by all concepts). The editor is not yet flexible enough to help the user add taxonomies based on new relationship types and with features he needs for an application. |
|
| Metrics | This problem originates from the work of the W3C Decision Incubator group. However, the problem could be applicable to other areas than decision-making. The problem concerns how to model metrics that can be applied in decision-making situations. A metric is a way to assess options, to make a decision. If a metric is formally described, it can be better understood, reused, and in some cases applied automatically. We would also like to be able to detect possible metrics automatically, i.e., given a dataset we would like to be able to determine what metrics could be applied to it. | |
| Modelling Questions | This problem came up in the context of the W3C Decision Incubator activity, however, it is more general than the decision-making domain. It is about how to formally represent questions in OWL.
For instance, if I ask a question like "Where did this emergency occur?" I could simply represent it as a string. However, the question contains a lot of information, so in some cases one might want to represent it formally, and possibly reason on the question itself. For instance, we may want to derive that the answer should be of type "location" from the fact that the question uses the keyword "where". We have identified two main aspects of this modeling issue:
The first issue concerns the case when we would like to include both the question as a string, i.e., the human readable version of the question, and the question as a formal model. In this case we may have a class "Question", with a string property containing its representation in natural language. How do we now link also a formal description of this question, i.e., a set of triples, to the question class? The second issue concerns how to represent the semantics of the question itself, i.e., an ontology for modeling those triples we wanted to refer to above. We would like to model things such as, the variable of the question, the expected answer type, any other constraints set in the question etc. For instance, in order to be able to ask questions such as: What is the expected answer type of this question? Is this answer correct with respect to the constraints of this question? There exist some question classifications originating in expert systems and question answering, however, we are not aware of any OWL models. |
|
| Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria | This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts. The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria. | |
| Ordered Lists | This problem originates from the W3C Decision Incubator activity, however it is not restricted to the decision-making domain, but more general.
The problem is how to best represent ordered lists in RDF/OWL. In the decision representation domain the problem arises when modeling options, where one of the options will be selected, i.e., it will be the decision. RDF contains native constructs for sets and lists. There are also some proposals for OWL models of sets and lists to be found at http://swan.mindinformatics.org/spec/1.2/collections.html What would be the best way to model this? |
|
| Parts that create compartments in an entity | Consider the sentence: ``Internal membranes compartmentalize the functions of a eukaryotic cell. The existing ontologies provide ways of stating parts of an entity. But in this example, we need to state parts that create disjoint compartments within an entity. | |
| Representing Negation | Consider the following example sentences:
The Golgi apparatus consists of stacks of flattened sacs, or cisternae, which, unlike ER cisternae, are not physically connected. The centrioles are not essential for cell division. The usual replication machinery provides no way to complete the 5' ends of daughter DNA strands. Temomeres do not contain genes. The special base triplets UAA, UAG, and UGA do not code for amino acids but instead act as signals to stop translation. Both nucleoli and ribosomes, unlike most other organelles, are not enclosed in membrane. Prokaryotes do not have mitotic spindle. Because bacteria lack nuclei, their DNA is not segregated from ribosomes and the other protein-synthesizing equipment.
This means that most eukaryotic genes and their RNA transcripts have long noncoding stretches of nucleotides, regions that are not translated. Molecules of tRNA are not all identical.
|
|
| Situation classification | Classical problem-solving in AI and knowledge engineering requires a full-fledged knowledge representation system, including languages for representing the domain and the axioms/rules that hold for it (the problem space), as well as algorithms to find a solution to that problem, if any. Classical approaches use different languages for the representation of the problem versus the representation of the solution, e.g. declarative vs. procedural.
However, there are many requirements in domain modelling which require to talk about both the problem and solution spaces within a same universe of discourse. This is the case of legal knowledge (factual knowledge and legal cases vs. normative knowledge), services, planning and control knowledge (actual facts vs. expected facts), diagnostic knowledge and situational awareness (e.g. bare facts vs. typically unwanted facts), etc. All those cases fit into the abstract task of "classifying a situation" according to possibly incomplete, alternative or loose constraints, where those constraints must be explicit and explicitly linked to the representation of a situation. There are content patterns for representing situation classification, such as descriptionandsituation.owl, which relies on reification of conepts and relations. These patterns can represent situations and descriptions, and their given links (e.g. entities of a situation that play roles from a description, values of a situation that fit parameters from a description, etc.). But it's very hard to represent in general (not based on locally defined axioms, e.g. owl:equivalentClass axioms for a particular situation/description pair) how to: 1) make a situation emerge out of scattered facts 2) decide if a situation (or a set of facts) can be (partly or fully) classified under a description 3) evaluate which description fits best a certain set of facts etc. Classical approaches represent situation classification within some algorithm or in the semantics of some appropriate meta-model. The modeling issue here is: ---) can we approximate generalized representations, for at least some situation classification tasks, by using OWL2 (e.g. with features such as punning, property chains, reflexivity) and regular description logic reasoners. In other words, is it possible to represent situation classification so that it reduces to a concept classification problem? |
