There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.

Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

I and i

다중혈관 관상동맥 환자에서 y-문합을 이용하여 양쪽 내흉동맥만을 사용한 우회술의 조기 성적

1 Why develop an ontology? In recent years the development of ontologies—explicit formal specifications of the terms in the domain and relations among them (Gruber 1993)—has been moving from the realm of ArtificialIntelligence laboratories to the desktops of domain experts. Ontologies have become common on the World-Wide Web. The ontologies on the Web range from large taxonomies categorizing Web sites (such as on Yahoo!) to categorizations of products for sale and their features (such as on Amazon.com). The WWW Consortium (W3C) is developing the Resource Description Framework (Brickley and Guha 1999), a language for encoding knowledge on Web pages to make it understandable to electronic agents searching for information. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in conjunction with the W3C, is developing DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) by extending RDF with more expressive constructs aimed at facilitating agent interaction on the Web (Hendler and McGuinness 2000). Many disciplines now develop standardized ontologies that domain experts can use to share and annotate information in their fields. Medicine, for example, has produced large, standardized, structured vocabularies such as SNOMED (Price and Spackman 2000) and the semantic network of the Unified Medical Language System (Humphreys and Lindberg 1993). Broad general-purpose ontologies are emerging as well. For example, the United Nations Development Program and Dun & Bradstreet combined their efforts to develop the UNSPSC ontology which provides terminology for products and services (www.unspsc.org). An ontology defines a common vocabulary for researchers who need to share information in a domain. It includes machine-interpretable definitions of basic concepts in the domain and relations among them. Why would someone want to develop an ontology? Some of the reasons are:

/pdf/ontology-development-101-a-guide-to-creating-your-first-2c6x0j449d.pdf

Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology

BIOE 402. Medical Technology Assessment. 2 or 3 hours. Bioentrepreneur course. Assessment of medical technology in the context of commercialization. Objectives, competition, market share, funding, pricing, manufacturing, growth, and intellectual property; many issues unique to biomedical products. Course Information: 2 undergraduate hours. 3 graduate hours. Prerequisite(s): Junior standing or above and consent of the instructor.

“Bioinformatics” 특집을 내면서

We present YAGO, a light-weight and extensible ontology with high coverage and quality. YAGO builds on entities and relations and currently contains more than 1 million entities and 5 million facts. This includes the Is-A hierarchy as well as non-taxonomic relations between entities (such as HASONEPRIZE). The facts have been automatically extracted from Wikipedia and unified with WordNet, using a carefully designed combination of rule-based and heuristic methods described in this paper. The resulting knowledge base is a major step beyond WordNet: in quality by adding knowledge about individuals like persons, organizations, products, etc. with their semantic relationships - and in quantity by increasing the number of facts by more than an order of magnitude. Our empirical evaluation of fact correctness shows an accuracy of about 95%. YAGO is based on a logically clean model, which is decidable, extensible, and compatible with RDFS. Finally, we show how YAGO can be further extended by state-of-the-art information extraction techniques.

/pdf/yago-a-core-of-semantic-knowledge-13k3nmj6l2.pdf

Yago: a core of semantic knowledge

The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF documents. The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2, and should be read before other OWL 2 documents. This document describes the conditions that OWL 2 tools must satisfy in order to be conformant with the language specification. It also pr esents a common format for OWL 2 test cases that both illustrate the features of the language and can be used for testing conformance.

/pdf/owl-2-web-ontology-language-conformance-second-edition-4iytfh2wbq.pdf

OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance (Second Edition)

State-of-the-art ontology languages are often not sufficiently expressive to accurately represent domains consisting of objects connected in a complex way. As a possible remedy, in our previous work we have proposed an extension of ontology languages with description graphs. In this paper, we extend this formalism by allowing for multiple graphs that can be combined in complex ways, thus obtaining a powerful language for modeling structured objects. By imposing a particular acyclicity restriction on the relationships between the graphs, we ensure that checking satisfiability of knowledge bases expressed in our language is decidable. We also present a practical reasoning algorithm.

/pdf/representing-structured-objects-using-description-graphs-2r2uu0s002.pdf

Representing structured objects using description graphs

Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Reasoning Web: semantic technologies for intelligent data access

Description Logics (DLs) are a family of knowledge representation formalisms mainly characterised by constructors to build complex concepts and roles from atomic ones. Expressive role constructors are important in many applications, but can be computationally problematical. We present an algorithm that decides satisfiability of the DL ALC extended with transitive and inverse roles, role hierarchies, and qualifying number restrictions. Early experiments indicate that this algorithm is well-suited for implementation. Additionally, we show that ALC extended with just transitive and inverse roles is still in PSPACE. Finally, we investigate the limits of decidability for this family of DLs.

Practical Reasoning for Expressive Description Logics

This paper describes the logic ALCHR+ , which extends ALCR+ with a primitive role hierarchy, and presents an appropriate extension to the ALCR+ satisfiability testing algorithm. ALCHR+ is of interest because it provides useful additional expressive power and, although its satisfiability problem is Exptimecomplete, the algorithm is relatively simple and is amenable to optimisation.

/pdf/description-logics-with-transitive-roles-1imuo7idhb.pdf

Ian Horrocks

Papers

OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance (Second Edition)

Representing structured objects using description graphs

Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Reasoning Web: semantic technologies for intelligent data access

Practical Reasoning for Expressive Description Logics

Description Logics with Transitive Roles