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

HermiT is the only reasoner we know of that fully supports the OWL 2 standard, and that correctly reasons about properties as well as classes. It is based on a novel "hypertableau" calculus that addresses performance problems due to nondeterminism and model size-the primary sources of complexity in state-of-the-art OWL reasoners. HermiT also incorporates a number of novel optimizations, including an optimized ontology classification procedure. Our tests show that HermiT performs well compared to existing tableau reasoners and is often much faster when classifying complex ontologies.

/pdf/the-hermit-owl-reasoner-1wgoufxrba.pdf

The HermiT OWL Reasoner.

Reasoning Web: Logical Foundation of Knowledge Graph Construction and Query Answering

Rewriting is widely used to optimise owl:sameAs reasoning in materialisation based OWL 2 RL systems. We investigate issues related to both the correctness and efficiency of rewriting, and present an algorithm that guarantees correctness, improves efficiency, and can be effectively parallelised. Our evaluation shows that our approach can reduce reasoning times on practical data sets by orders of magnitude.

/pdf/handling-owl-sameas-via-rewriting-3czbhxs1fh.pdf

Handling owl:sameAs via rewriting

The usefulness and usability of knowledge bases (KBs) is often limited by quality issues. One common issue is the presence of erroneous assertions, often caused by lexical or semantic confusion. We study the problem of correcting such assertions, and present a general correction framework which combines lexical matching, semantic embedding, soft constraint mining and semantic consistency checking. The framework is evaluated using DBpedia and an enterprise medical KB.

/pdf/correcting-knowledge-base-assertions-htwm3cnn70.pdf

Correcting Knowledge Base Assertions

Combined approaches have become a successful technique for CQ answering over ontologies. Existing algorithms, however, are restricted to the logics underpinning the OWL 2 profiles. Our goal is to make combined approaches applicable to a wider range of ontologies. We focus on RSA: a class of Horn ontologies that extends the profiles while ensuring tractability of standard reasoning. We show that CQ answering over RSA ontologies without role composition is feasible in NP. Our reasoning procedure generalises the combined approach for ELHO and DL-LiteR using an encoding of CQ answering into fact entailment w.r.t. a logic program with function symbols and stratified negation. Our results have significant practical implications since many out-of-profile Horn ontologies are RSA.

/pdf/the-combined-approach-to-query-answering-beyond-the-owl-2-56dw6xnuae.pdf

Ian Horrocks

Papers

The HermiT OWL Reasoner.

Reasoning Web: Logical Foundation of Knowledge Graph Construction and Query Answering

Handling owl:sameAs via rewriting

Correcting Knowledge Base Assertions

The combined approach to query answering beyond the OWL 2 profiles