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

f-SWRL: A Fuzzy Extension of SWRL

Ontology-based data access (OBDA) is a popular approach for integrating and querying multiple data sources by means of an ontology, which is usually expressed in a description logic (DL) of DL-Lite family. The conventional semantics of OBDA and DLs is set-based—that is, duplicates are disregarded. This disagrees with the standard database bag (multiset) semantics, which is especially important for the correct evaluation of aggregate queries. In this article, we study two variants of bag semantics for query answering over $\textit{DL-Lite} _{\mathcal{F}}$, extending basic $\textit{DL-Lite} _{\textit{core}}$ with functional roles. For our first semantics, which follows the semantics of primary keys in SQL, conjunctive query (CQ) answering is coNP-hard in data complexity in general, but it is in TC$^0$ for the restricted class of rooted CQs; such CQs are also rewritable to the bag relational algebra. For our second semantics, the results are the same except that TC$^0$ membership and rewritability hold only for the restricted class of ontologies identified by a new notion of functional weak acyclicity.

Bag Semantics of DL-Lite with Functionality Axioms

Deciding $\mathcal{SHOQ}^\cap$ Knowledge Base Consistency using Alternating Automata

Since achieving W3C recommendation status in 2004, the Web Ontology Language (OWL) has been successfully applied to many problems in computer science. Practical experience with OWL has been quite positive in general; however, it has also revealed room for improvement in several areas. We systematically analyze the identied short-comings of OWL, such as expressivity issues, problems with its syntaxes, and deficiencies in the definition of OWL species. Furthermore, we present an overview of OWL 2 -- an extension to and revision of OWL that is currently being developed within the W3C OWL Working Group. Many aspects of OWL have been thoroughly reengineered in OWL 2, thus producing a robust platform for future development of the language.

OWL2: The Next Step for OWL

Analytical workflows are heavily used in large and data intensive companies. An important application of such workflows in Siemens is equipment analytics when equipment KPIs and reports are computed by aggregating equipment’s operational, master, and analytical data. In Siemens this data satisfies big data dimensions and this dependence poses significant challenges in authoring, reuse, and maintenance of analytical workflows by engineers and data scientists. In this work we propose to address these problems by relying on semantic technologies: we use ontologies to give a high level representation of equipment’s operational and master data and offer a high level language to express KPIs over ontologies. We implemented our approach, integrated it with KNIME, and evaluated at Siemens. This is a preliminary work and we are excited about its further extensions.

Ian Horrocks

Papers

f-SWRL: A Fuzzy Extension of SWRL

Bag Semantics of DL-Lite with Functionality Axioms

Deciding $\mathcal{SHOQ}^\cap$ Knowledge Base Consistency using Alternating Automata

OWL2: The Next Step for OWL

Towards Simplification of Analytical Workflows With Semantics at Siemens (Extended Abstract)