Reasoning about taxonomies and articulations

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Reasoning about taxonomies and articulations

Full text

Pdf (822 KB)

Source

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 326 archive
Proceedings of the 2008 EDBT Ph.D. workshop table of contents

Nantes, France

SESSION: Data streams/scientific workflow/ontologies table of contents

Pages 11-19

Year of Publication: 2008

ISBN:978-1-59593-968-5

Author

David Thau

University of California at Davis, Davis, California

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 7, Downloads (12 Months): 50, Citation Count: 1

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1387150.1387153 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Taxonomically organized data pervade science, business and everyday life. Unfortunately, taxonomies are often underspecified, limiting their utility in contexts such as data integration, information navigation and autonomous agent communication. This work formalizes taxonomies and relationships between them as formulas in logic. This formalization concretizes notions such as consistency and inconsistency of taxonomies and articulations (inter-taxonomic relations) between them, enables the derivation of new articulations based on a given set of taxonomies and articulations and provides a framework for testing assumptions about underspecified taxonomies.

Given the typical intractability of reasoning with taxonomies and articulations, this research investigates many optimizations: from those that reduce the search space, to those that leverage parallel processing, to those investigating logics more tractable than first-order logic (e.g., monadic first-order logic, propositional logic, description logics, and subsets of the RCC-5 spatial algebra). Finally, in addition to reasoning with taxonomies and articulations, this research investigates how to repair inconsistent taxonomies and articulations, how to explain inconsistencies and discovered relations, and how to merge taxonomies given articulations. Critical to this research is the development of a framework for testing logics and support for the development of taxonomies and articulations. This framework, CleanTax is already well under way and has been used to study articulations between two large-scale biological taxonomies.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	The taxonomic concept schema. http://tdwg.napier.ac.uk/, February 2008.
	2	The taxonomic data working group. http://www.tdwg.org/, February 2008.
	3	L. Bachmair, H. Ganzinger, and U. Waldmann. Set constraints are the monadic class. In Logic in Computer Science, pages 75--83, 1993.
	4	J. H. Beach, S. Pramanik, and J. H. Beaman. Hierarchic taxonomic databases. In R. Fortuner, editor, Advances in Computer Methods for Systematic Biology: Artificial Intelligence, Databases, Computer Vision, chapter 15, pages 241--256. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1993.
	5	B. Bennett. Spatial Reasoning with Propositional Logics. In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso, editors, KR'94: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 51--62. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California, 1994.
	6	L. D. Benson. A treatise on the north american ranunculi. American Midland Naturalist, 40:1--261, 1948.
	7	W. G. Berendsohn. The concept of "potential taxa" in databases. Taxon, 44:207--212, 1995.
	8	W. G. Berendsohn. MoReTax -- Handling Factual Information Linked to Taxonomic Concepts in Biology. Number 39 in Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2003.
	9	R. J. Brachman, What IS-A Is and Isn't: An Analysis of Taxonomic Links in Semantic Networks, Computer, v.16 n.10, p.30-36, October 1983 [doi>10.1109/MC.1983.1654194]
	10	P. D. Cantino and K. de Queiroz. Phylocode: a phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. 2006.
	11	Hong-Hai Do , Erhard Rahm, COMA: a system for flexible combination of schema matching approaches, Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Very Large Data Bases, p.610-621, August 20-23, 2002, Hong Kong, China
	12	Bernhard Ganter , C. Franzke , Rudolf Wille, Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, 1997
	13	M. Geoffroy and A. Güntsch. Assembling and navigating the potential taxon graph. {8}, pages 71--82.
	14	F. Giunchiglia, M. Yatskevich, and P. Shvaiko. Semantic matching: Algorithms and implementation. J. Data Semantics, 9:1--38, 2007.
	15	Yannis Kalfoglou , Marco Schorlemmer, Ontology mapping: the state of the art, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.18 n.1, p.1-31, January 2003 [doi>10.1017/S0269888903000651]
	16	J. T. Kartesz. Synthesis of north american flora. BONAP, North Carolina Botanical Garden, 2004.
	17	J. Kennedy, R. Kukla, and T. Paterson. Scientific names are ambiguous as identifiers for biological taxa: Their context and definition are required for accurate data integration. In 2nd Intl. Workshop on Data Integration in the Life Sciences (DILS), LNCS 3615, pages 80--95, July 2005.
	18	W. McCune. Prover9 Manual. Argonne National Laboratory.
	19	W. McCune. Mace4 reference manual and guide. Technical Report ANL/MCS-TM-264, Argonne National Laboratory, August 2003.
	20	D. L. McGuinness. Ontologies come of age. In D. Fensel, J. A. Hendler, H. Lieberman, and W. Wahlster, editors, Spinning the Semantic Web, pages 171--194. MIT Press, 2003.
	21	Renée J. Miller , Mauricio A. Hernández , Laura M. Haas , Lingling Yan , C. T. Howard Ho , Ronald Fagin , Lucian Popa, The Clio project: managing heterogeneity, ACM SIGMOD Record, v.30 n.1, p.78-83, March 2001 [doi>10.1145/373626.373713]
	22	Natalya F. Noy , Mark A. Musen, The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.59 n.6, p.983-1024, December 2003 [doi>10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.08.002]
	23	R. K. Peet. Ranunculus data set. June 2005.
	24	Erhard Rahm , Philip A. Bernstein, A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching, The VLDB Journal — The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases, v.10 n.4, p.334-350, December 2001 [doi>10.1007/s007780100057]
	25	D. A. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. Cohn. A Spatial Logic Based on Regions and Connection. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, and W. Swartout, editors, KR'92. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, pages 165--176. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1992.
	26	Jochen Renz , Bernhard Nebel, On the complexity of qualitative spatial reasoning: a maximal tractable fragment of the region connection calculus, Artificial Intelligence, v.108 n.1-2, p.69-123, March 1999 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00002-8]
	27	L. Serafini and A. Tamilin. Drago: Distributed reasoning architecture for the semantic web. In A. Gómez-Pérez and J. Euzenat, editors, ESWC, volume 3532 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 361--376. Springer, 2005.
	28	Jérôme Euzenat , Pavel Shvaiko, Ontology Matching, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, 2007
	29	H. Stuckenschmidt, L. Serafini, and H. Wache. Reasoning about ontology mappings. Technical report, ITC-IRST, Trento, 2005.
	30	G. Stumme and A. Maedche. FCA-MERGE: Bottom-Up Merging of Ontologies. In Proc. of the 17^th International Joint Conference on Artificial, pages 225--234, 2001.
	31	D. Thau and B. Ludascher. Reasoning about taxonomies in first-order logic. Ecological Informatics, 2(3):195--209, Oct 2007.
	32	M. Wessel. On spatial reasoning with description logics-position paper. In I. Horrocks and S. Tessaris, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop in Description Logics, pages 156--163, Touluse, France, April 2002. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.