Electronic Business: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (4-Volumes) P239 ppt

2314 A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business IUDPH ZH VHOHFW WKH ³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´ DQG LQWKH³&KLOGRUJUDQGFKLOG2QWRORJLHV´IUDPH ZHLQSXWWKHRQWRORJ\QDPH³6WXGHQW´DQGWKH QDPHVSDFH ³VWX´ IRU WKLV 6WXGHQWB2QWRORJ\ :KHQFOLFNLQJWKH³,QKHULWDQFH´EXWWRQDVLPSOH Student_Ontology is automatically created which ZLOOEHVKRZQLQWKHULJKW³&RGHV´IUDPH,QDG- GLWLRQDVZHVHOHFWWKH³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´LQWKH ³3DUHQW 2QWRORJLHV´IUDPH DOO WKH FRQFHSWV RI ³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´ZLOOEHOLVWHGLQWKH³6HOHFW &RQFHSWV´FRPERLQWKH³3DUHQW2QWRORJLHV´ IUDPHVRPHFRQFHSWVRI³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´ DUHGH¿QHGLQ)LJXUHWKHQZHFDQVHOHFWRQH FRQFHSWDQGE\FOLFNLQJWKH³%ORFN´EXWWRQD certain concept of the parent ontology is blocked in the child ontology. Also, after selecting a con- cept from the parent ontology and clicking the ³0XWDWLRQ´EXWWRQZHFDQLQGLFDWHWKDWFHUWDLQ concept of the parent ontology is mutated in the FKLOGRQWRORJ\)URPWKHULJKW³&RGHV´IUDPHRI )LJXUHZHFDQVHHWKDW³RI¿FHBSKRQH´LVEORFNHG E\6W XGHQWB2QWRO R J \ D Q G ³FRQ W D F W B Q R´LV P X W D W H G  LQ6WXGHQWB2QWRORJ\,IZHFOLFNWKH³6DYH´EXW- ton, the new Student_Ontology will be saved in D¿OHEXWLIWKHUHDUHSUREOHPVZHFDQUROOEDFN 10 steps. When a new ontology is created, it will EHDXWRPDW LFDOO\O LVW HGLQWKH³6HOH FW2 QWRORJ LH V´ F R PER V RI³ * U D Q G S D U H Q W 2 QW RO RJ L H V´ D Q G ³ 3 D U H QW Ontologies” frames. Similarly, we can use the atavism operation to indicate that some concepts of the grandparent ontology are atavismed in the grandchild ontology or in the offspring ontolo- gies of the grandchild ontologies. Note that the ³JPRH´LQ)LJXUHLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHRSHUDWLRQV L Q W K H ³ 2 Q W RO RJ \ / D Q J X D J H 2 U J D Q L ] D W L RQ´ V H FW LRQ  are a genetic model. This tool is a prototype to indicate that the inheritance, block, atavism, and mutation opera- tions really work in organize ontology language and ontologies. This prototype tool can be further improved for commercial use. Next we summarize the guidelines of how to organize information in ontologies, that is, different information should be put at different hierarchies of ontologies. The general concepts in a domain should be put in the highest level ontologies, for example, O1 in Figure 8. Here O represents Ontologies. If VRPHFRQFHSWVDUHVSHFL¿FWKH\VKRXOGEHSXWLQ the lower level ontologies, for example, O2 and Figure 7. A graphical tool for ontology language and ontology organization 2315 A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business O3 in Figure 8. When some concepts are more VSHFL¿FWKH\VKRXOGEHSXWLQHYHQORZHURQWROR- gies, for example, O4-O9 in Figure 8. Figure 8 shows the hierarchy of ontologies. We allow multiple inheritance in ontology organizations, for ex ample , O6 i n herits b ot h O2 an d O3. In pra ct ice, the hierarchies can be more than three levels. The hierarchy of ontologies is similar to the hierarchy of ontology languages. However, because the concepts in ontologies will change (add in, move out, and update), next we mainly GLVFXVVKRZWRUHVROYHWKHFRQÀLFWVLQRQWRORJ\ organizations. 5HVROYH&RQÀLFWVLQOntology Organization Kalfoglou and Schorlemmer (2003) survey the related works on ontology mapping and indicate WKDWPRVWRIWKHSUHYLRXVZRUNVDUHDERXW¿QGLQJ the similarities and differences among ontolo- gies, then the ontologies can be accessed from a common layer. There are no related works on UHVROYLQJWKHFRQÀLFWVLQGHVLJQRQWRORJLHV+HUH ZHGLVFXVVVRPHWHFKQLTXHVWRUHVROYHFRQÀLFWV in designing ontologies with hierarchies. When designing ontologies with hierarchies, it is important to keep the ontologies consistent. $ FRQFHSW LV VSHFL¿HG LQ DQ RQWRORJ\ LI LW LV HLWKHU GH¿QHG RUUHGH¿QHG IRUWKHRQWRORJ\ $ UHGH¿QHG FRQFHSW RYHUORDGV D VLPLODU FRQFHSW in some ancestor ontologies. Figure 9 shows the hierarchies of ontologies. The O in Figure 9 represents ontologies which are displayed as rounded rectangles, and the C in Figure 9 rep- UHVHQWVFRQFHSWVGH¿QHGLQRQWRORJLHVZKLFKDUH displayed as parallelograms. In this section, we discuss how to resolve the FRQÀLFWV$QLQKHULWHGFRQFHSWLVZHOOGH¿QHGLI LWLVVSHFL¿HGLQRQHDQGRQO\RQHDQFHVWRURQWRO- RJ\SRVVLEO\LQGLUHFW$FRQÀLFWVLWXDWLRQH[LVWV ZKHQDQLQKHULWHG FRQFHSWLV QRWZHOO GH¿QHG that is, two or more ancestor ontologies specify the same concept. For example, from Figure 9, we can see that concept C1 of ontology O2 LV UHGH¿QHG LQ RQWRORJLHV2 2DQG 2 & FRQWULEXWHVWRDFRQÀLFWVLWXDWLRQLQ2EXW& LVZHOOGH¿QHGLQ2 We have the following methods to solve the FRQÀLFWSUREOHP  5HGH¿QLQJRURYHUULGLQJ Figure 8. Architecture of building ontology systems O1 O2 O4 O3 O5 O7 O8 O9 … … O6 … 2316 A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business The C2 in O9 and O2 in Figure 9 have the VDPHQDPHWKXVLWPD\EHDFRQÀLFW+RZHYHU LI&LQ2LVGH¿QHGWRRYHUULGHWKH&LQ2 DQGUHGH¿QHG &ZLWKGLIIHUHQWPHDQLQJWKHQ WKHUHDUHQRFRQÀLFWV 2. Explicitly selecting or renaming We use an example to show how to use explic- LWO\VHOHFWLQJRUUHQDPLQJWRVROYHFRQÀLFWV Example 9. If the two C4 in O3 and O1 of Figure 9 have the different semantics, there will EHDFRQÀLFWLQ27RVROYHWKLVFRQ ÀLFWZHKDYH WZRRSWLRQV7KH¿UVWRSWLRQKDVWKHRQWRORJ\ designer explicitly mention that the C4 in O9 is inherited from the C4 in O3. However, explicitly selecting has a problem, that is, some informa- tion will be lost. If O9 explicitly mentions that O9 uses the C4 in O3, the information of the C4 in O1 can not be inherited by O9, which is a loss of information. The second option to process this FRQÀLFWLVUHQDPHWKH&LQHLWKHU2RU2RU both; in this way, all the information can be kept without lost. 3. Redesigning the organizations of ontologies (e.g. factoring) We use the ontology hierarchies shown in )LJXUH  WR LQWURGXFH WKLV FRQÀLFW UHVROYLQJ approach. The two Cs in ontologies O2 and O3 have the same semantics, and they have the same name. Obviously, there will be confusion when O4 inherits C from O2 and O3. In ontology design, the semantics of each concept in the ontology should be clear without any ambiguities because the concepts are shared by the Semantic Web or e-business applications for semantic information processing. 7RSURFHVVWKLVFRQÀLFWWKHUHDUHWZRFDVHV to consider. 1. If O1= O2  O3, Figure 11. shows that we can factor C to the parent ontology of Q2 and O3, that is, O1. In this way, O4 inherits concept C from a single ancestor ontology, WKHUHIRUHWKHUHDUHQRFRQÀLFWV 2. If O1  O2  O3, then we create ontology O5 such that O5 = O2  O3, and factor C to )LJXUH&RQÀLFWVLQRQWRORJ\GHVLJQ O5 O6 O9 O3 C1 O7 O8 C1 C1 C2 C1 C3 C2 C 4 O2 O1 O4 C4 2317 A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business O5. Figure 12 shows this approach. In this ZD\WKHFRQÀLFWFDQEHUHVROYHGDQGWKH& is at an appropriate level. $OJRULWKPWR5HVROYH&RQÀLFWV )LJXUHVKRZVWKHDOJRULWKPWRUHVROYHFRQÀLFWV which is a formal summary of the cases in the ³5HVROYH &RQÀLFWV LQ 2QWRORJ\ 2UJDQL]DWLRQ´ section. :LWK WKHVH FRQÀLFW SURFHVVLQJ DSSURDFKHV when inserting concepts into or deleting concepts from ontologies, we should be careful to make WKHRQWRORJLHVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKRXWFRQÀLFWV/LQJ & Teo, 1993). SEMANTIC INFORMATION PROCESSING IN THE SEMANTIC WEB AND E-BUSINESS The present Web exists in the HTML and XML formats for persons to browse. Recently there is a trend towards the Semantic Web where the Figure 11. Factor to parent ontology O1 C1 O2 O3 O4 )LJXUH5HVROYHFRQÀLFWVE\UHGHVLJQLQJWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQVRIRQWRORJLHV O1 C O2 O3 O4 C Figure 12. Factor to an intermediate level of ontology O5 C1 O2 O3 O1 O4 2318 A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business information can be processed and understood by a computer. The present e-business also requires that the semantic information can be automati- cally exchanged among different agents of the e-business partners. When the concepts in different ontologies are GH¿QHGZLWKclear semantics and ZLWKRXWFRQÀLFWV, the sharing concepts in ontologies can be used to annotate the Semantic Web pages or the agents of the e-business partners. If the information in two different Semantic Web pages refers to the same concept from the same ontology, the information has the same semantics, otherwise the information is different in the two Semantic Web pages. This can be automatically recognized by the computer. It is similar for the semantic information process- ing in e-business. We use an example to show how to achieve the automatically and semantically exchange of information. )LJXUH$OJRULWKPWRUHVROYHFRQÀLFWV Given ontologies with hierarchies FOR each conflict situation in the hierarchy DO Let the conflict situation be ontologies A, B1, …, Bn (n > 1) where B1, …, Bn are the nearest ancestor ontologies of A that specify a property p. /* Note that a ancestor ontology of some Bi may itself specify a property p. */ /* Check the semantics of p in B1, …, Bn */ IF semantics of p is the same in B1, …, Bn THEN IF intersection of B1, …, Bn is empty THEN ***Design error, since ontology A (which is the intersection of B1, …, Bn) is empty ELSE ******/* same semantics (Factoring) */ IF there exists a more general ontology K which is UNION of B1, …, Bn THEN Factor p to ontology K ELSE Resolve the conflict by either: (a) creating a general ontology K that is the UNION of B1, …, Bn and factoring p to K. OR (b) Explicitly choosing one parent ontology to inherit the property. ENDIF ENDIF ELSE /* different semantics */ Let G1, G2, …, Gm be sets of mutually exclusive ontologies from B1, …, Bn such that ontologies in a group share the same semantics for p. Resolve the conflict in A by adopting one of the following: (a) redefine p in ontology A, /* not a good solution */ or (b) Rename p in Gj to, say, p_Gj for j = 1, …, m to reflect their different semantics. To conform to the unique name assumption. Each p in the schema that has the same semantics as P_Gj must be renamed to p_Gj. FOR each group Gj (j = 1, …, m) with 2 or more ontolgoies having property p_Gj DO /* An conflict situation exists between ontology A and the ontologies in Gj;*/ /* p_Gj has the same semantics in the ontologies of Gj */ Resolve the conflict in ontology A using the method described in *** and ******. ENDFOR ENDIF ENDFOR 2319 A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business Example 10. Figure 14 shows how to process the semantic information in Semantic Web and e-business applications based on the ontology KLHUDUFK\ LQWURGXFHG LQ WKH ³%XLOGLQJ 2QWRO- ogy System” section. We consider the Semantic :HESDJHV¿UVWO\6HPDQWLF:HESDJHUHIHUVWR ontologies O4, O5, and O7. Semantic Webpage2 refers to ontologies O5 and O3. If some informa- tion in Semantic Webpage1 is annotated with the concepts from O4, obviously Semantic Webpage2 has no such information corresponding to Se- mantic Webpage1, that is, Semantic Webpage1 is semantically different from Semantic Webpage2 for such information. If some information in Se- mantic Webpage1 is annotated by the concepts from O5, it is possible that Semantic Webpage1 and Semantic Webpage2 have the same seman- tic information because Semantic Webpage2 is also annotated with concepts from O5; they can exchange the semantic information. Semantic Webpage1 is annotated with the concepts from O7, Semantic Webpage2 is annotated with the concepts from O3, and we can see that O7 inherits O3. Therefore if Semantic Webpage1 is annotated ZLWKWKHFRQFHSWVQHZO\GH¿QHGLQ26HPDQWLF Webpage1 and Semantic Webpage2 do not have the same semantic information about the concepts in O7. If Semantic Webpage1 is annotated with the concepts in O7 which are inherited from O3, Semantic Webpage1 and Semantic Webpage2 may have the same semantic information about the concepts in O3. It is similar for the semantic information exchange among the e-business partners. Because we organize ontologies with hierar- FKLHVLWLVHDV\WR¿QGWKHDSSURSULDWHFRQFHSWV LQRQWRORJLHVEDVHGRQFODVVL¿FDWLRQVDQGOHYHOV to annotate the Semantic Web pages and the agents for e-business partners. Also, because of the hierarchy of ontologies, it is faster to process the semantic information, that is, it is faster to search and map the concepts in ontologies based on hierarchies; the search is only at several related (related to the semantic information in semantic Web or e-business) paths of the ontology hierarchy, but not all the paths. Figure 14. Semantic information processing in Semantic Web and e-business O1 O2 O4 O3 O5 O7 O8 O9 … … O6 Semantic Webpage1 e-Business Partner1 … … Semantic Webpage2 e-Business Partner2 2320 A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business CONCLUSION In this chapter, we discuss how to effectively organize ontology languages and ontologies and GLVFXVVKRZWRHI¿FLHQWO\SURFHVVVHPDQWLFLQIRU- mation in Semantic Web and e-business. Figure 15 shows the whole framework to organize ontology languages, ontologies, and semantic applications (Semantic Web and e-business). The primitives in ontology languages organized with hierarchies DUHXVHGWRGH¿QHRQWRORJLHVDQGWKHFRQFHSWV in ontologies organized with hierarchies are used to annotate and process semantic information in Semantic Web pages and e-business. More concretely, because we organize ontology language with hierarchies, we can automatically Figure 15. Framework to organize ontology languages, ontologies and semantic applications O1 O2 O4 O3 O5 O7 O8 O9 … … O6 Semantic Webpage1 e-Business Partner1 … … Semantic Webpage2 e-Business Partner2 RDF RDFS DAML OIL DAML+OIL OWL Semantic applications: Semantic Web and e-Business Ontology hierarchy Ontology language hierarchy 2321 A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business XVHWKHH[LVWLQJRQWRORJLHVGH¿QHGZLWKRQWRORJ\ languages DAML, OIL, and DAML+OIL. Our architecture can help to translate the existing RQWRORJLHVWR RQWRORJLHVGH¿QHGZLWKWKHODWHVW ontology language—OWL. Furthermore, we can use single namespace to refer to all the primitives from different ontology languages, and our on- tology language hierarchies can help to translate the namespace to the proper namespaces. The ontology designer need not bear in mind which ontology language the primitive exactly comes IURP :LWK WKHVH WHFKQLTXHV WKH HI¿FLHQF\ RI ontology building will be improved. We also organize ontologies with hierarchies and we discuss some techniques to process the FRQÀLFWVLQRQWRORJ\GHVLJQ&RQVLVWHQWDQG semantic clear ontologies are very important to semantic information processing. The integrated environment of ontology organizations makes the semantics in a domain clear. Based on the hierarchy of ontologies, the Web pages of Semantic Web and the agents for e-business partners can be easily annotated, and the semantic information processing can be pro- FHVVHGHI¿FLHQWO\ REFERENCES Amin, M. A., & Morbach, J. (2005). The DAML+OIL to OWL converter. Retrieved July 10, 2005, from http://www.lpt.rwth-aachen.de/ Research/OntoCAPE/daml2owl.php Bray, T., Hollander, D., & Layman, A. (1999). Namespaces in XML. World Wide Web Consor- tium. Retrieved January 14, 1999, from http:// www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/ Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., Maler, E., Yergeau, F., & Cowan, J. (2004). Extensible markup language (XML) 1.1. W3C recommendation. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml11- 20040204/ Brickley, D., & Guha, R. V. (2004). Resource description framework schema (RDFS) speci- ¿FDWLRQ. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://www.w3.org/TR/ rdf-schema/ Connolly, D., Harmelen, F. V., Horrocks, I., Mc- Guinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & Stein, L. A. (2001a). Annotated DAML+OIL ontology markup. W3C note. Retrieved December 18, 2001, from http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-walkthru/ Connolly, D., Harmelen, F. V., Horrocks, I., Mc- Guinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & Stein, L. A. (2001b, March). DAML+OIL reference descrip- tion. W3C Note. Retrieved April 11, 2001, from http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference.html G a r s h o l , L . M . , & M o o r e , G . ( 20 0 4 ). Topic maps— XML syntax. Retrieved March 16, 2004, from http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0495.htm Gil, Y., & Ratnakar, V. (2002). A comparison of (semantic) markup languages. In M. S. Haller & G. Simmons (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International FLAIRS Conference, Special Track on Semantic Web, Pensacola, FL (pp. 413-418). AAAI Press. Gomez-Perez, A., & Corcho, O. (2002). Ontol- ogy languages for the Semantic Web. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 17(1), 54- 60. Gruber, T. R. (1992). Ontolingua: A mechanism to support portable ontologies (Tech. Rep. No. KSL-91-66). Standford Knowledge Systems Laboratory. Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199-220. Harmelen, F. V., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuin- ness, D. L., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & Stein., L. A. (2004). OWL Web ontology language reference. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/ 2322 A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business Horrocks, I., Fensel, D., Broekstra, J., Decker, S., Erdmann, M., Goble, C., et al. (2001). The ontology inference layer OIL. Retrieved December 31, 2001, from http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/ Kalfoglou, Y., & Schorlemmer, M. (2003). Ontol- ogy mapping: The state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(1), 1-31. Lassila, D. O., & Swick, R. (1999). Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax VSHFL¿FDWLRQ. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved January 5, 1999, from http://www.w3.org/TR/PR- rdf-syntax/ Lee, T. B. (1999). The SemanticWeb homepage. Retrieved December 31, 1999, from http://www. semanticweb.org Lee, T. B., Fielding, R., & Masinter, L. (1998, August). 8QLIRUP UHVRXUFH LGHQWL¿HUV 85, Generic syntax. I E T F D r a f t S t a n d a r d ( R F C 2 39 6 ) . Retrieved August 31, 1998, from http://www.ietf. org/rfc/rfc2396.txt Ling, T. W., & Teo, P. K. (1993). Inheritance FRQÀLFWVLQREMHFWRULHQWHGV\VWHPV. In V. Marík, J. Lazanský, & R. Wagner (Eds.), Proceedings of Database and Expert Systems Applications (LNCS 720, pp. 189-200). Prague, Czech Repub- lic: Springer. /XNH 6+HÀLQ - $SULO  SHOE VSHFL¿FDWLRQ. Retrieved April 28, 2000, from http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/SHOE/spec. html MacGregor, R. (1991). Inside the LOOM descrip- WLRQFODVVL¿HU. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3), 88-92. Popp, B. (2000). The DARPA agent markup lan- guage homepage. Retrieved September 1, 2000, from http://daml.semanticweb.org/ This work was previously published in Semantic Web Technologies and E-Business: Toward the Integrated Virtual Organiza- tion and Business Process Automation, edited by A. Salam and J. Stevens, pp. 212-235, copyright 2007 by IGI Publishing (an imprint of IGI Global). 2323 Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Chapter 7.22 Semantic Web Standards and Ontologies in the Medical Sciences and Healthcare Sherrie D. Cannoy The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA Lakshmi Iyer The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA ABSTRACT This chapter will discuss Semantic Web stan- dards and ontologies in two areas: (1) the medi- FDOVFLHQFHV¿HOGDQGWKHKHDOWKFDUHLQGXVWU\ Semantic Web standards are important in the medical sciences since much of the medical research that is available needs an avenue to be shared across disparate computer systems. On- tologies can provide a basis for the searching of context-based medical research information so that it can be integrated and used as a foundation for future research. The healthcare industry will EHH[DPLQHGVSHFL¿FDOO\LQLWVXVHRIelectronic health records (EHR), which need Semantic Web standards to be communicated across different EHR systems. The increased use of EHRs across healthcare organizations will also require ontolo- gies to support context-sensitive searching of in- formation, as well as creating context-based rules for appointments, procedures, and tests so that the quality of healthcare is improved. Literature in these areas has been combined in this chapter to provide a general view of how Semantic Web standards and ontologies are used, and to give e x a m p l e s o f a p pl i c a t i o n s i n t h e a r e a s o f h e a l t h c a r e and the medical sciences. INTRODUCTION ³2QH RI WKH PRVW FKDOOHQJLQJ SUREOHPV LQ WKH healthcare domain is providing interoperability among healthcare systems” (Bicer, Laleci, Do- gac, & Kabak, 2005). The importance of this interoperability is to enable universal forms of knowledge representation integrate heterogeneous information, answer complex queries, and pursue . published in Semantic Web Technologies and E -Business: Toward the Integrated Virtual Organiza- tion and Business Process Automation, edited by A. Salam and J. Stevens, pp. 212-235, copyright. distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Chapter 7.22 Semantic Web Standards and Ontologies in the Medical Sciences and Healthcare Sherrie. UHVROYLQJ approach. The two Cs in ontologies O2 and O3 have the same semantics, and they have the same name. Obviously, there will be confusion when O4 inherits C from O2 and O3. In ontology design, the