Biological taxonomy and ontology development: scope and limitations

The prospects of integrating full-blown biological taxonomies into an ontological reasoning framework are reviewed. We contrast the common usage of a static 'snapshot' hierarchy in ontological representations of taxonomy with a more realistic situation that involves dynamic, piece-meal revisions of particular taxonomic groups and requires alignment with relevant preceding perspectives. Taxonomic practice is characterized by a range of phenomena that are orthogonal to the logical semantic background from which ontological entities and relationships originate, and therefore pose special challenges to ontological representation and reasoning. Among these phenomena are: (1) the notion that there is a single phylogenetic hierarchy in nature which taxonomy can only gradually approximate; (2) the evolvability of taxa which means that taxon-defining features may be lost in subordinate members or independently gained across multiple sections of the tree of life; (3) the hybrid approach of defining taxa both in reference to properties (intensional) and members (ostensive) which undermines the individual/class dichotomy sustaining conventional ontologies; (4) the idiosyncratic yet inferentially valuable usage of Linnaean ranks; (5) the indelible and semantically complex 250-year legacy of nomenclatural and taxonomic changes that characterizes the current system; (6) the insufficient taxonomic exploration of large portions of the tree of life; and the need to use a sophisticated terminology for aligning taxonomic entities in order to integrate both (7) single and (8) multiple hierarchies. We briefly such how such integration may proceed based on an initial expert alignment of concept relationship and subsequent use of first-order logic algorithms to maximize consistency, reveal implied relationships, and ultimately merge taxonomies.
 In light of the aforementioned obstacles, we suggest that research along the taxonomy/ontology interface should focus on either strictly nomenclatural entities or specialize in ontology-driven methods for producing alignments between multiple taxonomies. We furthermore suggest that the prospects of developing successful ontologies for taxonomy will largely depend on the ability of the taxonomic expert community to present their phylogenies and classifications in a way that is more compatible with ontological reasoning than concurrent practice. Minimally, this means (1) adopting rigorous standards for linking new core taxonomies to relevant peripheral taxonomies through comprehensive alignments so that their ontological/taxonomic connections are transparent; (2) using lineage-specific ontological standards for phenotype-based accounts of taxa while taking into account the phylogenetic contextuality of phenotypic descriptors; (3) presenting all nomenclatural and taxonomic novelties in an explicit, ontology-compatible format, including intensional and ostensive definitions; and (4) offering comprehensive intensional/ostensive alignments to entities in relevant preceding taxonomies

Improving Model Finding for Integrated Quantitative-qualitative Spatial Reasoning With First-order Logic Ontologies

Many spatial standards are developed to harmonize the semantics and specifications of GIS data and for sophisticated reasoning. All these standards include some types of simple and complex geometric features, and some of them incorporate simple mereotopological relations. But the relations as used in these standards, only allow the extraction of qualitative information from geometric data and lack formal semantics that link geometric representations with mereotopological or other qualitative relations. This impedes integrated reasoning over qualitative data obtained from geometric sources and “native” topological information – for example as provided from textual sources where precise locations or spatial extents are unknown or unknowable. To address this issue, the first contribution in this dissertation is a first-order logical ontology that treats geometric features (e.g. polylines, polygons) and relations between them as specializations of more general types of features (e.g. any kind of 2D or 1D features) and mereotopological relations between them. Key to this endeavor is the use of a multidimensional theory of space wherein, unlike traditional logical theories of mereotopology (like RCC), spatial entities of different dimensions can co-exist and be related. However terminating or tractable reasoning with such an expressive ontology and potentially large amounts of data is a challenging AI problem. Model finding tools used to verify FOL ontologies with data usually employ a SAT solver to determine the satisfiability of the propositional instantiations (SAT problems) of the ontology. These solvers often experience scalability issues with increasing number of objects and size and complexity of the ontology, limiting its use to ontologies with small signatures and building small models with less than 20 objects. To investigate how an ontology influences the size of its SAT translation and consequently the model finder’s performance, we develop a formalization of FOL ontologies with data. We theoretically identify parameters of an ontology that significantly contribute to the dramatic growth in size of the SAT problem. The search space of the SAT problem is exponential in the signature of the ontology (the number of predicates in the axiomatization and any additional predicates from skolemization) and the number of distinct objects in the model. Axiomatizations that contain many definitions lead to large number of SAT propositional clauses. This is from the conversion of biconditionals to clausal form. We therefore postulate that optional definitions are ideal sentences that can be eliminated from an ontology to boost model finder’s performance. We then formalize optional definition elimination (ODE) as an FOL ontology preprocessing step and test the simplification on a set of spatial benchmark problems to generate smaller SAT problems (with fewer clauses and variables) without changing the satisfiability and semantic meaning of the problem. We experimentally demonstrate that the reduction in SAT problem size also leads to improved model finding with state-of-the-art model finders, with speedups of 10-99%. Altogether, this dissertation improves spatial reasoning capabilities using FOL ontologies – in terms of a formal framework for integrated qualitative-geometric reasoning, and specific ontology preprocessing steps that can be built into automated reasoners to achieve better speedups in model finding times, and scalability with moderately-sized datasets

RORS: Enhanced Rule-based OWL Reasoning on Spark

The rule-based OWL reasoning is to compute the deductive closure of an ontology by applying RDF/RDFS and OWL entailment rules. The performance of the rule-based OWL reasoning is often sensitive to the rule execution order. In this paper, we present an approach to enhancing the performance of the rule-based OWL reasoning on Spark based on a locally optimal executable strategy. Firstly, we divide all rules (27 in total) into four main classes, namely, SPO rules (5 rules), type rules (7 rules), sameAs rules (7 rules), and schema rules (8 rules) since, as we investigated, those triples corresponding to the first three classes of rules are overwhelming (e.g., over 99% in the LUBM dataset) in our practical world. Secondly, based on the interdependence among those entailment rules in each class, we pick out an optimal rule executable order of each class and then combine them into a new rule execution order of all rules. Finally, we implement the new rule execution order on Spark in a prototype called RORS. The experimental results show that the running time of RORS is improved by about 30% as compared to Kim & Park's algorithm (2015) using the LUBM200 (27.6 million triples).Comment: 12 page