How to solve it by knowledge mining

Frequently we become amazed with the increasing number of problems to be solved that fiourish while facing daily activities. Often, related to these problems we llave also an incredible amount oí data. Since we cannot allways afford time and resources to sol ve them, we keep on gathering and storing data in large databases, widening the gap between raw and interpreted data. At this point we should refiect about Polya's maxima "A great discovery solves a great problem" and realize that databases encompass the knowledge necessary for guiding the decision making process. The question that remains is how to organize and explore this knowledge. This paper presents sorne approaches to knowledge discovery in databases íound in the literature, analyzing issues in classifying and clustering large data sets.Eje: 2do. Workshop sobre aspectos teóricos de la inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Methodology for integration of fisher's ecological knowledge in fisheries biology and management using knowledge representation (artificial intelligence)

Presentado na International Conference "Putting Fisher's Knowledge to Work", Vancouver, Canadá, 27-30 agosto de 2001[abstract] The fisheries crisis of the last decades and the overexploitation of a great number of stocks (FAO 1995) have been due mainly to the inadequacy of scientific knowledge, uncertainties in assessments and/or failures of the management systems. These problems are critical when the management of coastal ecosystems and artisanal fisheries is involved. These systems possess great complexity due to the high number of human factors that influence their functioning and the fishing activity. Small-scale coastal fisheries have a much greater social significance than offshore industrial fisheries, despite the larger economical importance of the latter (only in macro-economic terms). The artisanal coastal fisheries in Galicia (NW Spain) are in a general state of overexploitation derived from the mismatch between management (derived implicitly from models designed for industrial finfisheries) and the biological and socioeconomic context. Freire and García-Allut (2000) proposed a new management policy (based on the establishment of territorial users’ rights, the involvement of fishers in the assessment and management process in collaboration with the government agencies, and the use of protected areas and minimum landing sizes as key regulations) to solve the above problems. As well as a new management system, research should pay special attention to the design and use of inexpensive and rapid methodologies to get relevant scientific data, and introduce local or traditional ecological knowledge of the fishers to the assessment and management process. In this paper, we analyze the values and characteristics of fishers’ ecological knowledge (FEK). Using the artisanal coastal fisheries of Galicia as a case study, we present the objectives of the integration of FEK in fisheries biology and management and propose a methodology for that goal. The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool for the analysis and integration of FEK is discussed, and the role of Knowledge Representation, a branch of AI, is described to show the epistemological and technological adequacy of the chosen languages and tools in a non-computer science foru

How to solve it by knowledge mining

Frequently we become amazed with the increasing number of problems to be solved that fiourish while facing daily activities. Often, related to these problems we llave also an incredible amount oí data. Since we cannot allways afford time and resources to sol ve them, we keep on gathering and storing data in large databases, widening the gap between raw and interpreted data. At this point we should refiect about Polya's maxima "A great discovery solves a great problem" and realize that databases encompass the knowledge necessary for guiding the decision making process. The question that remains is how to organize and explore this knowledge. This paper presents sorne approaches to knowledge discovery in databases íound in the literature, analyzing issues in classifying and clustering large data sets.Eje: 2do. Workshop sobre aspectos teóricos de la inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

The use of ontologies for effective knowledge modelling and information retrieval

© 2017 The dramatic increase in the use of knowledge discovery applications requires end users to write complex database search requests to retrieve information. Such users are not only expected to grasp the structural complexity of complex databases but also the semantic relationships between data stored in databases. In order to overcome such difficulties, researchers have been focusing on knowledge representation and interactive query generation through ontologies, with particular emphasis on improving the interface between data and search requests in order to bring the result sets closer to users research requirements. This paper discusses ontology-based information retrieval approaches and techniques by taking into consideration the aspects of ontology modelling, processing and the translation of ontological knowledge into database search requests. It also extensively compares the existing ontology-to-database transformation and mapping approaches in terms of loss of data and semantics, structural mapping and domain knowledge applicability. The research outcomes, recommendations and future challenges presented in this paper can bridge the gap between ontology and relational models to generate precise search requests using ontologies. Moreover, the comparison presented between various ontology-based information retrieval, database-to-ontology transformations and ontology-to-database mappings approaches provides a reference for enhancing the searching capabilities of massively loaded information management systems

Representação aberta e semântica de anotações de incidentes em mapas web

Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro Tecnológico, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Computação, Florianópolis, 2013.É crescente o número de ferramentas Web que adotam crowdsourcing, via anotações colaborativas em mapas, como modelo de resolução de problemas e produção de dados. Nestas iniciativas, grandes grupos de usuários podem anotar, colaborativamente, coisas espaciais em um mapa, como lugares e/ou incidentes relacionados à segurança, saúde e transporte. Idealmente, estas iniciativas deveriam produzir dados abertos interligados (LOD - Linked Open Data), de forma a permitir que as pessoas ou sistemas possam compartilhar as anotações e o conhecimento gerado na forma de dados estruturados e, consequentemente, melhorar o mapeamento e a resolução de incidentes. Este trabalho propõe uma abordagem de produção de anotações abertas e semânticas de incidentes em mapas. Nesta abordagem, as anotações são representadas usando o modelo de dados proposto pelo W3C Open Annotation e adota como alvo das anotações coordenadas geoespaciais referenciadas por meio do URI geo. Além disso, foram combinadas às anotações em mapas Web tecnologias da Web Semântica, com o intuito de enriquecer os mapas com informações semânticas. Para demonstrar a viabilidade da abordagem proposta, são desenvolvidos dois protótipos que utilizam a abordagem proposta, de forma a permitir a representação aberta e semântica de anotações, associadas a coordenadas geoespaciais.Abstract : There is an increasing number of initiatives using Web-based mapping systems that rely on crowdsourcing as a collaborative problem-solving and data production model. In these initiatives, large groups of users can collaboratively annotate spatial things on a map, such as places or incidents related to security, health and transportation. Ideally, these crowdsourcing initiatives should produce Linked Open Data (LOD) to enable people or systems to share the annotations and the generated knowledge as structured data and, consequently, improve mapping and resolution of incidents. This work presents an approach for producing open and semantic annotations of incidents on maps. In this approach, annotations are represented using the W3C Open Annotation data model and adopts geospatial coordinates referenced using the geo URI as the annotation target. Moreover, it is combined some semantic Web technologies with crowdsourced map annotations, in a way that it enriches maps with semantic information. To demonstrate the feasibility of our approach,two prototypes using the proposed approach are developed, in order to allow the open and semantic representation of annotations associated with geospatial coordinates

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini\u27s opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom\u27s incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications