|
|
|
|
|
|
The Recent Pace of Ontology Development Appears to Have WanedThe development of ontologies goes by the names of ontology engineering or ontology building, and can also be investigated under the rubric of ontology learning. This paper summarizes key papers and links to this topic [18].
For the last twenty years there have been many methods put forward for how to develop ontologies. These methodological activities have actually diminished somewhat in recent years.
The main thrust of the papers listed herein is on domain ontologies, which model particular domains or topic areas. (As opposed to reference, upper or theoretical ontologies, which are more general or encompassing.) Also, little commentary is offered on any of the individual methodologies; please see the referenced papers for more details.
One of the first comprehensive surveys was done by Jones et al. in 1998 [1]. This study began to elucidate common stages and noted there are typically separate stages to produce first an informal description of the ontology and then its formal embodiment in an ontology language. The existence of these two descriptions is an important characteristic of many ontologies, with the informal description often carrying through to the formal description.
The next major survey was done by Corcho et al. in 2003 [2]. This built on the earlier Jones survey and added more recent methods. The survey also characterized the methods by tools and tool readiness.
More recently the work of Simperl and her colleagues has focused on empirical results of ontology costing and related topics. This series has been the richest source of methodology insight in recent years [3, 4, 5, 6]. More on this work is described below.
Though not a survey of methods, one of the more attainable descriptions of ontology building is Noy and McGuinness’ well-known Ontology Development 101 [7]. Also really helpful are Alan Rector’s various lecture slides on ontology building [8].
However, one general observation is that the pace of new methodology development seems to have waned in the past five years or so. This does not appear to be the result of an accepted methodology having emerged.
Some of the leading methodologies, presented in rough order from the oldest to newest, are as follows:
Please note that many individual projects also describe their specific methodologies; these are purposefully not included. In addition, Ensan and Du look at some specific ontology frameworks (e.g., PROMPT, OntoLearn, etc.) from a domain-specific perspective [17].
Here is the general methodology as presented in the various Simperl et al. papers [c.f., Fig. 1 in 3]:
The Corcho et al. survey also presented a general view of the tools plus framework necessary for a complete ontology engineering environment [Fig. 4 from 2]:
There are more examples that show ontology development workflows. Here is one again from the Simperl et al. efforts [Fig. 2 in 5]:
However, what is most striking about the review of the literature is the paucity of methodology figures and the generality of those that do exist. From this basis, it is unclear what the degree of use is for real, actionable methods.
The Simperl and Tempich paper [3], besides being a rich source of references, also provides some recommended best practices based on their comparative survey. These are:
This review has not set out to characterize specific methodologies, nor their strengths and weaknesses. Yet the research seems to indicate this state of methodology development in the field:
At the beginning of this year Structured Dynamics assembled a listing of ontology building tools at the request of a client. That listing was presented as The Sweet Compendium of Ontology Building Tools. Now, again because of some client and internal work, we have researched the space again and updated the listing [1].
All new tools are marked with <New> (new only means newly discovered; some had yet to be discovered in the prior listing). There are now a total of 185 tools in the listing, 31 of which are recently new, and 45 added at various times since the first release. <Newest> reflects updates — most from the developers themselves — since the original publication of this post.
Though all are not relevant, see my post from a couple of years back on large-scale RDF graph software.
At the SemTech conference earlier this summer there was a kind of vuvuzela-like buzzing in the background. And, like the World Cup games on television, in play at the same time as the conference, I found the droning to be just as irritating.
That droning was a combination of the sense of righteousness in the superiority of linked data matched with a reprise of the “chicken-and-egg” argument that plagued the early years of semantic Web advocacy [1]. I think both of these premises are misplaced. So, while I have been a fan and explicator of linked data for some time, I do not worship at its altar [2]. And, for those that do, this post argues for a greater sense of ecumenism.
My main points are not against linked data. I think it a very useful technique and good (if not best) practice in many circumstances. But my main points get at whether linked data is an objective in itself. By making it such, I argue our eye misses the ball. And, in so doing, we miss making the connection with meaningful, interoperable information, which should be our true objective. We need to look elsewhere than linked data for root causes.
When I began this blog more than five years ago — and when I left my career in population genetics nearly three decades before that — I did so because of my belief in the value of information to confer adaptive advantage. My perspective then, and my perspective now, was that adaptive information through genetics and evolution was being uniquely supplanted within the human species. This change has occurred because humanity is able to record and carry forward all information gained in its experiences.
Adaptive innovations from writing to bulk printing to now electronic form uniquely position the human species to both record its past and anticipate its future. We no longer are limited to evolution and genetic information encoded in surviving offspring to determine what information is retained and moves forward. Now, all information can be retained. Further, we can combine and connect that information in ways that break to smithereens the biological limits of other species.
Yet, despite the electronic volumes and the potentials, chaos and isolated content silos have characterized humanity’s first half century of experience with digital information. I have spoken before about how we have been steadily climbing the data federation pyramid, with Internet technologies and the Web being prime factors for doing so. Now, with a compelling data model in RDF and standards for how we can relate any type of information meaningfully, we also have the means for making sense of it. And connecting it. And learning and adapting from it.
And, so, there is the answer to the rhetorical question: The problem we are solving is to meaningfully connect information. For, without those meaningful connections and recombinations, none of that information confers adaptive advantage.
One of the “chicken-and-egg” premises in the linked data community is there needs to be more linked data exposed before some threshold to trigger the network effect occurs. This attitude, I suspect, is one of the reasons why hosannas are always forthcoming each time some outfit announces they have posted another chunk of triples to the Web.
Fred Giasson and I earlier tackled that issue with When Linked Data Rules Fail regarding some information published for data.gov and the New York Times. Our observations on the lack of standards for linked data quality proved to be quite controversial. Rehashing that piece is not my objective here.
What is my objective is to hammer home that we do not need linked data in order to have data available to consume. Far from it. Though linked data volumes have been growing, I actually suspect that its growth has been slower than data availability in toto. On the Web alone we have searchable deep Web databases, JSON, XML, microformats, RSS feeds, Google snippets, yada, yada, all in a veritable deluge of formats, contents and contexts. We are having a hard time inventing the next 1000-fold description beyond zettabyte and yottabyte to even describe this deluge [3].
There is absolutely no voice or observer anywhere that is saying, “We need linked data in order to have data to consume.” Quite the opposite. The reality is we are drowning in the stuff.
Furthermore, when one dissects what most of all of this data is about, it is about ways to describe things. Or, put another way, most all data is not schema nor descriptions of conceptual relationships, but making records available, with attributes and their values used to describe those records. Where is a business located? What political party does a politician belong to? How tall are you? What is the population of Hungary?
These are simple constructs with simple key-value pair ways to describe and convey them. This very simplicity is one reason why naïve data structs or simple data models like JSON or XML have proven so popular [4]. It is one of the reasons why the so-called NoSQL databases have also been growing in popularity. What we have are lots of atomic facts, located everywhere, and representable with very simple key-value structures.
While having such information available in linked data form makes it easier for agents to consume it, that extra publishing burden is by no means necessary. There are plenty of ways to consume that data — without loss of information — in non-linked data form. In fact, that is how the overwhelming percentage of such data is expressed today. This non-linked data is also often easy to understand.
What is important is that the data be available electronically with a description of what the records contain. But that hurdle is met in many, many different ways and from many, many sources without any reference whatsoever to linked data. I submit that any form of desirable data available on the Web can be readily consumed without recourse to linked data principles.
The real advantage of RDF is the simplicity of its data model, which can be extended and augmented to express vocabularies and relationships of any nature. As I have stated before, that makes RDF like a universal solvent for any extant data structure, form or schema.
What I find perplexing, however, is how this strength somehow gets translated into a parallel belief that such a flexible data model is also the best means for transmitting data. As noted, most transmitted data can be represented through simple key-value pairs. Sure, at some point one needs to model the structural assumptions of the data model from the supplying publisher, but that complexity need not burden the actual transmitted form. So long as schema can be captured and modeled at the receiving end, data record transmittal can be made quite a bit simpler.
Under this mindset RDF provides the internal (canonical) data model. Prior to that, format and other converters can be used to consume the source data in its native form. A generalized representation for how this can work is shown in this diagram using Structured Dynamics‘ structWSF Web services framework middleware as the mediating layer:
Of course, if the source data is already in linked data form with understood concepts, relationships and semantics, much of this conversion overhead can be bypassed. If available, that is a good thing.
But it is not a required or necessary thing. Insistence on publishing data in certain forms suffers from the same narrowness as cultural or religious zealotry. Why certain publishers or authors prefer different data formats has a diversity of answers. Reasons can range from what is tried and familiar to available toolsets or even what is trendy, as one might argue linked data is in some circles today.There are literally scores of off-the-shelf “RDFizers” for converting native and simple data structs into RDF form. New converters are readily written.
Adaptive systems, by definition, do not require wholesale changes to existing practices and do not require effort where none is warranted. By posing the challenge as a “chicken-and-egg” one where publishers themselves must undertake a change in their existing practices to conform, or else they fail the “linked data threshold”, advocates are ensuring failure. There is plenty of useful structured data to consume already.
Accessible structured data, properly characterized (see below), should be our root interest; not whether that data has been published as linked data per se.
Linked data is nothing more than some techniques for publishing Web-accessible data using the RDF data model. Some have tried to use the concept of linked data as a replacement for the idea of the semantic Web, and some have recently tried to re-define linked data as not requiring RDF [5]. Yet the real issue with all of these attempts — correct or not, and a fact of linked data since first formulated by Tim Berners-Lee — is that a technique alone can not carry the burden of usefulness or interoperability.
Despite billions of triples now available, we in fact see little actual use or consumption of linked data, except in the life science domain. Indeed, a new workshop by the research community called COLD (Consuming Linked Data) has been set up for the upcoming ISWC conference to look into the very reasons why this lack of usage may be occurring [6].
It will be interesting to monitor what comes out of that workshop, but I have my own views as to what might be going on here. A number of factors, applicable frankly to any data, must be layered on top of linked data techniques in order for it to be useful:
These requirements apply to any data ranging from Census CSV files to Google search results. But because relationships can also be more readily asserted with linked data, these requirements are even greater for it.
It is not surprising that the life sciences have seen more uptake of linked data. That community has keen experience with curation, and the quality and linkages asserted there are much superior to other areas of linked data [7].
In other linked data areas, it is really in limited pockets such as FactForge from Ontotext or curated forms of Wikipedia by the likes of Freebase that we see the most use and uptake. There is no substitute for consistency and quality control.
It is really in this area of “publish it and they will come” that we see one of the threads of parochialism in the linked data community. You can publish it and they still will not come. And, like any data, they will not come because the quality is poor or the linkages are wrong.
As a technique for making data available, linked data is thus nothing more than a foot soldier in the campaign to make information meaningful. Elevating it above its pay grade sets the wrong target and causes us to lose focus for what is really important.
There is another strange phenomenon in the linked data movement: the almost total disregard for the linking part. Sure data is getting published as triples with dereferencable URIs, but where are the links?
At most, what we are seeing is owl:sameAs assertions and a few others [8]. Not only does this miss the whole point of linked data, but one can question whether equivalence assertions are correct in many instances [9].
For a couple of years now I have been arguing that the central gap in linked data has been the absence of context and coherence. By context I mean the use of reference structures to help place and frame what content is about. By coherence I mean that those contextual references make internal and logical sense, that they represent a consistent world view. Both require a richer use of links to concepts and subjects describing the semantics of the content.
It is precisely through these kinds of links that data from disparate sources and with different frames of reference can be meaningfully related to other data. This is the essence of the semantic Web and the purported purpose of linked data. And it is exactly these areas in which linked data is presently found most lacking.
Of course, these questions are not the sole challenge of linked data. They are the essential challenge in any attempt to connect or interoperate structured data within information systems. So, while linked data is ostensibly designed from the get-go to fulfill these aims, any data that can find meaning outside of its native silo must also be placed into context in a coherent manner. The unique disappointment for much linked data is its failure to provide these contexts despite its design.
Yet, having said all of this, Structured Dynamics is still committed to linked data. We present our information as such, and provide great tools for producing and consuming it. We have made it one of the seven foundations to our technology stack and methodology.
But we live in a pluralistic data world. There are reasons and roles for the multitude of popular structured data formats that presently exist. This inherent diversity is a fact in any real-world data context. Thus, we have not met a form of structured data that we didn’t like, especially if it is accompanied with metadata that puts the data into coherent context. It is a major reason why we developed the irON (instance record and object notation) non-RDF vocabulary to provide a bridge from such forms to RDF. irON clearly shows that entities can be usefully described and consumed in either RDF or non-RDF serialized forms.
Attitudes that dismiss non-linked data forms or arrogantly insist that publishers adhere to linked data practices are anything but pluralistic. They are parochial and short-sighted and are contributing, in part, to keeping the semantic Web from going mainstream.
Adoption requires simplicity. The simplest way to encourage the greater interoperability of data is to leverage existing assets in their native form, with encouragement for minor enhancements to add descriptive metadata for what the content is about. Embracing such an ecumenical attitude makes all publishers potentially valuable contributors to a better information future. It will also nearly instantaneously widen the tools base available for the common objective of interoperability.
Linked data is a good thing, but not an ultimate thing. By making linked data an objective in itself we unduly raise publishing thresholds; we set our sights below the real problem to be solved; and we risk diluting the understanding of RDF from its natural role as a flexible and adaptive data model. Paradoxically, too much parochial insistence on linked data may undercut its adoption and the realization of the overall semantic objective.
Root cause analysis for what it takes to achieve meaningful, interoperable information suggests that describing source content in terms of what it is about is the pivotal factor. Moreover, those contexts should be shared to aid interoperability. Whichever organizations do an excellent job of providing context and coherent linkages will be the go-to ones for data consumers. As we have seen to date, merely publishing linked data triples does not meet this test.
I have heard some state that first you celebrate linked data and its growing quantity, and then hope that the quality improves. This sentiment holds if indeed the community moves on to the questions of quality and relevance. The time for that transition is now. And, oh, by the way, as long as we are broadening our horizons, let’s also celebrate properly characterized structured data no matter what its form. Pluralism is part of the tao to the meaning of information.
Ontologies are the structural frameworks for organizing information on the semantic Web and within semantic enterprises. They provide unique benefits in discovery, flexible access, and information integration due to their inherent connectedness; that is, their ability to represent conceptual relationships. Ontologies can be layered on top of existing information assets, which means they are an enhancement and not a displacement for prior investments. And ontologies may be developed and matured incrementally, which means their adoption may be cost-effective as benefits become evident [1].
Ontology may be one of the more daunting terms for those exposed for the first time to semantic technologies. Not only is the word long and without common antecedents, but it is also a term that has widely divergent use and understanding within the community. It can be argued that this not-so-little word is one of the barriers to mainstream understanding of the semantic Web.
The root of the term is the Greek ontos, or being or the nature of things. Literally — and in classical philosophy — ontology was used in relation to the study of the nature of being or the world, the nature of existence. Tom Gruber, among others, made the term popular in relation to computer science and artificial intelligence about 15 years ago when he defined ontology as a “formal specification of a conceptualization.”
Much like taxonomies or relational database schema, ontologies work to organize information. No matter what the domain or scope, an ontology is a description of a world view. That view might be limited and miniscule, or it might be global and expansive. However, unlike those alternative hierarchical views of concepts such as taxonomies, ontologies often have a linked or networked “graph” structure. Multiple things can be related to other things, all in a potentially multi-way series of relationships.
 |
 |
 |
| A distinguishing characteristic of ontologies compared to conventional hierarchical structures is their degree of connectedness, their ability to model coherent, linked relationships |
||
Ontologies supply the structure for relating information to other information in the semantic Web or the linked data realm. Ontologies thus provide a similar role for the organization of data that is provided by relational data schema. Because of this structural role, ontologies are pivotal to the coherence and interoperability of interconnected data.
When one uses the idea of “world view” as synonomous with an ontology, it is not meant to be cosmic, but simply a way to convey how a given domain or problem area can be described. One group might choose to describe and organize, say, automobiles, by color; another might choose body styles such as pick-ups or sedans; or still another might use brands such as Honda and Ford. None of these views is inherently “right” (indeed multiples might be combined in a given ontology), but each represents a particular way — a “world view” — of looking at the domain.
Though there is much latitude in how a given domain might be described, there are both good ontology practices and bad ones. We offer some views as to what constitutes good ontology design and practice in the concluding section.
A good ontology offers a composite suite of benefits not available to taxonomies, relational database schema, or other standard ways to structure information. Among these benefits are:
The relationship structure underlying an ontology provides an excellent vehicle for discovery and linkages. “Swimming through” this relationship graph is the basis of the Concept Explorer (also known as the Relation Browser) and similar widgets.
The most prevalent use of ontologies at present is in semantic search. Semantic search has benefits over conventional search in terms of being able to make inferences and matches not available to standard keyword retrieval.
The relationship structure also is a powerful and more general and more nuanced way to organize information. Concepts can relate to other concepts through a richness of vocabulary. Such predicates might capture subsumption, precedence, parts of relationships (mereology), preferences, or importances along virtually any metric. This richness of expression and relationships can also be built incrementally over time, allowing ontologies to grow and develop in sophistication and use as desired.
The pinnacle application for ontologies, therefore, is as coherent reference structures whose purpose is to help map and integrate other structures and information. Given the huge heterogeneity of information both within and without organizations, the use of ontologies as integration frameworks will likely emerge as their most valuable use.
Good ontology practice has aspects both in terms of scope and in terms of construction.
Here are some scoping and design questions that we believe should be answered in the positive in order for an ontology to meet good practice standards:
If these questions can be answered affirmatively, then we would deem the ontology ready for production-grade use.
Fundamental to the whole concept of coherence is the fact that experts and practitioners within domains have been looking at the questions of relationships, structure, language and meaning for decades. Though perhaps today we now finally have a broad useful data and logic model in RDF, the fact remains that massive time and effort has already been expended to codify some of these understandings in various ways and at various levels of completeness and scope. Good practice also means, therefore, that maximum leverage is made to springboard ontologies from existing structural and vocabulary assets.
And, because good ontologies also embrace the open world approach, working toward these desired end states can also be incremental. Thus, in the face of common budget or deadline constraints, it is possible initially to scope domains as smaller or to provide less coverage in depth or to use a small set of predicates, all the while still achieving productive use of the ontology. Then, over time, the scope can be expanded incrementally.
To achieve their purposes, ontologies must be both human-readable and machine-processable. Also, because they represent conceptual structures, they must be built with a certain composition.
Good ontologies therefore are constructed such that they have:
In the case of ontology-driven applications using adaptive ontologies, there are also additional instructions contained in the system (often via administrative ontologies) that tell the system which types of widgets need to be invoked for different data types and attributes. This is different than the standard conceptual schema, but is nonetheless essential to how such applications are designed.
Today, Structured Dynamics is pleased to make its Citizen Dan application available for public viewing, play and downloading for the first time.
Citizen Dan is a free, open source system available to any community and its citizens to measure and track indicators of local well being. It can be branded and themed for local needs. It is under active development by Structured Dynamics with support from a number of innovative cities.
Citizen Dan is an exemplar instance of Structured Dynamics’ open semantic framework (OSF), a generalized framework for deploying semantic platforms for any domain. By changing its guiding ontologies and source content and data, what appears for Citizen Dan can be adopted for virtually any subject area.
As configured, the Citizen Dan OSF instance is a:
Citizen Dan’s information sources may include Census data, the Web, real-time feeds, government datasets, municipal government information systems, or crowdsourced data. Information can range from standard structured data to local narratives, including from minutes and reports, contributed stories, blogs or news outlets. The ‘raw’ input data can come in essentially any format, which is then converted to a standard form with consistent semantics.
Text and narratives and the concepts and entities they describe are integrally linked into the system via information extraction and tagging. All ingested information, whether structured or text sources, with their semantics, can be exported in multiple formats. A standard organizing schema, also open source and extensible or modifiable by all users, is provided via the optional MUNI ontology (with vocabulary details in development here), being developed expressly for Citizen Dan and its community indicator system purposes.
All of the community information contained within a Citizen Dan instance is available as linked data.
Here are the main components or widgets to this Citizen Dan demo:
the exporter component appears in multiple locations across the appliance, either as a tab option (e.g., Filter component) or as a dropdown list to the lower right of many screens. A variety (and growing!) number of export formats are available. When it appears as a dropdown list, the export is limited to the currently active slice. When invoked via tab, more export selection options are available. See further the technical documentation for this componentA number of other tools are available to admins in the actual appliance, but are not exposed in the demo:
In addition, it is not possible in the demo to save persistent dashboard views or submit stories or documents for tagging, nor to register as a user or view the admin portions of the Drupal instance.
The sample data and content in the demo is for the Iowa City (IA) metropolitan statistical area. This area embraces two counties (Johnson and Washington) and the census tracts and townships that comprise them, and about two dozen cities. Two of the notable cities are Iowa City itself, home of the University of Iowa, and Coralville, where Structured Dynamics, the developer of Citizen Dan and the open semantic framework (OSF), is headquartered.
The text content on this site is drawn from Wikipedia articles dealing with this area. About 30 stories are included.
The data content on the site is drawn from US Census Bureau data. Shape files for the various geographic areas were obtained from here, and the actual datasets by geographic area can be obtained from here.
Citizen Dan is an exemplar instance of Structured Dynamics’ open semantic framework (OSF), a generalized framework for deploying semantic platforms for specific domains.
OSF is a combination of a layered architecture and modular software. Most of the individual open source software products developed by Structured Dynamics and available on the OpenStructs site are components within the open semantic framework. These include:
The software that makes up the Citizen Dan appliance is one of the four legs that provide a stable, open source solution. These four legs are software, structure, methods and documentation. When all four are provided, we can term this a total open solution.
For Citizen Dan, the complements to this software are:
In its entirety, the total open solution amounts to a form of capacity building for the enterprise.
Inherent in the design and architecture of Citizen Dan is the potential for each instance (single installation) to act as a node in a distributed network of nodes across the Web. Via the structWSF Web service endpoints and appropriate dataset permissions, it is possible for any city in the Citizen Dan network to share (or not) any or all of its data with other cities.
This collaboration aspect has been “baked into the cake” from Day One. The system also supports differential access, rights and roles by dataset and Web service. Thus, city staffs across multiple communities could share data differently than what is provided to the general public.
Since all data management aspects of each Citizen Dan instance is also oriented around datasets, expansion to a network mode is quite straightforward.
The Citizen Dan appliance is based on the Drupal content management system, which means any community can easily theme or add to the functionality of the system with any of the available 6500 open source modules that extend the basic Drupal functionality.
All other components, including the multiple third-party ones, are also open source.
To install Citizen Dan for your own use, you need to:
(Note: there will also be some more updates in August, including the MUNI release.)
For questions and additional info, please consult the TechWiki or the OpenStructs community site.
Finally, please contact us if you’d like to learn more about the project, investigate funding or sponsorship opportunities, or contribute to development. We’d welcome your involvement!
