Ontologies for Knowledge Graphs?

Modern knowledge representation (KR), and description logics (DL) in particular, promises many advantages for information management, based on an unambiguous, implementation-independent semantics for which a range of reasoning services is available. These strengths align well with the needs of an ever growing information industry. Today, giants like Google, Facebook, and Wikimedia consciously deploy ontological models, and store information in graph-like data structures that are more similar to DL ABoxes than to traditional relational databases. Many smaller organisations follow, and “knowledge graphs” appear in numerous places. Clearly, logic-based KR can make significant contributions to this development, yet there is often very little adoption in typical knowledge graph applications. Focusing on Wikidata as a particular use case, this invited contribution asks which technical issues might limit the impact of symbolic KR in this area, and summarises some recent developments towards addressing them in various logics.

[1]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Data integration: a theoretical perspective , 2002, PODS.

[2]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  YAGO2: A Spatially and Temporally Enhanced Knowledge Base from Wikipedia: Extended Abstract , 2013, IJCAI.

[3]  Serge Abiteboul,et al.  Foundations of Databases , 1994 .

[4]  Praveen Paritosh,et al.  Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge , 2008, SIGMOD Conference.

[5]  Boris Motik,et al.  Representing ontologies using description logics, description graphs, and rules , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Markus Krötzsch.  Efficient Rule-Based Inferencing for OWL EL , 2011, IJCAI.

[7]  Jean-François Baget,et al.  On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Markus Krötzsch,et al.  Ontologies for Knowledge Graphs: Breaking the Rules , 2016, SEMWEB.

[9]  Michael Günther,et al.  Introducing Wikidata to the Linked Data Web , 2014, SEMWEB.

[10]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider.  Building the Semantic Web Tower from RDF Straw , 2005, IJCAI.

[11]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  A better uncle for OWL: nominal schemas for integrating rules and ontologies , 2011, WWW.

[12]  Markus Krötzsch,et al.  Attributed Description Logics: Ontologies for Knowledge Graphs , 2017, SEMWEB.

[13]  Markus Krötzsch,et al.  Wikidata , 2014, Commun. ACM.

[14]  Jim Webber,et al.  Graph Databases: New Opportunities for Connected Data , 2013 .

[15]  Boris Motik,et al.  Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules , 2004, International Semantic Web Conference.

[16]  Daniel Leivant,et al.  Higher order logic , 1994, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming.

[17]  Markus Krötzsch,et al.  Logic on MARS: Ontologies for Generalised Property Graphs , 2017, IJCAI.

[18]  Boris Motik,et al.  Reconciling description logics and rules , 2010, JACM.

[19]  Markus Krötzsch,et al.  Reasoning with Attributed Description Logics , 2017, Description Logics.

[20]  Boris Motik,et al.  Acyclicity Notions for Existential Rules and Their Application to Query Answering in Ontologies , 2013, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[21]  Marko A. Rodriguez,et al.  Constructions from Dots and Lines , 2010, ArXiv.

[22]  E. Prud hommeaux,et al.  SPARQL query language for RDF , 2011 .

[23]  Andrea Calì,et al.  Towards more expressive ontology languages: The query answering problem , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Nicole Tourigny,et al.  Bio2RDF: Towards a mashup to build bioinformatics knowledge systems , 2008, J. Biomed. Informatics.