Via the Official Google Research Blog at the University of Google, Alon Halevy, Peter Norvig and Fernando Pereira have published an interesting expert opinion piece in the March/April 2009 edition of IEEE Intelligent Systems: computer.org/intelligent. The paper talks about embracing complexity and making use of the “the unreasonable effectiveness of data” [1] drawing analogies with the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” [2]. There is plenty to agree and disagree with in this provocative article which makes it an entertaining read. So what can we learn from those expert Googlers in the Googleplex? (more…)
April 17, 2009
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Google
October 30, 2008
Congratulations Matthew Horridge!
So, congratulations are due to Matthew Horridge, Bijan Parsia and Ulrike Sattler from The University of Manchester for winning the keenly fought best paper prize at the International Semantic Web Conference [ISWC 2008] in Karlsruhe for their paper “Laconic and Precise Justifications in OWL”. An abstract of the paper is reproduced below:
“A justification for an entailment in an OWL ontology is a minimal subset of the ontology that is sufficient for that entailment to hold. Since justifications respect the syntactic form of axioms in an ontology, they are usually neither syntactically nor semantically minimal. This paper presents two new subclasses of justifications—laconic justifications and precise justifications. Laconic justifications only consist of axioms that do not contain any superfluous “parts”. Precise justifications can be derived from laconic justifications and are characterised by the fact that they consist of flat, small axioms, which facilitate the generation of semantically minimal repairs. Formal definitions for both types of justification are presented. In contrast to previous work in this area, these definitions make it clear as to what exactly “parts of axioms” are. In order to demonstrate the practicability of computing laconic, and hence precise justifications, an algorithm is provided and results from an empirical evaluation carried out on several published ontologies are presented. The evaluation showed that laconic/precise justifications can be computed in a reasonable time for entailments in a range of ontologies that vary in size and complexity. It was found that in half of the ontologies sampled there were entailments that had more laconic/precise justifications than regular justifications. More surprisingly it was observed that for some ontologies there were fewer laconic justifications than regular justifications.”
But what does it all mean? One of the results of this research project has been an explanations plug-in for the Protégé ontology editor, see explanation in OWL at http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk. This helps users to understand when and why the reasoning goes all pear-shaped through better explanations than has previously been possible. So this is another step toward making building better ontologies with the Web Ontology Language (OWL) easier and less confusing. Yay!
References
- Matthew Horridge, Bijan Parsia and Ulrike Sattler (2008). Laconic and Precise Justifications in OWL Lecture Notes in Computer Science, LNCS Volume 5318/-1 The Semantic Web – ISWC 2008 DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-88564-1_21
[Picture of Manchester United player George Best by Sammy, Best paper prize picture by guitarfish]
O'Really? 