Semantic Diff As The Basis For Knowledge Base Versioning

Semantic Diff as the Basis for
Knowledge Base Versioning
Enrico Franconi1 Thomas Meyer2 Ivan Varzinczak2
1 Free University of Bozen/Bolzano 2 Meraka Institute, CSIR

Bolzano, Italy Pretoria, South Africa
Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 1 / 24

Motivation
Knowledge Base
Ontology (DL, RDF)
Agents’ beliefs
Regulations or norms
...

Motivation
Knowledge Base
Ontology (DL, RDF)
K1
Agents’ beliefs
...

Motivation
Knowledge Base
Ontology (DL, RDF)
K1 K2
Agents’ beliefs
...

Motivation
K3
Knowledge Base
Ontology (DL, RDF)
K1 K2 K5
Agents’ beliefs
...
K4

Motivation
K3 ...
Knowledge Base
Ontology (DL, RDF)
K1 K2 K5 ...
Agents’ beliefs
...
K4 K6

Motivation
K3 ...
Knowledge Base
Ontology (DL, RDF)
K1 K2 K5 ...
Agents’ beliefs
...
K4 K6
Need for a versioning system

Motivation
Issues K6
Maintaining different versions
I Parsimonious representation K5 K1
Reasoning with versions Kc

I In which of the KBs does α hold,
K2
but not β?
K4
Difference between versions
K3
I How they differ in meaning

Motivation
Issues K6

K2
but not β?
K4
K3

Motivation
Issues K6

K2
but not β?
K4
K3

Motivation
Issues K6

K2
but not β?
K4
K3

Outline
1 Logical Preliminaries
2 Knowledge Base Versioning

Semantic Diff
A General Framework
Compiled Representation
3 Conclusion
Contributions
Future Work

Outline

Semantic Diff
A General Framework
3 Conclusion
Contributions
Future Work

Outline

Semantic Diff
A General Framework
3 Conclusion
Contributions
Future Work

Logical Preliminaries
Knowledge bases
A knowledge base K is a (possibly infinite) set of formulas
Cn(K) = {α | K |= α}
Cn(.) is called Tarskian iff it satisfies
I Inclusion: X ⊆ Cn(X )
I Idempotence: Cn(Cn(X )) ⊆ Cn(X )
I Monotonicity: X ⊆ Y implies Cn(X ) ⊆ Cn(Y )
[α] = {β | α ≡ β}

Knowledge bases
Cn(K) = {α | K |= α}
[α] = {β | α ≡ β}

Knowledge bases
Cn(K) = {α | K |= α}
[α] = {β | α ≡ β}

Knowledge bases
Cn(K) = {α | K |= α}
[α] = {β | α ≡ β}

Outline

Semantic Diff
A General Framework
3 Conclusion
Contributions
Future Work

Semantic Diff
Difference in meaning between knowledge bases K and K0
Analogy with the Unix diff command
I diff distinguishes between syntactically different files
Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning
Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation
Example
Let the (propositional) knowledge bases:
K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}
K1 and K2 differ in syntax

But K1 and K2 convey the same meaning (K1 ≡ K2 )

Semantic Diff
Example
K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}


Semantic Diff
Example
K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}


Semantic Diff
Example
K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}


Characterizing Semantic Diff
KBs closed under logical consequence
(P1) K = Cn(K) and K0 = Cn(K0 )
Semantic diff of K and K0 : pair hA, Ri

A is the add-set of (K, K0 )
R as the remove-set of (K, K0 )
(P2) K0 = (K ∪ A) \ R

(P1) K = Cn(K) and K0 = Cn(K0 )

(P2) K0 = (K ∪ A) \ R

(P1) K = Cn(K) and K0 = Cn(K0 )

(P2) K0 = (K ∪ A) \ R

Minimal change and no redundancy
(P3) A ⊆ K0
(P4) R ⊆ K
Duality of semantic diff
(P5) K = (K0 ∪ R) \ A
‘Undo’ operation when moving between versions

(P3) A ⊆ K0
(P4) R ⊆ K
(P5) K = (K0 ∪ R) \ A

(P3) A ⊆ K0
(P4) R ⊆ K
(P5) K = (K0 ∪ R) \ A

Definition
K and K0 knowledge bases, A and R sets of sentences
hA, Ri is semantic diff compliant w.r.t. (K, K0 ) iff (K, K0 ) and hA, Ri
satisfy Postulates (P1)–(P5)
(P1) K = Cn(K) and K0 = Cn(K0 )

(P2) K0 = (K ∪ A) \ R
(P3) A ⊆ K0
(P4) R ⊆ K
(P5) K = (K0 ∪ R) \ A

Definition
K and K0 knowledge bases, A and R sets of sentences
hA, Ri is semantic diff compliant w.r.t. (K, K0 ) iff (K, K0 ) and hA, Ri
satisfy Postulates (P1)–(P5)
(P1) K = Cn(K) and K0 = Cn(K0 )

(P2) K0 = (K ∪ A) \ R
(P3) A ⊆ K0
(P4) R ⊆ K
(P5) K = (K0 ∪ R) \ A

Specific construction for the semantic diff operator:
Definition
The ideal semantic diff of (K, K0 ) is the pair hA, Ri, where
A = K0 \ K and R = K \ K0
Neither A nor R are logically closed:

Example
Let K = Cn(p ∧ q) and K0 = Cn(¬q)
A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}
R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}
p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(A), p ∨ ¬q ∈ Cn(R), but p ∨ ¬q ∈

/ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈
/R
In fact, for any ideal semantic diff hA, Ri, > ∈

/ A and > ∈
/R
Definition
A = K0 \ K and R = K \ K0

Example
A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}
R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}

/ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈
/R

/ A and > ∈
/R
Definition
A = K0 \ K and R = K \ K0

Example
A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}
R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}

/ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈
/R

/ A and > ∈
/R
Definition
A = K0 \ K and R = K \ K0

Example
A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}
R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}

/ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈
/R

/ A and > ∈
/R
Definition
A = K0 \ K and R = K \ K0

Example
A = {[¬q], [¬p ∨ ¬q]}
R = {[p ∧ q], [p], [q], [p ↔ q], [p ∨ q], [¬p ∨ q]}

/ A and p ∨ ¬q ∈
/R

/ A and > ∈
/R
There is a unique ideal semantic diff associated with any two KBs
Theorem
Let hA, Ri be the ideal semantic diff of K and K0 . Then
hA, Ri is semantic diff compliant with respect to (K, K0 )
hA, Ri is unique w.r.t. (K, K0 )
Corollary
For the ideal semantic diff hA, Ri of (K, K0 ), A ∩ R = ∅
Ideal semantic diff and symmetric difference: (K0 \ K) ∪ (K \ K0 )
Corollary
For the ideal semantic diff hA, Ri of (K, K0 ), hA, Ri = h∅, ∅i iff K = K0

Theorem
Corollary
Corollary

Theorem
Corollary
Corollary

Theorem
Corollary
Corollary

Outline

Semantic Diff
A General Framework
3 Conclusion
Contributions
Future Work

A Framework for Knowledge Base Versioning
Scenario:
n versions, K1 , . . . , Kn , of a KB that need to be stored
A core knowledge base Kc
For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n:
Ideal semantic diff of (Ki , Kj ): hDij , Dji i
Ideal semantic diff of (Kc , Ki ): hDci , Dic i
From Properties
(P2) K0 = (K ∪ A) \ R
(P5) K = (K0 ∪ R) \ A
The add-set Dij of (Ki , Kj ) is also the remove-set of (Kj , Ki )

The remove-set Dji of (Ki , Kj ) is also the add-set of (Kj , Ki )

Scenario:
For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n:
From Properties
(P2) K0 = (K ∪ A) \ R
(P5) K = (K0 ∪ R) \ A


Scenario:
For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n:
From Properties
(P2) K0 = (K ∪ A) \ R
(P5) K = (K0 ∪ R) \ A


In order to access any version, it is sufficient:
To store Kc , and
To store Dic and Dci for all Ki s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n
By Theorem 1, Ki = (Kc ∪ Dci ) \ Dic for every i s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ n
hDc6 , D6c i
•
hDc5 , D5c i • • hDc1 , D1c i
Kc
• hDc2 , D2c i
hDc4 , D4c i •
• hDc3 , D3c i

To store Kc , and
hDc6 , D6c i
•
Kc
• hDc2 , D2c i
hDc4 , D4c i •
• hDc3 , D3c i

To store Kc , and
hDc6 , D6c i
•
Kc
• hDc2 , D2c i
hDc4 , D4c i •
• hDc3 , D3c i

We can generate the ideal semantic diff of Ki and Kj
Proposition
Dij = (Dcj \ Dci ) ∪ (Dic \ Djc ) and Dji = (Dci \ Dcj ) ∪ (Djc \ Dic )
K1
hDn1 , D1n i hD1i , Di1 i
hDc1 , D1c i
Kn Kc hDci , Dic i Ki
hDcn , Dnc i
hDcj , Djc i
hDnj , Djn i hDij , Dji i

Kj

We can generate the ideal semantic diff of Ki and Kj
Proposition
Dij = (Dcj \ Dci ) ∪ (Dic \ Djc ) and Dji = (Dci \ Dcj ) ∪ (Djc \ Dic )
K1
hDn1 , D1n i hD1i , Di1 i
hDc1 , D1c i
Kn Kc hDci , Dic i Ki
hDcn , Dnc i
hDcj , Djc i
hDnj , Djn i hDij , Dji i

Kj

Outline

Semantic Diff
A General Framework
3 Conclusion
Contributions
Future Work

Our characterization of Semantic Diff is in the knowledge level
Need for a compiled representation of KBs and the diffs

Computationally, a compiled format is required: F (K)
Given any representation of Ki and Kj , look for an intermediate

representation of the ideal semantic diff hI (Dij ), I (Dji )i
From Ki together with this intermediate representation of the ideal

semantic diff, generate Kj
From this intermediate representation generate the ideal semantic diff
hDij , Dji i




hDij , Dji i




hDij , Dji i



representation of the ideal semantic diff hI (Dij ), I (Dji )i such that:

hDij , Dji i



representation of the ideal semantic diff hI (Dij ), I (Dji )i such that:

hDij , Dji i

With the intermediate representation

We can also generate one KB from another
Theorem
F (Ki ) = (F (Kj ) \ I (Dji )) ∪ I (Dij )
= (F (Kj ) ∪ I (Dij )) \ I (Dji )
We can generate the ideal diff (details in the NMR’10 paper)
We can get I (Dij ) and I (Dji )
Theorem
For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, I (Dij ) = (I (Dcj ) \ I (Dci )) ∪ (I (Dic ) \ I (Djc ))


Theorem
F (Ki ) = (F (Kj ) \ I (Dji )) ∪ I (Dij )
= (F (Kj ) ∪ I (Dij )) \ I (Dji )
Theorem


Theorem
F (Ki ) = (F (Kj ) \ I (Dji )) ∪ I (Dij )
= (F (Kj ) ∪ I (Dij )) \ I (Dji )
Theorem

Outline

Semantic Diff
A General Framework
3 Conclusion
Contributions
Future Work

Contributions
Groundwork for a semantic-driven notion of versioning

I Intuitive, simple and general
Notion of semantic diff applicable to a large class of KR languages

I Our results hold for any KB in a Tarskian logic
Parsimonious representation
I Core KB: sufficient to reconstruct any of the versions
I Diff between KBs: no direct access to any of the versions
I This holds for any syntactic representation (see the NMR’10 paper)

Contributions



Contributions



Contributions



Contributions



Outline

Semantic Diff
A General Framework
3 Conclusion
Contributions
Future Work

Ongoing and Future Work
How to choose the core knowledge base Kc
Which normal forms are more appropriate
Experiments with realistic data for evaluation of the approach
Ontology versioning in Description Logics

Thank you!

Semantic Diff As The Basis For Knowledge Base Versioning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semantic Diff As The Basis For Knowledge Base Versioning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semantic Diff as the Basis for

Knowledge Base Versioning

Enrico Franconi1 Thomas Meyer2 Ivan Varzinczak2

1 Free University of Bozen/Bolzano 2 Meraka Institute, CSIR

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 1 / 24

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24

Need for a versioning system

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 2 / 24

Reasoning with versions Kc

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 3 / 24

Reasoning with versions Kc

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 3 / 24

Reasoning with versions Kc

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 3 / 24

Reasoning with versions Kc

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 3 / 24

2 Knowledge Base Versioning

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 4 / 24

2 Knowledge Base Versioning

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 4 / 24

2 Knowledge Base Versioning

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 4 / 24

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 5 / 24

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 5 / 24

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 5 / 24

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 5 / 24

2 Knowledge Base Versioning

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 6 / 24

Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning

Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation

K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}

K1 and K2 differ in syntax

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 7 / 24

Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning

Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation

K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}

K1 and K2 differ in syntax

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 7 / 24

Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning

Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation

K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}

K1 and K2 differ in syntax

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 7 / 24

Semantic diff highlights the difference in (logical) meaning

Assume a logic with a Tarskian consequence relation

K1 = {p, q} and K2 = {p, p → q}

K1 and K2 differ in syntax

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 7 / 24

KBs closed under logical consequence

(P1) K = Cn(K) and K0 = Cn(K0 )

Semantic diff of K and K0 : pair hA, Ri

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 8 / 24

KBs closed under logical consequence

(P1) K = Cn(K) and K0 = Cn(K0 )

Semantic diff of K and K0 : pair hA, Ri

Franconi, Meyer, Varzinczak (FUB/Meraka) Semantic Diff for KB Versioning 8 / 24

KBs closed under logical consequence

(P1) K = Cn(K) and K0 = Cn(K0 )

Semantic diff of K and K0 : pair hA, Ri