Dbschema Vs Ontology Semtech11 SF 110608122338 Phpapp01

Ontologies and Database Schema: Whats the Difference?
Michael Uschold, PhD Semantic Arts .
Objective
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works E&IT | Mathematics and Computing Technology
To settle once and for all the question:
What is the difference between an ontology and a database schema?

What is the same?
Often asked. Never adequately answered.
What is different?
Do we need both?
Copyright 2011 Michael Uschold. All rights reserved.
Page 2
Example Ontology
Hydraulics
Page 3
Example: Logical DB Schema (IDEF1X)

Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Pumping
E&IT | Mathematics and Computing Technology
Hydraulics
done-by
Mechanical Device
Hydraulic System has-part
Pump
Fuel System Engine
Jet Engine supplies-fuel-to Hydraulic Pump Fuel Pump part-of connected-to Fuel Filter
Aircraft Engine Driven Pump

Copyright 2011 Michael Uschold. All rights reserved. Page 4
Example: Hydraulics
Pumping done-by Mechanical Device
Hydraulic System has-part
Pump
Fuel System Engine
Ontology
Logical DB Schema: IDEF1X
Is this similarity just superficial?

The Basic Idea for Each

Ontology: defines a set of concepts and relationships that represent the content and structure of some subject matter in a formal language. Database Schema: defines the structure of a database in a formal language. (loosely refers to any of: conceptual, logical, physical)
Pumping done-by Mechanical Device Hydraulic System has-part Pump Fuel System Engine
For shared understanding.
For a database.
Page 6
Five Questions to get a Better Understanding

1. What is it for? 2. What does it look like? 3. How do you build one?
it: ontology or database schema
4. How is it implemented and used? 5. Where are the semantics?
Quick Poll: more alike?
Are they more alike or different?

Quick Poll: more different?
What is it for?
DB Schema
Ontology
Focus
Data
Meaning Shared Understanding

Human communication, interoperability, search, software engineering,
Also for structuring instances.
Core Purpose(s)
Single purpose.
Structure instances for efficient storage and querying.
By the way
Meaning lost.
Instances optional.
Page 8
What does it look like? Notation

DB Schema
Ontology
Notation: syntax
ER diagrams; no standard serialization syntax.
Logic; no standard diagram notation syntax.
Notation: semantics
Minimal focus on formal semantics.
Strong focus on formal semantics.
Page 9
What does it look like? Expressivity

DB Schema
Ontology
Expressivity overlap
Entities Attributes, Relations

Constraints
Classes Properties
Axioms Taxonomy is backbone. Constraints for meaning, consistency & integrity.
Page 10
Expressivity differences
No taxonomy.
Cardinality constraints.
Constraints for integrity, foreign key, delete.

How to Build One?

DB Schema
Ontology
Starting point:
Normalization:
Scratch, rarely reuse.

Standard rules in natural language, little tool support.
Reuse if possible.
OntoClean
No standard rules or guidelines.

Some tuning may be required. A black art.
Optimization:
Toss expensive constraints. Lost meaning.
Fundamental step. Manual, geared to specific queries for specific DB.

Ontology independent; Inference engine developers.

Page 11
How is it Implemented and Used?

DB Schema
Ontology
Change Management, Agility, Flexibility
Locked into specific set of queries per DB. Tight coupling.

Lost meaning.
No query lock-in. Queries usable on other systems. Looser coupling.

Semantics explicit.
Semantics hardwired in procedural code.
Hard to evolve and maintain. ETL tools to help.

Potentially easier to evolve & maintain. Few tools.

Still no picnic!
Page 12

DB Schema
Ontology
Processing Engines
SQL Engines
Queries
Theorem Provers
Derive new information from existing information. Consistency and integrity Less standardization
Primary Focus:
Reasoning with Views

Data integrity Standardized on SQL
Both handle complex logical expressions.


DB Schema
Ontology
Performance
Highly tuned for performance and scale. Not work well with too many joins.
Full inferencing: much smaller scale.
Reduced inferencing: reaching large scale.
Tradeoff: Performance vs. Function & Flexibility

RDB and Triple Stores both have a Niche.

Building Databases & Applications Gather Requirements Build Conceptual Schema (e.g., ER or UML model)
Refine to Logical Schema (e.g., normalize, still ER or UML)

Refine to Physical Schema
Page 15

Refind to Physical Schema Define tables, columns, keys. Optimize to Specific Kinds of Queries. Create Data Dictionary (semantics for humans). Integrity Constraints
Domain, Referential & Semantic integrity Do the best you can, little automation.
Where are the Semantics?

Five Questions to get a Better Understanding

1. What is it for? 2. What does it look like? 3. How do you build one?
it: ontology or database schema
4. How is it implemented and used? 5. Where are the semantics?
Page 17
Where are the Semantics for Database Schema?

Mainly in Conceptual Schema and Data Dictionary
Designed for Humans

Semantics dont evolve as DB and applications change
Conceptual Schema semantics thrown away when building Physical Schema.

Integrity constraints hardwired in procedural code
Semantics are hardwired, lost, tossed, or out of date. You cannot maintain what you do not understand!
Quick Summary
Database Schema
Focus on DATA
DB Constraints to ensure integrity may hint at meaning No ISA hierarchy SQL Engines querying, views data integrity Instances Central Data Dictionary separate artifact
Ontology
FOCUS on Meaning Ontology Axioms to specify meaning maybe for integrity ISA Hierarchy is Backbone Theorem Provers infer new information ensure consistency Instances Optional
'Comments' part of the ontology

More Detailed Summary: 24 Features/Aspects

Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works Core for DB Schema Core for Ontology
1. 2. 3. Represented using a formal language. Expressivity: types, properties, constraints. Constraints for consistency checking.
E&IT | Mathematics and Computing Technology Secondary for DB Schema

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Shared meaning of some subject matter. Taxonomy. Multi-purpose. Embedded natural language definitions. Constraints for meaning. Constraints for ensuring self-consistency (not data).
Unimportant for DB Schema

16. 17. 18. 19. Abstract types w/no instances. Reused to build new ones. Reused in unexpected ways. Formal model-theoretic semantics.
Secondary for Ontology
10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
15.
Efficient querying and storage for data. Standardized diagram notation. Separate natural language definitions (data dictionary). Constraints for data integrity. Industry-wide construction guidelines (normalization). Scale to huge sizes. Cardinality constraints for getting foreign keys right and ensuring tables created for many-to-many relationships. Toss semantics after conceptual modeling. Optimization for specific set of queries. Sophisticated tool support for migrating data when schema evolve (ETL). SQL for querying data.
More Alike? Over 60% of features are common to both. The 3 features core to both are the most important: what is expressed and how.
Unimportant for Ontology
20.
21. 22. 23. 24.
More Different? Only 12% of features are core to both.
Can you convert one into the other?

Page 20
More Alike? or More Different?

Conversion? Conceptual Schema & Ontology No harder than between two different ontology languages Ontology & Logical Schema Some loss of information, a design artifact
Ontology & Physical Schema Much loss of information, an implementation artifact

My Big Fat Greek Wedding Toast:
even though we are apples and oranges, we are all fruit.

Conclusion
They are similar beasts. They evolved in different communities. Two cultures divided by a common idea?
Speaking of weddings What do you get if you cross: DB schema technology/community? Ontology technology/community?
Ontology/Model-Driven Architecture & Development

Basic Idea:
Explicitly capture the semantics as formal ontologies.

Base design- and implementation-level artifacts on the ontologies. Ontologies drive the applications, directly or indirectly. Benefits: Looser coupling. Semantics is explicit.
Conceptual, Real world
Logical, Design world
Integration/Interoperability by design.
Inference gives automated consistency checking. Easier to evolve and maintain:
Physical, Implementation world
Less hardwiring of semantics means easier to understand and change Ontologies evolve with the DB and applications.
Acknowledgements
For answering countless questions as a cube-mate: John Thompson
For reviews of a companion unpublished paper: Phil Bernstein, Tim Wilmering, Jun Yuan, Anhai Doan, Bill Andersen, Amit Sheth.
For ideas on model-driven development: Simon Robe.

Dbschema Vs Ontology Semtech11 SF 110608122338 Phpapp01

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Dbschema Vs Ontology Semtech11 SF 110608122338 Phpapp01

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ontologies and Database Schema: Whats the Difference?

Michael Uschold, PhD Semantic Arts .

To settle once and for all the question:

What is the difference between an ontology and a database schema?

Copyright 2011 Michael Uschold. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2011 Michael Uschold. All rights reserved.

Example: Logical DB Schema (IDEF1X)

E&IT | Mathematics and Computing Technology

Hydraulic System has-part

Fuel System Engine

Aircraft Engine Driven Pump

Hydraulic System has-part

Fuel System Engine

Aircraft Engine Driven Pump

Logical DB Schema: IDEF1X

Is this similarity just superficial?

The Basic Idea for Each

For shared understanding.

Aircraft Engine Driven Pump

Copyright 2011 Michael Uschold. All rights reserved.

Five Questions to get a Better Understanding

it: ontology or database schema

4. How is it implemented and used? 5. Where are the semantics?

Quick Poll: more alike?

Are they more alike or different?

Meaning Shared Understanding

Structure instances for efficient storage and querying.

Copyright 2011 Michael Uschold. All rights reserved.

What does it look like? Notation

ER diagrams; no standard serialization syntax.

Logic; no standard diagram notation syntax.

Minimal focus on formal semantics.

Strong focus on formal semantics.

Copyright 2011 Michael Uschold. All rights reserved.

What does it look like? Expressivity

Entities Attributes, Relations

Constraints for integrity, foreign key, delete.

How to Build One?

Scratch, rarely reuse.

No standard rules or guidelines.

Fundamental step. Manual, geared to specific queries for specific DB.

Ontology independent; Inference engine developers.

How is it Implemented and Used?

Change Management, Agility, Flexibility

Locked into specific set of queries per DB. Tight coupling.

No query lock-in. Queries usable on other systems. Looser coupling.

Semantics hardwired in procedural code.

Hard to evolve and maintain. ETL tools to help.

Potentially easier to evolve & maintain. Few tools.

How is it Implemented and Used?

Reasoning with Views

Both handle complex logical expressions.

How is it Implemented and Used?

Full inferencing: much smaller scale.

Reduced inferencing: reaching large scale.

Tradeoff: Performance vs. Function & Flexibility

How is it Implemented and Used?

Refine to Logical Schema (e.g., normalize, still ER or UML)

Copyright 2011 Michael Uschold. All rights reserved.

How is it Implemented and Used?

Where are the Semantics?

Five Questions to get a Better Understanding