Open cmungall opened 2 years ago
TODO: compare with @balhoff's pruning rules:
redundant(s, p, o) :- rdf(s, p, other), s != other, !equivalent(s, other), subClassOf(other, o), rdf(s, p, o).
what about if other=o?
e.g
rdf(finger,part_of,hand) subClassOf(hand,hand)
(unless subClassOf is properSubClassOf)?
redundant(s, p, o) :- rdf(s, p, o), subClassOf(s, other), rdf(other, p, o), other != o, !equivalent(other, o).
same comments as above
redundant(s, p, o) :- rdf(s, p, o), transitive(p), rdf(s, p, other), other != o, rdf(other, p, o).
do you not also have to check for other != s
?
redundant(s, p, o) :- rdf(s, p, o), subPropertyOf(sub, p), rdf(s, sub, o).
this makes sense
redundant(s, RDFS_SUBCLASS_OF, s) :- rdf(s, RDFS_SUBCLASS_OF, s).
subset of reflexive case
Capturing in this repo for now. The goal is to have a better categorization of different notions of directness or redundancy of triples in a Relation Graph. Even if these are not implemented by RG immediately, having this vocabulary will help us in discussions of what to include or exclude any given user-facing graph.
The overall goal is to be able to classify triples in a relation graph with categories that help inform users as to whether they are redundant and the nature of the redundancy. E.g. for some applications it is critical to be able to separate "one-hop" edges from edges that are redundant with a multi-hop path (classic Transitive Reduction).
Relation Graph Transforms
First we define the relation-graph transform (RGT) between an axiom pattern on the left and a triple on the right:
A subClassOf B
where A and B are named classes =>A rdfs:subClassOf B
A subClassOf R some B
where A and B are named classes =>A R B
A equivalentClass B
where A and B are named classes =>A owl:equivalentClass B
(these are a subset of owlstar, with the interpretation triple excluded)
RGT
(O
entailed) = RGRGT
(O
asserted) = RGassertedThe axioms patterns are assumed to match entailed axioms in the input ontology. The original asserted axioms are labeled Oasserted.
A possible extension is to include properties and individuals in the graph, we omit this for now
The set of axioms in
O
that do not match either LHS pattern is calledO'
(e.g. RBox axioms, logical axioms with nesting or using other constructs)We use the term "triple" when talking about the output RG triple, and "axiom" when talking about the input OWL ontology axiom. We assume only semantics at the OWL/axiom level and structure at the triple level.
Any triple in the RG must correspond to an axiom (asserted or entailed) in the input ontology according to the two transforms above
Each triple can be categorized according to one or more entailment/redundancy categories below
Additional assumption: the input OWL is coherent. Preprocessing may be applied to reach this state.
Triple categories
A triple t is asserted based on characteristics of it's corresponding axiom a, which matches one of the patterns above
asserted
The triple comes from an asserted axioms on the LHS, ie the triple matches an axiom in Oasserted
entailed
The triple comes from an entailed axiom on the LHS
note that entailed is not disjoint from asserted. Every asserted triple is necessarily an entailed triple
entailment trivially holds for all edges but we include here for completeness, e.g. we can use it to categorize unseen edges
An example of an entailed triple is A partOf C, given A partOf B, B partOf C, where partOf is transitive in O
(if partOf is not transitive, then the triple is not entailed and hence not in RG)
reflexive
iff A=B
Note that all reflexive triples SHOULD NOT be asserted for globally reflexive or locally reflexive properties, as the input ontology SHOULD NOT assert these. Presence of these indicates the input MAY come from incorrectly configured robot.
For non-reflexive properties, reflexive triples MAY be asserted. For example, from an asserted axiom
neuron subClassOf connected-to some neuron
root-tip-tautological (aka taut)
Either A=Nothing or B=thing or P=topProperty or P=bottomProperty
A default configuration of RG MAY be to always exclude tautologies, and the nodes thing and nothing
entailment-direct
Given a triple t0
A R B
, corresponding to axiom a0,t0 is entailment-direct if there exists no triple t1 corresponding to axiom a1 such that
O-a1 |= a0
this has the effect of excluding both two-hops over transitive predicates, as well as one-hops with more general predicates
graph-onehop
A triple A R B is graph-direct if there exists no pair of triples A Z, Z B
Note this is predicate-blind. It should not be assumed non-onehops encode no useful information. E.g.
A sub C [2-hop] A partOf B B sub C
If the 2-hop is exclude it can exclude information that cannot be recapitulated elsehwere, and will impede operations such as inference of a category for a node by subClass traversal
graph-Nhop
Generalization of above
non-redundant predicate
a triple A R B (corresponding to axiom a0) is a nrpred iff there is no triple
t1 A R' B (corresponding to a1) such that R' != R and
O-a0 |= a0
and NOT:O-(a0 + a1) |= a0
Examples
Single hop subproperty example
input owl
entailed owl
(we omit irrelevant patterns as the set is of infininite size, eg if we include unions)
triples in RG annotated with categories (omitting 'entailed' categorization)
Note that if we select ONLY non-taut, entailment-direct from RG we get a single triple
A partOf B
This is what a "typical user" might expect from the graph
Transitivity 2-hop example
input owl
triples (excluding tauts and reflexive for brevity)
contrast with next example
Non-transitivity 2-hop example
input owl
triples (excluding tauts and reflexive for brevity)
Note this triple is NOT in RG:
Property-chain example
input owl
triples (excluding tauts and reflexive for brevity)
The intuition here is that even though A posReg C is a 2-hop and can be entailed from existing triple axioms, it is in some sense interesting in that it is a non-redundant pred