E Rock@Ro Man2017pub

E-ROCK
Enriching Robots with Ontological-Cognitive Knowledge
Stefano Borgo
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
ISTC-CNR, Trento (IT) Tutorial at RO-MAN 2017
Table of Contents
Guiding scenarios
Why ontology?
Managing information with an Ontology
Entities and their connections
An ontology: DOLCE
Artefacts, Functions and Agents
Environment and Context
Rules and Reasoning
S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 2
Scenario: Robot + Worker
http://www.all-electronics.de

Scenario: Robot + Human
http://www.riken.jp

Scenario: Robot + Environment
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jC-AmPfInwU/maxresdefault.jpg

Scenario: Robot + Controlled
environment
M6
M5 M7
M1
M6
M4 M5
S1
M4
M2
S2
M3 M2

environment /2
NOITARUGIFNOC CONFIGURATION
2 CONFIGURATION
CONFIGURATION
2 2 CONFIGURATION 1 1 1 1
2CONFIGURATION
NOCONFIGURATION
ITARCONFIGURATION
UGICONFIGURATION
FNOC 2
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Scenario: Robot + Controlled
CR 1CL 1LC1 LC1RC1

CR LC1 LC1LC11CL RC1RC1 RC1 LC1 LC1LC1 RC1RC1 RC1RC1
2CLC2
R LC2 LC2LC2
2CL RC2RC2 RC2RC2
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
!
!
!
!
!
S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017

7
Physical robot, Knowledge module, Execution module

Table of Contents
Guiding scenarios
Why ontology?
An ontology: DOLCE
Rules and Reasoning
Applied ontology: about 30 years ago...
I Late 1980s (AI community):
the term ontology is used (along with others like “semantic
domain”, “knowledge view”) but it still conflates the world
representation and the knowledge system component.
I 1993: 1st Intern. workshop on Formal Ontology &
Information Systems
I mid 90s: “ontology” in the topic list of conferences and
international meetings
I mid 90s: IEEE SUO Working Group
I 1998: 1st event of the FOIS series
I 2002: Ontolog forum (virtual community of practice)
...untill today
I 2005:
- Applied Ontology Journal (IOS Press)
- ECOR, NCOR, JCOR...
- the FOMI series starts (Formal ontology meets industry)
I 2006: First public discussion on an ontology association at
FOIS (Baltimore)
I 2009: the International Association for Ontology and its
Applications (IAOA) is established
I TODAY: regular conferences and workshops on ontology
(e.g. JOWO Setp. 21-23, Bolzano IT; FOIS at Cape Town, Sept. 2018)
In parallel:
- ontology standardization initiatives (W3C, OMG, IEEE, ISO)
- ontology shapes various domains (Snomed, FMA, DB)
- ontology tool development (Protege, CommonKAD,OntoUML)
Ontology is a philosophical notion
In philosophy, ontology is a branch of metaphysics.

It studies the being (as such) independently from our
knowledge.
More specifically, it deals with the things that can possibly
exist in the world.

Why ontology in applications?
“Trying to engage with too many partners too fast is one

of the main reasons that so many online market makers
have foundered. The transactions they had viewed as
simple and routine actually involved many subtle
distinctions in terminology and meaning”
Harvard Business Review, October 2001

When meaning is an issue
One problem is data interpretation: the understanding of

the data collected by the agent(s) and the correct
inferences that have to be made in general and in the
given circumstances.
Another problem is interoperability: the capacity of two or

more agents (people, organizations, information systems)
to exchange and correctly interpret each other’s data.

When meaning is an issue
A challenging problem is understanding information itself

“The piece is at 50 C”
(piece? 50 C? ... so what?)
Another problem is to combine/integrate information
“The piece is at 50 C”
“The piece is hot”
Are these consistent?
Can these be integrated?
Under which conditions?
one claim is objective – the other claim is relative and/or
contextual S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 15
From ontology to applied ontology
To face these problems we need to study the content of

data.
– Ontology studies the being (as such) independently

from knowledge.
– Applied ontology studies the content (as such)
independently from representation issues.

Ontology and meaning heterogeneity
Sources of heterogeneity:
I system heterogeneity
I syntactic heterogeneity
I structural heterogeneity
I semantic heterogeneity

Is it really needed?
Any agent, organization, information system
I has an (implicit or explicit) underlying ontology, and

possibly more than one, which depends on its
conceptualization(s)
I uses a language which adopts/relies on a certain
semantics

Problem 1: why caring about the conceptualization of the
world?

What is this?

What is this?
Artefact
Physical object(s)
Piece(s) of matter
Shape(s)
Outline(s)
Pattern(s) of colors
Shades
Holes
Bumps
...

Table of Contents
Guiding scenarios
Why ontology?
An ontology: DOLCE
Rules and Reasoning
Ontology in an information system
The ontology
I constrains the interpretation of the language
I constrains the possible situations that we can describe
with the language.
I gives a design rationale for knowledge:
– necessary vs possible vs impossible situations
– managing knowledge
– scaling up knowledge
– coherent and consistent knowledge accumulation
Ontologies are conceptual artefacts providing a collection of

primitive terms, properties, relations and derived notions
(definitions), a class structure and a set of principled
constraints across them. S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 23
How to classify ontologies (I)
Now consider an ontology as an artifact for knowledge

representation and organization.
Since such artifacts are notoriously complex systems, we
can analyze them from different perspectives.
I Language (natural, controlled, CL, OWL, F-logic,...)

I Formalism (taxonomy, graph, frame, axiomatic,...)
I Structural complexity (tangledness, splitting, modularity,
depth...)
I Construction methodology (top-down, bottom-up, core
expansion, merging, formalization enriching, pruning...)
How to classify ontologies (II)
I Domain granularity (application, domain, core,

foundational)
I Content (management, learning, medicine...)
I Ideal use (general, local, process-oriented,...)
I Purpose (retrieval, annotation, question-answering, data
sharing, knowledge discovery...)
I Entity types
I Precision (and Accuracy)

Example 1: formalism
Classification based on formalism
I Linguistic/Terminological (weakest semantics)

I Glossary
I Controlled vocabulary
I Taxonomy
I Thesaurus
I Implementation driven
I Conceptual Schema
I Knowledge Base
I Formal (strongest semantics)
I (depending on language expressivity)

Example 2: entity types
Classification based on entity types
(inspired by the “problem solving” perspective)
I Ontologies of ‘general’ entities (foundational ontology)
I event, time, space, function, behavior
I Ontologies of domain entities (domain ontology)
I pen, car, planet, biological cell
I Ontologies of task entities (task ontology)
I Roles (played by domain entities in the task)
I Actions (occurring in the task)
I States (of the entities)
I Specific elements (proper of the task): constraint,
attribute
I Integration (application ontology) S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 27
Ontologies in practice
There is a classical distinction between

lightweight and heavyweight types of ontology.
Lightweight ontologies are simple systems (mainly

terminological ontologies) which allow limited yet fast
reasoning services.
Heavyweight ontologies are rich systems (mainly formal
ontologies) which provide deep reasoning services but
are usually computationally demanding.

Building ontologies: an example
The choice of the categories and the structural relationships

among them is crucial in any ontology.
Ontological relationships are sophisticated tools.
- Malfunctioning of parts are malfunctioning of the whole.

- Operations on parts are operations on the whole.
- Surfaces of parts might not be surfaces of the whole.
- Replacements of parts are not replacements of the whole.
(adapted from [A. Rector ’98])

Consider this taxonomy:
I Application
Application for production of X
Task in production of X
Drilling of X
Tip centering for drilling in X
Problem 2: Do you see something wrong?

Consider this taxonomy:
I Application
Application for production of X
Task in production of X
Drilling of X
Tip centering for drilling in X
Problem 2: Do you see something wrong?

I Application
Application for production of X (a kind of production)
Task in production of X (a part of an application)
Drilling of X (a kind of task)
Tip centering for drilling of X (a part of drilling)
Building ontologies: an example (3)
Yet, the following is perfectly fine
Change in application
Change in application for production of X
Change in task in production of X
Change in drilling of X
Change in tip centering for drilling of X
To build a good ontology we need: domain experts (to

understand what one is modeling) and a solid methodology or
an ontologist (to know how to model).

Organizational relations
Any ontology provides a classification taxonomy which is

sometimes called the “backbone” of the whole system.
The taxonomy is a set of slots (categories, classes, concepts),

connected by organizational relationships:
Is_A (subclass) and Part_Of.
Usually categories are identified by predicates, e.g., the
category Person is identified by the predicate being human.
Another relationship, Instance_Of, is needed to populate the

ontology.

The Is_A relation (subsumption)
Is_A: the set-theoretical notion of subset.

It relates two categories.
∀x(Screwdriver(x) → Tool(x))
“every member of category Screwdriver is also member of

Tool”

The Instance_Of relation
Instance_Of: the set-theoretical notion of membership.

It relates an individual and a category.
Tool(Tester_A123)
“The individual Tester_A123 is a member of category Tool”
Note: multiple inheritance is a possibility but needs to be

managed with care!

The Part_Of relation
Part_Of: this relation is not set-theoretical.

It relates two individuals.
Let’s model: The slot is part of the screwdriver.

Part(Slot, Screwdriver)

Part_Of: this relation is not set-theoretical.

It relates two individuals.
Let’s model: The slot is part of the screwdriver.

Part(Slot, Screwdriver) [parthood is ambiguous]
Spatial parthood
Part(Loc(Slot), Loc(Screwdriver))
“the location of the Slot is part of the location of

Screwdriver”

Parthood is not necessarily about space.
It can be used to model
I space
I time
I objects (temporalised)
I events
I functionality
I environment
Problem 3: Distinguish the meaning of expression

Part(Slot, Screwdriver) based on the different parthood
relations.
Table of Contents
Guiding scenarios
Why ontology?
An ontology: DOLCE
Rules and Reasoning
Types of entities
We always talk of ontologies (plural) because different
ontological assumptions lead to different systems which
are motivated by different cognitive/conceptual systems.
These systems may differ even on the types of entities
they assume to exist.
Important ontological choices:

I object vs event
I abstract vs physical
I role vs property
I co-location vs extensionality
I time-point vs time-interval
I ... S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 40
Entity stacking
What to ask when you model something?

Let’s see a common entity in our everyday life: a table
I the table vs the material (wood/metal)
Is there just one entity that encompasses both

- the table and the material (a table-shaped bulk of
atoms),
or do we recognize several entities that are co-located
and interconnected?
Guideline: identify what is essential in general, not just for

the specific goal in a scenario!
Entity stacking
Some alternatives for modeling our “table”:

- only matter (holes, corners etc. are features of the
shape)
- only objects (may include immaterial parts)
- matter vs object
- matter vs object vs artifact
Q.: which ontological relationships link co-located

entities?
I constitution
I dependence S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 42
Table of Contents
Guiding scenarios
Why ontology?
An ontology: DOLCE
Rules and Reasoning
The DOLCE-core ontology

What is there?
Problem 4: what is shown here?

Objects, qualities and spaces in DOLCE
Object Quality Quality space
Physical
Location-Quality Location-Space
Object
Is-part-of
Inheres Indiv. Loc.-quality Has-quale

Gripper_73 Location_421
of Gripper_73

An object, its qualities (yellow), and their quality-spaces (gray)
Gripper_73
(the concrete object)
Individual Weight-quality Individual Location-quality Individual Shape-quality ....

of Gripper_73 of Gripper_73 of Gripper_73 of Gripper_73
Positions: Light, Heavy Positions: sets Positions: Spherical, Non-spherical ....

[A space with 2 positions] [A topological space] [A space with 2 positions]
Positions: a,b,c,... Positions: Euclidean loci Positions: 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D, Other ....
[A space with infinite positions] [A geometric space] [A space with 5 positions]
Positions: 0,1,2,... Positions: mereological regions Positions: # of angles

[A space with ordered positions] [A mereological space] [A space with infinite positions]
.... .... Positions: any geometrical shape

[A space with infinite positions]
....

Being Present in DOLCE
The primitive predicate ‘being present at’ (PRE) identifies
at which times entities exist.
No commitment to a specific notion of time is taken.
PRE is dissective and additive. It applies to times only.
I PRE(x, t) → T(t)
I PRE(x, t) ∧ P(t0 , t) → PRE(x, t0 ) (dissectivity)
I PRE(x, t0 ) ∧ PRE(x, t00 ) ∧ SUM(t, t0 , t00 ) → PRE(x, t)
(additivity)
I PT (x) → ∃t(PRE(x, t))

Temporary Parthood in Dolce /1
DOLCE adopts a temporary extensional mereology, also

denoted by P, which is based on the axioms of
extensional mereology adapted to the extra temporal
parameter.
Expression P(x, y, t) stands for ‘x is part of y at time t’,
analogously for, say, O(x, y, t).
I O(x, y, t) , ∃z(P(z, x, t) ∧ P(z, y, t))
(Temporary Overlap)

Temporary Parthood in Dolce /2
I P(x, y, t) → PRE(x, t) ∧ PRE(y, t)

(parthood implies being present)
I PRE(x, t) → P(x, x, t) (temporary reflexivity)
I P(x, y, t) ∧ P(y, z, t) → P(x, z, t) (temporary transitivity)
I PRE(x, t) ∧ PRE(y, t) ∧ ¬P(x, y, t) →
∃z(P(z, x, t) ∧ ¬O(z, y, t))
(temporary extensionality)
I If φ is O, E, QTi , Sjk or C:
φ(y) ∧ P(x, y, t) → φ(x)
(temporary dissectivity )

The location relation
The location relation (L) provides the link between

qualities and spaces.
L(x, y, t) ≡ “at time t, region x is the location of the

individual quality y”

Location: axioms (1)
I R (x)∧PRE(x, t)∧PRE(x, t0 ) → ∀y(P(y, x, t) ↔ P(y, x, t0 ))
Regions (and in particular spaces) do not change
during their existence.
I S ij (x) ∧ S ij (y) ∧ PRE(x, t) → PRE(y, t)
I L(x, y, t) → R(x) ∧ QT(y)
I L(x, y, t) → PRE(y, t)
I L(x, y, t) ∧ P(t0 , t) ∧ L(x0 , y, t0 ) ∧ Sij (x) ∧ Sij (x0 ) →
∀t00 (PRE(x, t00 ) → P(x0 , x, t00 ))
I L(x0 , y, t0 ) ∧ L(x00 , y, t00 ) ∧ SUM(t, t0 , t00 ) ∧ SUM(x, x0 , x00 )∧
S ij (x0 ) ∧ S ij (x00 ) → L(x, y, t)
the location of an individual quality at t is the
mereological sum of all the locations the quality has
during t S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 52
Location: axioms (2)
W
I L(x, y, t) ∧ QTi (y) → j Sij (x)
I QT(y) ∧ PRE(y, t) → ∃x(L(x, y, t))
Each individual quality in QTi must be located at least
in one of the associated spaces Sij
I L(x, y, t) ∧ L(x0 , y, t) ∧ Sjk (x) ∧ Sjk (x0 ) → x = x0
[The location in a single space is unique]
I L(x, y, t) ∧ PRE(y, t0 ) ∧ Sjk (x) → ∃x0 (L(x0 , y, t0 ) ∧ Sjk (x0 ))
A quality that has a location in a space needs to have
some location in that space during its whole life
I L(x, y, t) ∧ CC(x0 , x, t) ∧ CC(y0 , y, t) → L(x0 , y0 , t)
(L-substitutivity )
Two qualities coincident at t are also indistinguishable
with respect to their locations (thus the bearers are
indistinguishable with respect to those qualities)
Beyond Ontology
Problem 5: List the information in the figure and separate
what goes into the ontology and what does not.

Table of Contents
Guiding scenarios
Why ontology?
An ontology: DOLCE
Rules and Reasoning
Artifacts

Artifacts /1
- Something created by humans usually for a practical purpose.
- Something [...] resulting from a particular human institution,
period, trend, or individual.
[Merriam-Webster]
- An object produced [...] by human craft, especially a tool,
weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest.
- Something viewed as a product of human conception or
agency rather than an inherent element.
[The American Heritage Dictionary]
Artifact is a term used in the social sciences, particularly
anthropology, ethnology, and sociology for anything created by
humans which gives information about the culture of its creator
and users. [Wikipedia]

Artifacts /2
Definition (Engineering Artifact)
A technical artifact a is a physical object created by an
intentionally performed production process. The process is
intentionally performed by one or more agents with the goal of
producing the object a which is expected to realize intended
behavior in some given generic technical situation, and the
object a can realize to some extent that intended behavior
and/or has a property which supports that behavior.
Definition (Technological Artifact)

A technical artifact a is a physical object which is, firstly, created
by the carrying out by an agent (or group of agents) of a make
plan for a physical object with a physical description id, and for
which, secondly, a use plan exists.
Artifacts /3
Definition (Engineering Artifact)
A technical artifact a is a physical object created by an
intentionally performed production process. The process is
intentionally performed by one or more agents with the goal of
producing the object a which is expected to realize intended
behavior in some given generic technical situation, and the
object a can realize to some extent that intended behavior
and/or has a property which supports that behavior.
Definition (Technological Artifact)

A technical artifact a is a physical object which is, firstly, created
by the carrying out by an agent (or group of agents) of a make
plan for a physical object with a physical description id, and for
which, secondly, a use plan exists.
Artifacts 4/
Definition (Ontological Artifact)

A technical artifact a is a physical object which an agent (or
group of agents) creates by two, possibly concurrent,
intentional acts: the selection of a material entity (as the only
constituent of a) and the attribution to a of a technical quality.

Artifacts /5
Ontological
artifact - OA
(Def. 1)
Selection Constituted
(generic) entity
Attribution
Attributed
physical
property Agent Action
Technological Intentional Selection Engineering

artifact - TA physical (mental) artifact - EA
(Def. 3) production (Def. 2)
Physical Physical
property entity
Physical Behavior
description
Use plan
Selected
Make plan behavior
Selected
Selection physical
(via checking) property


Engineering Functions

A view: Functional Modeling /1
Universal common language for archiving, comparison,
communication of functional description.
I product functions are described in form of a verb-object
and represented by input/output flows of materials,
energies and signals. Graphically they are shown as a
black-box operation on flows. The idea is to decompose
product functions into sets of connected elementary
sub-functions.
I Sub-functions are well-defined basic operations on
well-defined basic flows of materials, energies and signals.
From the implementation viewpoint, they are elementary.
I Basic operations and basic flows are limited in number
and stored in shared libraries, which cover the mechanical
design space. S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 64


Device-centric functions - first look



Device-centric functions
Definition
A device-centric function of a device for an agent is a set
of behavioral constraints that are
(1) satisfied by the device
(2) intended by the agent.

Environment-centric functions - first look



Environment-centric functions
Definition
A environment-centric function of a device in an
environment is a set of behavioral constraints that are
(1) caused by the device
(2) intended by an agent.
This presupposes that the device is deployed in the
environment as specified by a mode of deployment.

Mode of deployment
Definition
A mode of deployment of a device in an environment is a
specification of all causal interactions between the device
and the environment.
Those interactions may include:
(1) structural relations between the device and the
objects in the environment
(2) actions such that
I they impact on the device
I the environment’s objects participate in them.

Ontological functions
FUNCTION
(as effect)
TEST ACTION COMMUNICATION
SENSE CONVERT CHANNEL SEND
CHANGE STABILIZE
BRANCH MAGNITUDE RECEIVE
JOIN STORE INCREASE
RECLASSIFY COLLECT DECREASE
CHANGE
OVER RELEASE
information change of change on change on information
collection operand(s) qualities relations sharing


Classifying manipulation tasks /1
Problem 6a: Classify ontologically some tasks.
FUNCTION
(as effect)
TEST ACTION COM
SENSE CONVERT CHANNEL
CHANGE STABILIZE
BRANCH MAGNITUDE
JOIN STORE INCREASE
CHANGE
OVER RELEASE
information change of change on change on
collection operand(s) qualities relations
From “Classifying Compliant Manipulation Tasks for Automated
Planning in Robotics”,D. Leidner et al., IROS 2015
Classifying manipulation tasks /2
Problem 6b: Classify ontologically some tasks.
FUNCTION
(as effect)
TEST ACTION CO
SENSE CONVERT CHANNEL
CHANGE STABILIZE
BRANCH MAGNITUDE
JOIN STORE INCREASE
CHANGE
OVER RELEASE
information change of change on change on
collection operand(s) qualities relations
From “Classifying Compliant Manipulation Tasks for Automated
Planning in Robotics”, D. Leidner et al., IROS 2015

Agent

Briefs on agents /1
Our interest is on the notion of embodied agent.
(1) anything that is seen as “perceiving its environment
through sensors and acting upon that environment through
effectors.” (Russell and Norvig, 2010, p. 33)
(2) “a system that tries to fulfill a set of goals in a complex,
dynamic environment” (Maes, 1994, p. 136)
(3) “any embodied system [that pursues] internal or external
goals by its own actions while in continuous long-term
interaction with the environment in which it is situated”
(Beer, 1995, p. 173)
(4) (autonomous agent) “a system situated within and apart of
an environment that senses that environment and acts on
it, over time, in pursuit of its own agenda and so as to
effect what it senses in the future.” (Franklin and Graesser,
1996, p. 25).
Briefs on agents /2
Our interest is on the notion of embodied agent.
(5) “entities which engage in normatively constrained,

goal-directed, interaction with their environment”
(Christensen and Hooker, 2000, p. 133)
(6) “a system doing something by itself according to certain

goals or norms within a specific environment.” Conditions:
(i) the system is an individual; (ii) the system is the active
source of interaction; and (iii) the interaction norm is
generated by the system (Barandiaran, Di Paolo and
Rohde, 2009, p. 374)
Commonalities: there is a system, distinguishable from the

environment, able to sense and/or perceive that environment,
able to act in pursuit of a goal.
The definitions do not refer to intentionality.
Problem 7: how would you define a robotic agent?

Table of Contents
Guiding scenarios
Why ontology?
An ontology: DOLCE
Rules and Reasoning
Environment

Robot’s environments /1
http://www.wirecrafters.com/

http://www.wirecrafters.com/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/

Environment
In robotics there are three ways to understand

‘environment’: fixed, object-centric, task-centric.
Generally speaking, the environment amounts to an area

(location) and the elements in it possibly with their
constraints/relationships.

Environment
Speaking of agents, this is the area of interest in which

the agent acts or could act.
NOTE: regarding artificial agents, it might also include
requirements and specifications about the software
components and their development.
Here we define the robot’s environment as the location

where the robot is (it’s area of movement/action) including
the elements it contains plus the entities that, even though
not in the location, can interact (positively or negatively)
with the robot’s goals and planned activities.

Environment
In ontological terms, the environment is a
located physical object, whose extension and properties
are relative to the agent, obtained by the mereological
sum of all the physical objects that are within the
interaction range (workspace) of the robot.
The location of the environment corresponds to the
location of the objects in the environment plus the
locations ‘reachable’ by the robot itself.
NOTE: in this view the environment extension and parts
can change for several reasons:
change in the goals and planned activities, entities moving
closer or farther, robot moving, robot starting/ending
interaction channels, change in the robot’s capabilities...
Context

Context (general)
Here are some general uses of the term ‘context’
I a context is the result of picking a viewpoint
(education, economics, tourism, personal
relationship...), and
– use it to discriminate what is relevant and what is
not in a given system/situation,
– use it to reinterpret the components and
relationships of/in the system/situation
I a context is the result of selecting a part of ‘reality’
and isolate it as a full-fledge system in itself.

Understanding Context
Computer science: the notion of context was introduced
in operating systems to mean a state of the processes like
waiting, running and blocked.
In artificial intelligence, software engineering, database,
machine learning, and knowledge representation context
is a collection of things and constraints associated to
some specific condition.
More specifically, in artificial intelligent context is a logical
construct that facilitates reasoning activities by
partitioning knowledge into manageable sets.
In knowledge representation, context is an abstraction
mechanism for partitioning a knowledge base.

Understanding Context
In sociology context is a network of interacting entities
(people, agents, artefacts) created and continually
updated by the interactions among them.
In cognitive science, context is the set of all entities that
influence human (or system’s) behaviour on a particular
occasion.
In linguistics context has (at least) two meanings.
– The verbal context refers to the text or speech
surrounding an expression (word, sentence, or speech
act).
– The social context is given by the social identity
construed and displayed in text and talk by the language
users.
Context and environment
I believe it is important to keep context and environment

(and situation) apart:
environment (situation) implies a localization, often
spatial/temporal: the subject of study is part of the
environment (situation).
Context is more general, the subject does not need to be
part of the context.
In the literature context, environment and situation are often
used interchangeably as we are going to see.

Defining context /1
Design science:
“Context knowledge identifies the exogenous variables for a
design situation and specifies that values for these variables
must come from outside the design prototype, that is, from the
context (C).”
“The context is defined by the available design prototypes. [....]
This move [outside the available design prototypes] can be
seen as the designer changing the context in which s/he is
working.” [J. Gero, 1990]

Defining context /2
Context-aware systems:
“A real world entity to be represented is always related to a
context. A semantically consistent body of information in which
the entity makes sense.
The need of contexts? In mobile applications, where the
environment suffer dynamic reconfigurations.” [Cafezeiro et al.,
2008]

Defining context /3
“By [context] we refer here to any space in our surroundings.

Although some people may also consider virtual environments
here we mostly refer to Physical spaces, in all its diversity, e.g.,
house, building, street, a field, an area in the sea or space, etc.
[Augusto et al. 2013]

Defining context /4
A widely used definition:

a context is “that which constrains something without
intervening in it explicitly” [P. Brézilon, J. Pomerol, 1999]
“[S]omething is context because of the way it is used in

interpretation”, [Winograd, T., 2001]
⇒ A context is not such for its inherent properties.
Note that use in interpretation leads to think of context as

something related to a descriptive and semantic value.

Context and context-awareness
Probably the most used notion today:
“Context is any information that can be used to
characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a
person, place, or object that is considered relevant to the
interaction between a user and an application, including
the user and applications themselves.”
“A system is context-aware if it uses context to provide

relevant information and/or services to the user, where
relevancy depends on the user’s task.”
[Dey, 2001]

Sub-contexts: the manufacturing domain
Often three types of contexts for an agent are enough.
The global context is about information the agent cannot

control nor modify, e.g., the shared language of the system, the
agents present in the system, the factory’s performance
parameters.
The local context provides information on the relationship
between the agent and its neighbours (typically the agents
connected to it), thus providing a centralised view.
The internal context collects the information the agent has
about itself as well as its capacities toward itself (change-over)
and toward the environment (communication and manipulation).

Exploiting ontology and context
Problem 8 (revision of 5): List the information in the
figure and separate what goes into the ontology and what
in the context and (sub-contexts).

Table of Contents
Guiding scenarios
Why ontology?
An ontology: DOLCE
Rules and Reasoning
Recall the Robot in the controlled environment scenario
M6
M5 M7
M1
M6
M4 M5
S1
M4
M2
S2
M3 M2

1 NOITARUGIFNOC CONFIGURATION
2 CONFIGURATION
CONFIGURATION
2 2 CONFIGURATION 1 1 1 1
2CONFIGURATION
NOCONFIGURATION
ITARCONFIGURATION
UGICONFIGURATION
FNOC 2
Scenario: Robot + Controlled environment
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
1CR 1CL 1LC1 LC1RC1

CR LC1 LC1LC11CL RC1RC1 RC1 LC1 LC1LC1 RC1RC1 RC1RC1
2CLC2
R LC2 LC2LC2
2CL RC2RC2 RC2RC2
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
!
!
!
!
!
S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017

106
Physical robot, Knowledge module, Execution module

Knowledge module

Knowledge mechanism
Knowledge)Processing)Mechanism)
Classiﬁca.on(Rules( Capability((
Inference(Rules(
kb0
Taxonomy((
Contexts( of(Func.ons(
Low9level)Reasoning) High9level)Reasoning)
d: sensor Diagnosis)Module) kb: agent's

data knowledge
Mechatronic)
Module/Controller)

Leveraging on the ontology and contexts
The local context provides:
I list of ports/interfaces
I list of internal states
I list of engines/actuators
The ontology and the global context provide general

information, e.g.:
I ports are locations
I conveyors are connectors of locations
I connection is transitive for the Channel

(transportation) function
This suffices to generate all the possible ways for a
trasportation agent to execute a Channel function.
Received knowledge (internal, local, general)
GLOBAL CONTEXT
module-t2 module-t4
module-t3 hasLoc
connection
connection module-t7
hasLoc hasLoc
connection LOCAL CONTEXT connection
connection
hasLoc hasLoc connection connection

port-f
hasPart
conveyor hasLoc
hasPart
hasPart port-b
module-t1
INTERNAL CONTEXT

Building internal and local knowledge
hasOpStat active
robot-3
hasOpStat
robot-1
hasOpStat
hasLoc
robot-2
hasLoc
connection
hasLoc
connection connection
hasLoc
port-f port-b hasLoc
hasComp
hasComp
hasCollab
hasCollab
module-t1
ROBOT(r) ∧ PORT(p) ∧ hasLoc(p, lp , t) ∧ ROBOTPART(p, r, t) ∧

hasOpStat(p, active, t) ∧ ROBOT(c) ∧ hasLoc(c, lc , t) ∧
connection(lp, lc , t) → hasCollab(r, c, t) S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 112
Using a model of agent
Channel-‐F-‐B
Neighbor-‐F TM Channel Channel-‐F-‐L1
F Channel-‐L1-‐F
Idle
Channel-‐B-‐F
Neighbor-‐L1

SEMANTIC FUNCTIONAL
TU1
MAPPING
R1
L1
Transportation Unit 1 Transportation

Moving Unit 2
Down Up
Transportation

SETUP Moving Up
Unit 3
Down
TU2
R2
Cross Engine 1
L2
Main
Conveyor Forward
Cross Engine 3
SAll Backward Cross Engine 2

PRIMITIVE
TU3
RECONF
R3
L3
Online Neighbor-L1
Neighbor-F
Oﬄine Failure
B MalfuncAoning
Neighbor-B
Neighbor-‐B EXTERNAL

What have we seen?
Guiding scenarios
Why ontology?
An ontology: DOLCE
Rules and Reasoning

Some references mostly on my work
I Borgo “How Formal Ontology can help Civil Engineers.” Ontologies for Urban Develop. 2007
I Borgo and Masolo “Foundational Choices in DOLCE.” Handbook on Ontologies 2009
I P. Vermaas et al. ”The design stance and its artefacts” Synthese 2013
I Borgo and Vieu. “Artifacts in Formal Ontology.” Handbook of the Phil. of the Tech. Sciences 2009
I Borgo et al. “Technical artifacts: An integrated perspective.” Applied Ontology 2014
I Chandrasekaran & Josephson “Function in device representation.” Eng. with Comp. 2000
I Aunger and Curtis “Kinds of behaviour.” Biology & Phil. 2008
I Borgo et al. “A formal ontological perspective on the behaviors and functions of technical artifacts.” AI
EDAM 2009
I Hirtz et al. “A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving
previous efforts.” Research in engineering Design 2002
I Borgo et al. “A formalization of functions as operations on flows.” J. of Comp. & Inf. Science in Eng. 2011
I Garbacz et al. “Two ontology-driven formalisations of functions and their comparison.” J. of Eng. Design
2011
I Mizoguchi et al. “A unifying definition for artifact and biological functions.” App. Ont. 2016
I Borgo et al. “A planning-based architecture for a reconfigurable manufacturing system.” ICAPS 2016
I Leidner et al. “Classifying Compliant Manipulation Tasks for Automated Planning in Robotics”, IROS 2015

That’s enough for this class.
Thank you.
More questions?

E Rock@Ro Man2017pub

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

E Rock@Ro Man2017pub

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-ROCK

Enriching Robots with Ontological-Cognitive Knowledge

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 3

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 4

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 5

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 6

CR 1CL 1LC1 LC1RC1

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 8

In philosophy, ontology is a branch of metaphysics.

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 12

“Trying to engage with too many partners too fast is one

Harvard Business Review, October 2001

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 13

One problem is data interpretation: the understanding of

Another problem is interoperability: the capacity of two or

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 14

A challenging problem is understanding information itself

Another problem is to combine/integrate information

To face these problems we need to study the content of

– Ontology studies the being (as such) independently

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 16

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 17

Any agent, organization, information system

I has an (implicit or explicit) underlying ontology, and

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 18

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 19

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 20

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 21

Ontologies are conceptual artefacts providing a collection of

Now consider an ontology as an artifact for knowledge

I Language (natural, controlled, CL, OWL, F-logic,...)

I Domain granularity (application, domain, core,

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 25

I Linguistic/Terminological (weakest semantics)

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 26

There is a classical distinction between

Lightweight ontologies are simple systems (mainly

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 28

The choice of the categories and the structural relationships

- Malfunctioning of parts are malfunctioning of the whole.

(adapted from [A. Rector ’98])

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 29

Problem 2: Do you see something wrong?

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 30

Problem 2: Do you see something wrong?

Yet, the following is perfectly fine

To build a good ontology we need: domain experts (to

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 32

Any ontology provides a classification taxonomy which is

The taxonomy is a set of slots (categories, classes, concepts),

Another relationship, Instance_Of, is needed to populate the

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 33

Is_A: the set-theoretical notion of subset.

“every member of category Screwdriver is also member of

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 34

Instance_Of: the set-theoretical notion of membership.

Note: multiple inheritance is a possibility but needs to be

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 35

Part_Of: this relation is not set-theoretical.

Let’s model: The slot is part of the screwdriver.

S. Borgo, Ro-Man Tutorial 28 Aug. 2017 36

Part_Of: this relation is not set-theoretical.