Representation of scientific knowledge in ontologies suffers so often from the lack of computational knowledge required for inference. This article aims to perform quantitative analysis on physical systems, that is, to answer questions about values of quantitative state variables of a physical system with known structure.
For this objective, we incorporate procedural knowledge on two distinct levels. At the domain-specific level, we propose a representation model for scientific knowledge, i.e. variables, theories, and laws of nature.
At the domain-independent level, we provide an algorithm which, given a system S with known structure and a relevant scientific theory T, extracts a constraint network, whose variables are state variables of S defined by T, and whose constraints raise from relevant laws in T. The constraint network is then solved, to build a system of equations whose unknowns are the output variables of S.
The proposed representation model and reasoning algorithm are evaluated by applying them to classic analysis examples.
Allemang, D. & Hendler, J. (2011). Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist: Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL. Elsevier.
2.
Bahl, I.J. (2003). Lumped Elements for RF and Microwave Circuits. Artech House Microwave Library. Artech House, https://books.google.com/books?id=91UsWxk1CYkC.
3.
Bittner, T. (2018). Formal ontology of space, time, and physical entities in classical mechanics. Applied Ontology, 1–45.
Chaudhri, V.K., Dinesh, N. & Heymans, S. (2014). Conceptual models of energy transfer and regulation. In FOIS (pp. 263–276).
6.
Cohen-Solal, Q., Bouzid, M. & Niveau, A. (2017). Checking the consistency of combined qualitative constraint networks. In AAAI (pp. 1084–1090).
7.
Cook, D.L., Neal, M.L., Bookstein, F.L. & Gennari, J.H. (2013). Ontology of physics for biology: Representing physical dependencies as a basis for biological processes. J. Biomedical Semantics, 4, 41. doi:10.1186/2041-1480-4-41.
8.
Crubézy, M. & Musen, M.A. (2004). Ontologies in support of problem solving. In Handbook on Ontologies (pp. 321–341). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_16.
9.
Cvjetkovic, V. (2017). Web physics ontology: Online interactive symbolic computation in physics. In Experiment@ International Conference (exp. at’17), 2017 4th (pp. 52–57). IEEE.
10.
Dorf, R.C. & Bishop, R.H. (2011). Modern Control Systems. Prentice Hall.
11.
Forbus, K.D., Whalley, P.B., Everett, J.O., Ureel, L., Brokowski, M., Baher, J. & Kuehne, S.E. (1999). CyclePad: An articulate virtual laboratory for engineering thermodynamics. Artificial Intelligence, 114(1–2), 297–347. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00080-6.
12.
Frigg, R. & Hartmann, S. (2012). Models in science. In E.N.Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science/.
13.
Kauppinen, T. & de Espindola, G.M. (2011). Linked open science-communicating, sharing and evaluating data, methods and results for executable papers. In ICCS (pp. 726–731).
14.
Koriche, F., Lagniez, J.-M., Marquis, P. & Thomas, S. (2015). Compiling constraint networks into multivalued decomposable decision graphs. In IJCAI (pp. 332–338).
15.
Kramer, A.C. (2019). Symja – Java computer algebra system. https://sourceforge.net/projects/matheclipse/.
16.
Kulakowski, B.T., Gardner, J.F. & Shearer, J.L. (2007). Dynamic Modeling and Control of Engineering Systems. Cambridge University Press.
17.
Lawrence, J., Maier, D.E. & Stroshine, R.L. (2013). Three-dimensional transient heat, mass, momentum, and species transfer in the stored grain ecosystem: Part I. Model development and evaluation. Transactions of the ASABE, 56(1), 179–188. doi:10.13031/2013.42569.
18.
Lecoutre, C. (2013). Constraint Networks: Targeting Simplicity for Techniques and Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons.
19.
Li, Y. & Clark, P. (2015). Answering elementary science questions by constructing coherent scenes using background knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 2007–2012). doi:10.18653/v1/D15-1236.
20.
Musen, M.A. (2015). The protégé project: A look back and a look forward. AI Matters, 1(4), 4–12. doi:10.1145/2757001.2757003.
21.
Niles, I. & Pease, A. (2001). Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Vol. 2001, pp. 2–9). ACM.
22.
Nilsson, J.W. & Riedel, S.A. (2014). Electric Circuits (10 ed., p. 816). Pearson Prentice Hall. https://books.google.com/books?id=twtzQgAACAAJ.
23.
Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C. & Wenzel, M. (2002). Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic (Vol. 2283). Springer.
24.
Pease, A. (2016). Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO). http://www.adampease.org/OP/.
25.
Raskin, R.G. & Pan, M.J. (2005). Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET). Computers & Geosciences, 31(9), 1119–1125. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2004.12.004.
26.
Ruth, M. & Hannon, B. (2012). Modeling Dynamic Economic Systems. Modeling Dynamic Systems. New York: Springer. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ts5CBxMr6PwC.
27.
Soldatova, L.N. & King, R.D. (2006). An ontology of scientific experiments. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 3(11), 795–803. doi:10.1098/rsif.2006.0134.
28.
Stallman, R.M. & Sussman, G.J. (1977). Forward reasoning and dependency-directed backtracking in a system for computer-aided circuit analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 9(2), 135–196. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(77)90029-7.
29.
Tsang, E. (2014). Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction: The Classic Text. BoD – Books on Demand.
30.
W3C (2012). Web Ontology Language (OWL). https://www.w3.org/OWL/.
Weld, D.S. & De Kleer, J. (2013). Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems. Morgan Kaufmann.
33.
Winther, R.G. (2016). The structure of scientific theories. In E.N.Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/structure-scientific-theories/.
