Abstract:Knowledge graphs and ontologies are becoming increasingly vital as they align with the FAIR Guiding Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). We address eleven challenges that may impede the full realization of the potential of FAIR knowledge graphs, as conventional solutions are perceived to be overly complex and lacking in cognitive interoperability. We extend the concept of "semantic units" as a conceptual solution by adding further subcategories. Semantic units structure a knowledge graph into identifiable and semantically meaningful subgraphs, with each subgraph being represented by a resource that instantiates a semantic unit class. We introduce some-instance, most-instances, every-instance, and all-instances resources as new types of representational entities in addition to named-individual, class, and property resources. We combine these new resource types with the concept of semantic units and introduce new subcategories of statement units and semantically meaningful collections of statement units (i.e., compound units) that provide solutions to the eleven challenges. These include, for instance, schemes for modelling assertional, contingent, prototypical, and universal statements, including class axioms, as well as absence statements, negations, and cardinality restrictions. The schemes are alternatives to existing OWL-based modelling schemes, and we provide corresponding representations for them that do not involve blank nodes. With question units we also introduce a way of representing questions in a knowledge graph that can be made readily executable as graph queries. We also provide schemes for directive statements, directive conditional statements, and logical arguments. We argue that semantic units provide a framework that increases the overall expressivity and cognitive interoperability of knowledge graphs compared to conventional OWL-based solutions.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper attempts to address several challenges faced by Knowledge Graphs in representing and managing data and knowledge, especially issues in achieving the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Specifically, the author points out the following 12 main challenges:
1. **Distinguishing assertional, contingent, prototypical, and universal statements**: Knowledge graphs need to be able to accurately distinguish these four types of statements and provide corresponding formal semantic representation methods.
2. **Representing universal statements**: In OWL, class axioms do not have URIs, so these axioms cannot be directly referenced or discussed.
3. **Modeling class axioms involving triangular relations**: In description logic and OWL, blank nodes are used to represent anonymous resources, which can cause problems when dealing with triangular relations.
4. **Modeling negation and cardinality restrictions**: Scientific information often involves the negation of relations, the identification of absences, and the specification of cardinality restrictions, and existing frameworks have difficulty effectively representing these.
In addition, the author also mentions that existing solutions are too complex and lack cognitive interoperability, that is, it is difficult for users to understand and use these complex representation methods. To solve these problems, the author introduces the concept of "semantic units" and extends its sub - categories, including some - instance, most - instances, every - instance, and all - instances resources. These new resource types, combined with the concept of semantic units, provide more concise and more expressive solutions to address the above challenges.
Through these improvements, the author hopes to improve the cognitive interoperability of knowledge graphs without sacrificing formal semantics, thereby better supporting scientific research and data analysis.
### Key formulas and concepts
- **Assertional Statement**: Describes facts about specific entities, for example:
\[
\text{This swan has quality this white}
\]
- **Contingent Statement**: Describes certain possibilities, for example:
\[
\text{Some swan has quality some white}
\]
- **Prototypical Statement**: Describes the most likely situation, for example:
\[
\text{Most swans have quality some white}
\]
- **Universal Statement**: Describes necessary or impossible situations, for example:
\[
\text{All swans have quality some white}
\]
The correct representation of these statement types in knowledge graphs is crucial for ensuring data accuracy and interpretability.