Heterogeneous Ontologies and Hybrid Reasoning for Service Robotics: The EASE Framework

  • John Bateman
  • Michael Beetz
  • Daniel Beßler
  • Asil Kaan Bozcuoğlu
  • Mihai Pomarlan
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 693)

Abstract

As robots are expected to accomplish human-level manipulation tasks, the demand for formal knowledge representation techniques and reasoning for robots increases dramatically. In this paper we describe how to make use of heterogeneous ontologies in service robotics. To illustrate the vision, we take the action of pouring as an example.

Keywords

Ontology Robotics Heterogeneity Hybrid reasoning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Arp, R., Smith, B., Spear, A.D.: Building Ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology. MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attene, M., Falcidieno, B., Spagnuolo, M.: Hierarchical mesh segmentation based on fitting primitives. Vis. Comput. 22(3), 181–193 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bateman, J.A.: Language and Space: a two-level semantic approach based on principles of ontological engineering. Int. J. Speech Tech. 13(1), 29–48 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bateman, J.A., Borgo, S., Lüttich, K., Masolo, C., Mossakowski, T.: Ontological modularity and spatial diversity. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 7(1), 97–128 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bateman, J.A., Hois, J., Ross, R.J., Tenbrink, T.: A linguistic ontology of space for natural language processing. Artif. Intell. 174(14), 1027–1071 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borgo, S., Masolo, C.: Ontological foundations of DOLCE. In: Poli, R., Healey, M., Kameas, A. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications, pp. 279–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Codescu, M., Kuksa, E., Kutz, O., Mossakowski, T., Neuhaus, F.: Ontohub: A semantic repository for heterogeneous ontologies. CoRR vol. abs/1612.05028 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P., et al.: Ontology Matching, vol. 18. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman, J.: Embodied language, best-fit analysis, and formal compositionality. Phys. Life Rev. 7, 385–410 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fiorini, S.R., Carbonera, J.L., Gonçalves, P., Jorge, V.A., Rey, V.F., Haidegger, T., Abel, M., Redfield, S.A., Balakirsky, S., Ragavan, V., Li, H., Schlenoff, C., Prestes, E.: Extensions to the core ontology for robotics and automation. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 33(C), 3–11 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis. 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guarino, N.: The ontological level. In: Casati, R., Smith, B., White, G. (eds.) Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences, pp. 443–456. Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krüger, N., Geib, C., Piater, J., Petrick, R., Steedman, M., Wörgötter, F., Ude, A., Asfour, T., Kraft, D., Omrčen, D., et al.: Object-action complexes: grounded abstractions of sensory-motor processes. Robot. Auton. Syst. 59(10), 740–757 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kunze, L., Roehm, T., Beetz, M.: Towards semantic robot description languages. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 5589–5595. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kutz, O., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: \(\cal{E}\)-Connections of abstract description systems. Artif. Intell. 156(1), 1–73 (2004)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kutz, O., Mossakowski, T., Lücke, D.: Carnap, goguen, and the hyperontologies: Logical pluralism and heterogeneous structuring in ontology design. Log. Univers. 4(2), 255–333 (2010). special Issue on ‘Is Logic Universal?’CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lenat, D.: CYC a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Commun. ACM 38(11), 33–38 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lortal, G., Dhouib, S., Gérard, S.: Integrating ontological domain knowledge into a robotic DSL, pp. 401–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2011 )Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mösenlechner, L., Beetz, M.: Fast temporal projection using accurate physics-based geometric reasoning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Karlsruhe, Germany, pp. 1821–1827, 6–10 May 2013Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Toward a standard upper ontology. In: Welty, C., Smith, B. (eds.) Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2001), pp. 2–9. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    OMG: The Distributed Ontology, Modeling, and Specification Language (DOL). OMG, Technical Report (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prestes, E., Carbonera, J.L., Fiorini, S.R., Jorge, V.A.M., Abel, M., Madhavan, R., Locoro, A., GonSalves, P., Barreto, M.E., Habib, M.K., Chibani, A., Grard, S., Amirat, Y., Schlenoff, C.: Towards a core ontology for robotics and automation. Robot. Auton. Syst. 61(11), 1193–1204 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schlenoff, C., Prestes, E., Madhavan, R., Goncalves, P., Li, H., Balakirsky, S., Kramer, T., Miguelanez, E.: An IEEE standard ontology for robotics and automation. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1337–1342. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Talmy, L.: Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cogn. Sci. 12(1), 49–100 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tenorth, M., Beetz, M.: KnowRob – A knowledge processing infrastructure for cognition-enabled robots. Int. J. Robot. Res. 32(5), 566–590 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tenorth, M., Profanter, S., Balint-Benczedi, F., Beetz, M.: Decomposing CAD models of objects of daily use and reasoning about their functional parts. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Tokyo Big Sight, Japan, pp. 5943–5949, 3–7 November 2013Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Varadarajan, K.M., Vincze, M.: AfROB: The affordance network ontology for robots. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1343–1350. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wörgötter, F., Agostini, A., Krüger, N., Shylo, N., Porr, B.: Cognitive agents – a procedural perspective relying on the predictability of Object-Action-Complexes (OACs). Robot. Auton. Syst. 57(4), 420–432 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Bateman
    • 1
  • Michael Beetz
    • 1
  • Daniel Beßler
    • 1
  • Asil Kaan Bozcuoğlu
    • 1
  • Mihai Pomarlan
    • 1
  1. 1.Everyday Activities Science and Engineering (EASE), Collaborative Research CentreUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations