=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1223/paper6
|storemode=property
|title=Adjustment of the Event Bush Method to Chemical and Related Technological Tasks
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1223/paper6.pdf
|volume=Vol-1223
}}
==Adjustment of the Event Bush Method to Chemical and Related Technological Tasks==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1223/paper6.pdf
Adjustment of the Event Bush Method to Chemical and
Related Technological Tasks
Cyril A. Pshenichny
Geognosis Project, Intellectual Systems Laboratory, National Research University of
Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics, Kronverksky Prospect, 49, St. Petersburg
197101, Russia
cpshenichny@yandex.ru
Abstract. Chemistry, despite its high level of formalization, benefits from im-
plementation of knowledge engineering tools. “Static” (or object-based) meth-
ods have been successfully used in this science, but the character of chemical
knowledge urges one to look also for “dynamic” (event-based) methods, espe-
cially in experimental and industrial domains. Still, quite a work is needed to
make the application of event-based methods in chemistry as perfect and correct
as that of object-based ones, and adjustment of the said methods to this science
may considerably contribute to the theory that underlies them. In particular,
new solutions have been found at testing the method of event bush by chemical
tasks. These solutions may optimize the method for use in a wide range of
fields.
Keywords. Chemistry, knowledge engineering, dynamic knowledge, event
bush method, experiment.
1 Introduction
Since the genius discovery of Dmitry Mendeleev expressed in his periodic table of
elements, chemistry became one of the best-organized fields of knowledge the hu-
mankind ever had. Nevertheless, abundance and diversity of combinations of “al-
lowed” bonds between the elements, especially in organic, bio- and geochemistry,
make this field, despite its internal regularity, rather loose and hard-to-span. This
claims for application of special methods of organization of knowledge, and such
methods have been successfully applied in chemistry.
The most extended and powerful tools of knowledge organization developed for
chemistry and related fields (biochemistry, medicine) are Chemical Entities of Bio-
logical Interest (CHEBI) ontology [5], nomenclatures of compounds produced by
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry [3], chemical divisions of Chem-
ID Plus, Medical Subject Headings [10] and some other search systems. In some of
them not only lingual but also visual means of representation (structural formulae of
compounds) are implemented (e.g., in CHEBI [4]) that is an unusual solution for the
ontology design.
Adjustment of the Event Bush Method to Chemical and Related Technological Tasks 75
Nevertheless, these developments generally fail to encompass one important fea-
ture of chemical knowledge – its dynamic character. Indeed, nomenclature of ele-
ments or compounds is, in fact, only an introduction to understanding of possible
chemical reactions, this well-ordered miracle of transformation of one substance into
another. Verbal and graphic explication of this order is useful for understanding of
various branches of chemistry, for planning the experiments and, of course, for indus-
trial applications. This is why there were a number of attempts of using the event-
based methods in chemical or related issues. Event trees and Bayesian networks are
involved to model hazards and disorders at chemical factories [1], flowcharts (sensu
stricto or sensu lato, sometimes quite informally), to describe experiments [2; 6] and
even to perform classification of compounds [7] – i.e., to approach a “static” task
from “dynamic” side.
Still, these methods, as was argued by Pshenichny and Mouromtsev [9], contrary
to the object-based (“static”) ones, need better rethink and formalization of grammar
of event description in the nodes. In such a formalized domain as chemistry, this “un-
der-formalization” of knowledge engineering approaches becomes especially evident.
One method of dynamic knowledge engineering, the event bush, has got the most
evolved verbal grammar and related structural rules of event combination [8]. In our
paper an opportunity of formalization of record of events, processes and scenarios in
chemistry by means of the event bush method will be examined. For this, first there
will be considered a trivial task from inorganic chemistry, and then, it will be trans-
formed into a hypothetic experimental/technological application, which also will be
modeled by event bush.
2 An Example of Formalization of Simple Chemical Reaction
For the beginning, one of the simplest and best-known chemical reactions was
considered, that of acid and alkali with formation of salt and water – e.g.,
HCl+NaOH=NaCL+H2O; H2SO4+CaO=CaSO4+H2O.
On the one hand, the case looks obvious for application of the event bush method.
For this, we shall conceptualize this equation as a possible scenario in some environ-
ment of directed alternative changes, in which we define the “key players” (primary
internal, or ia events) as primary, non-unique inputs, and external “actors” (primary
external, or ib events) that may put some constraints on the behavior of “key players”
[8]. This “distribution of roles” looks straightforward in the considered case – one of
the participating compounds is “key player”, while the other, “external actor”.
However, on the other hand, there is a semantic complication in this seemingly
trivial case. Both the alkali ad acid enter reaction symmetrically, and there is no
ground to prefer one as “key player”. Be acid affected by alkali or alkali affected by
acid, the result (salt+water) would be the same. Still, this complication gives us a
methodologically beautiful opportunity to compose two event bushes, in which the ia
and ib events change places. The result is shown in Fig. 1 a,b.
76 Cyril A. Pshenichny
Fig. 1. Two alternative event bushes describing similar reaction of acid and alkali. See com-
ments in the text.
In accordance with the character of the reaction, the two bushes look quite sym-
metrical. In both of them two incompatible scenarios are seen: one, the mandatory
Adjustment of the Event Bush Method to Chemical and Related Technological Tasks 77
“nothing happens” scenario (if compounds are not brought together – in the event
bush semantics, either alkali is not added to acid, or vice versa), and the other scenar-
io that depicts the reaction resulting in simultaneous formation of salt and water. As a
methodological experience, one may conclude that dealing with a case that two events
happen simultaneously, equally influencing each other and symmetrically determining
the future course of events, a couple of event bushes with symmetrical structure has to
be expected as shown in Fig. 1 a,b. Because of similarity of consequences, it can be
postulated that “Acid is mixed with alkali” is equivalent to “Alkali is mixed with
acid”. (Though, the meaning of equivalence so far is understood here rather informal-
ly; there is not enough ground to appeal to definition of equivalence used in any exist-
ing formal system, e.g., in classical logic, because the event bush has not been entirely
interpreted in terms of any of such system.)
One may suppose that considering a reaction involving three or more compounds
may represent a problem because the event bush semantics implies only two types of
primary events, primary internal (ia) and primary external (ib), and this division is
related to the binary subject-predicate structure of statements representing events in
the event bush [8]. Still, it looks unlikely that three or more agents interact with each
other exactly in one time, and if not, there should be one-to-one collisions, and the
whole reaction can be represented by successive or parallel couple interactions, i.e.,
be well modeled by event bush (or a pair of bushes).
The above example shows an ability of event bush to cope at least with some
basic issues of pure chemistry. Below an applied issue will be considered.
3 Experimental and Technological Application
To address an applied chemical issue, suppose a very simple example of experi-
ment or production – a tank filled with two liquids (fluids) divided by an impermeable
screen. The screen is removed; fluids contact each other and mix (Fig. 2).
This simple case represents a purely mechanical process and may be remarkable
only by the use of one more, optional connective of the event bush, the conflux (see
the bottom of Fig. 2). However, along with the “pure-chemical” case depicted in
Fig. 1, this is just an “introduction” to an “applied chemical” case. Suppose that one
fluid in a tank is acid and the other, alkali. What happens then is modeled by the event
bush in Fig. 3.
To build this bush, “Fluid A” in the bush from Fig. 2 was changed to “Acid”, and
“Fluid b”, to “Alkali”. In all the rest, the upper part of the resulting bush repeats the
bush in Fig. 2. Hence, the new bush was derived from the previous one by substitu-
tion of two subjects. In other words, given this substitution, the bush in Fig. 2 is the
rule for construction of the upper part of the new bush. However, when replacement
reaches the event “A mixture of fluid А and fluid В is formed in the tank”, this results
in event “A mixture of acid and alkali is formed in the tank” of the new bush. From
this point, based on the meaning of the considered events, one may postulate that the
78 Cyril A. Pshenichny
Fig. 2. An event bush describing the behavior of two fluids in a tank (see comments in the text)
Fig. 3. An event bush describing the behavior of acid and alkali in a tank (see comments in the
text)
Adjustment of the Event Bush Method to Chemical and Related Technological Tasks 79
Fig. 2 bush does not apply as a rule anymore for the newly constructed bush. Instead,
it looks reasonable to postulate that the event “A mixture of acid and alkali is formed
in the tank” is a kind of (or a particular case of) event “Acid is mixed with alkali” or
its equivalent “Alkali is mixed with acid”. Then, the rest of the bush will be composed
based on the corresponding part of the Fig. 1/Fig. 2 bushes. Thus, there is no tertiary
event that would correspond to “A mixture of fluid А and fluid В is formed in the
tank” of Fig. 3 bush, but instead there are secondary statements that are particular
cases of “Water is formed” and “Salt is formed” Fig. 1/Fig. 2 bushes – “Water is
formed in the tank” and “Salt is formed in the tank”, correspondingly, and the same-
formulated tertiary results.
Despite the triviality of the case, it demonstrates an important methodological
novelty. Some event bushes serve as the rules of composition for another bush.
4 Discussion
The rules of composition of one event bush based on others need to be formalized
to become independent of meaning of particular events. This seems to become feasi-
ble with complete formalization of event description grammar and algorithmization of
building the event bush. Nevertheless, what can be definitely said now is that having a
number of event bushes constructed, one can obtain new knowledge combining them,
binding them with additional axioms and thus constructing new bushes. (Another
issue is how well this knowledge would be supported by data.)
One way of building a bush based on another bush is specification of events and
substitution of genus by differentia in subjects or predicates of some events, e.g.,
“Fluid A” to “Acid” or, possibly, “Acid” to “Formic acid” in Figs. 1 a,b. If to contin-
ue this approach and descend down to instances, e.g., to “Formic acid sample no.
49276” instead of “Formic acid”, the event bush may be transformed into a data-
storing facility. Also, attributing quantitative values to the events of the bush and
attributing computational sense to its connectives, one may create a tool for computa-
tion of chemical reactions or physical-chemical or technological computation [8].
Theoretical findings made at adjustment of the event bush method to pure-
chemical and applied chemical tasks (a couple of equivalent bushes and understand-
ing of event bush as a rule for composition of another bush) emerged at the very be-
ginning of application of this method in chemistry. It looks highly probable that fur-
ther research in this direction will bring the results that will enrich the theory of event
bushes and serve in many other fields to organize existing knowledge and, perhaps
yet more importantly, obtain new one.
5 Conclusions
1. A methodological novelty brought by testing of the method of event bush by
modeling simple chemical reactions is an opportunity to construct a couple of
equivalent event bushes that model similar environment equally well but should be
80 Cyril A. Pshenichny
considered in pair to reflect the observed symmetry of primary internal and prima-
ry external events.
2. Putting a primitive experimental/technological task in terms of event bush
has revealed an important opportunity to use one bush as a rule of composition of
another and therefore obtain new knowledge combining existing event bushes.
3. At present, building new event bushes based on existing ones is performed
largely by intuition and for trivial tasks; formalization of this procedure will open
wide opportunities for dynamic knowledge engineering in various fields.
References
1. Azhdari, M., and Mehranbod, N.: Application of Bayesian belief networks to
fault detection and diagnosis of industrial processes, in: International Conference
on Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (ICCCE), Proceedings, 1-3 Aug. 2010,
92-96 (2010).
2. College of Science and Technology, Armstrong Atlantic State University:
Chemistry Laboratory Example Flow Chart,
http://chemistry.armstrong.edu/nivens/Chem2300/flowchart.pdf (2012)
3. Compendium of Chemical Terminology, Version 2.3.2. International Union
of Pure and Applied Chemistry: 2012
4. Ennis, M.: ChEBI A Dictionary of Chemical Entities with an Associated On-
tology, in: SOFG-2 Proceedings, Philadelphia, October 23-26 (2004).
5. Hastings, J., Magka, D., Batchelor, C., Duan, L., Stevens, R., Ennis, M., and
Steinbeck, C.: Structure-based classification and ontology in chemistry. Journal of
Cheminformatics, 4, 8 (2012).
6. Kuwata, K.: Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Notebook Guidelines,
http://www.macalester.edu/~kuwata/Classes/2004-
05/chem%20222/chem%20222%20notebook%20directions%202005.pdf (2004-
2005)
7. Marr, K.: Chemical Nomenclature Flowchart, in: Chemistry 161,
http://www.instruction.greenriver.edu/kmarr/Chem%20161/Chem%20161%20AL
Es/POGIL%20ALEs_F2008/Chap%202%20POGIL%20ALEs_F2009/9x_Nom%
20Chart_Elements_Ions%20_Practice_Ans%20Key_Ch2_F2010.pdf (2001)
8. Pshenichny, C.A., and Kanzheleva, O.M.: Theoretical foundations of the
event bush method. In Societal Challenges and Geoinformatics, GSA Special Pa-
per 482, Sinha, K, Gundersen, L., Jackson, J., and Arctur, D. (Eds.), 139-165
(2011).
Adjustment of the Event Bush Method to Chemical and Related Technological Tasks 81
9. Pshenichny, C.A., and Mouromtsev, D.I.: Representation of the Event Bush
Approach in Terms of Directed Hypergraphs, in: ICCS Proceedings, International
Conference on Conceptual Structures. Pfeifer, D., and Ignatov, D., (Eds). Mum-
bai, January 2013, in press (2013).
10. U.S. National Library of Medicine: Medical Subject Headings,
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/ (1999-2013).