Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies: a general framework

Deliverable D3, 2005

EU-IST Integrated Project (IP) IST-2003-506826 SEKT Deliverable D3.6.1(WP3.6) In this document, we present a framework for inconsistent ontology diagnosis and repair by defining a number of new non-standard reasoning services to explain inconsistencies through pinpointing. We developed two different types of algorithms for the framework, and we describe these algorithms in some detail. Both algorithms have been prototypically implemented as the DION (Debugger of Inconsistent ONtologies) and MUPStersystem. The first implements a bottom-up approach to calculate pinpoints by the support of an external DL reasoner, the second using a specialised tableau-based calculus.

2006

Abstract. EU-IST Integrated Project (IP) IST-2003-506826 SEKT Deliverable D3. 6.2 (WP3. 6) In this document, we evaluated the framework for inconsistent ontology diagnosis and repair as introduced in Sekt Deliverable D3. 6.1, where we defined a number of new non-standard reasoning services to explain inconsistences.

Inteligencia Artificial,revista Iberoamericana De Inteligencia Artificial, 2007

The Semantic Web is a future vision of the web where stored information has exact meaning, thus enabling computers to understand and reason on the basis of such information. Assigning semantics to web resources is addressed by means of ontology definitions which are meant to be written in an ontology description language such as OWL-DL that is based on so-called Description Logics (DL). Although ontology definitions expressed in DL can be processed with existing DL reasoners, such DL reasoners are incapable of dealing with inconsistent ontology definitions.

2011

We present a preliminary framework for reasoning with possibly inconsistent Description Logic ontologies in Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming. A case study is presented where we show how the proposed approach works. The proposal presented is apt for being used in the context of Semantic Web ontologies as it can be applied to the Web Ontology Language OWL.

It is well-known that inconsistency causes severe problems in classical logic. In particular, since an inconsistent logical theory has no model, it logically implies every formula, and, therefore, query answering on an inconsistent knowledge base becomes meaningless. In this paper, we address the problem of dealing with inconsistencies in Description Logic (DL) knowledge bases.

2009

Ontology driven architecture has revolutionized the inference system by allowing interoperability and efficient reasoning between heterogeneous multi-vendors systems. Sound reasoning support is highly important for sound semantic web ontologies which can only be possible if state-of-the-art Description Logic Reasoners were capable enough to identify inconsistency and classify taxonomy in ontologies. We have discussed existing ontological errors and design anomalies, and provided a case study incorporating these errors. We have evaluated consistency, subsumption, and satisfiability of DL reasoners on the case study. Experiment with DL reasoners opens up number of issues that were not incorporated within their followed algorithms. Especially circulatory errors and various types of semantic inconsistency errors that may cause serious side effects need to be detected by DL reasoners for sound reasoning from ontologies. The evaluation of DL reasoners on Automobile ontology helps in updating the subsumption, satisfiability and consistency checking algorithms for OWL ontologies, especially the new constructs of OWL 1.1.

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe), 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Computer Software and …, 2011

Inconsistencies, whether they occur during the process of ontology evolution or appear during the ontology reconciliation process, result in potential harm to an ontology structure, and decrease credibility in representing a consistent and shared vocabulary of an underlying domain. When an inconsistency occurs, there are mainly two ways to deal with it: either resolve it, or reason with the inconsistent ontology. In this paper, we propose our approach for detecting and resolving inconsistencies in ontologies. Our inconsistency detection deals with the identification of contradiction derivations under the integrity constraint rules-that are given in a logic program.

2005

EU-IST Integrated Project (IP) IST-2003-506826 SEKT Deliverable D3.5.1(WP3.5) In this document, we propose a framework for reasoning with multi-version ontology, in which a temporal logic is developed to serve as its semantic foundation. We show that the temporal logic approach can provide a solid semantic foundation which can support various requirements on multi-version ontology reasoning. We have implemented the prototype of MORE (Multi-version Ontology REasoner), which is based on the proposed framework. In this document, we present the design of the interfaces for MORE, and discuss its implementation.

2005

One of the major problems of large scale, distributed and evolving ontologies is the potential introduction of inconsistencies. In this paper we survey four different approaches to handling inconsistency in DL-based ontologies: consistent ontology evolution, repairing inconsistencies, reasoning in the presence of inconsistencies and multi-version reasoning. We present a common formal basis for all of them, and use this common basis to compare these approaches. We discuss the different requirements for each of these methods, the conditions under which each of them is applicable, the knowledge requirements of the various methods, and the different usage scenarios to which they would apply.