Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 249–283 | Cite as

A knowledge encapsulation approach to ontology modularization

  • Faezeh Ensan
  • Weichang Du
Regular Paper

Abstract

The development of monolithic ontologies for complex domains may face various challenges in reasoning and implementation. The notion of modularity can be employed for developing more efficient ontologies, especially in distributed environments. In this paper, we introduce a framework for developing ontologies in a modular manner. We describe the interface-based modular ontology formalism, (IBF), which theoretically supports the framework. The main feature of the framework is its support for knowledge encapsulation, i.e., it allows ontologies to define their main content using well-defined interfaces, such that their knowledge bases can only be accessed by other ontologies through these interfaces. An important implication of the proposed framework is that ontology modules can be developed completely independent of each other’s signature and languages. Such modules are free to only utilize the required knowledge segments of the others. We also investigate the issues of inconsistency in the proposed modular ontology framework. We provide solutions for isolating inconsistent ontology modules from the other parts of a modular ontology and also resolve inconsistencies which may be arisen by integrating consistent knowledge bases.

Keywords

Ontology Semantic Web Modularization Modular ontology Description logics Encapsulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adjiman P, Chatalic P, Goasdoué F, Rousset M-C, Simon L (2006) Distributed reasoning in a peer-to-peer setting: application to the semantic web. J Artif Intell Res (JAIR) 25: 269–314MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider P (2003) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bao J, Caragea D, Honavar V (2006a) Modular ontologies—a formal investigation of semantics and expressivity. In: Mizoguchi R, Shi Z, Giunchiglia F (eds) First asian semantic web conference. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4185, Springer, pp 616–631Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bao J, Caragea D, Honavar V (2006b) On the semantics of linking and importing in modular ontologies. In: International semantic web conference (ISWC 2006), pp 72–86Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bao J, Caragea D, Honavar V (2006c) A tableau-based federated reasoning algorithm for modular ontologies. In: WI ’06: proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 404–410Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bao J, Caragea D, Honavar V (2006d) Towards collaborative environments for ontology construction and sharing. In: International symposium on collaborative technologies and systems (CTS 2006), Citeseer, pp 99–108Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bao J, Honavar V (2004) Ontology language extensions to support localized semantics, modular reasoning, and collaborative ontology design and ontology reuse. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bao J, Honavar V (2005) Collaborative package-based ontology building and usage. Knowledge acquisition from distributed, autonomous, semantically heterogeneous data and knowledge sources (KADASH)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bao J, Slutzki G, Honavar V (2007) A semantic importing approach to knowledge reuse from multiple ontologies. In: Proceeding of the national conference on artificial intelligence, vol 22. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA/Cambridge, MA/London, 1999, p 1304Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benferhat S, Dubois D, Prade H (1997) Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: a comparative study part 1: the flat case. Studia Logica 58(1): 17–45MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borgida A, Serafini L (2003) Distributed description logics: assimilating information from peer sources. J Data Semant 1: 153–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bouquet P, Giunchiglia F, van Harmelen F, Serafini L, Stuckenschmidt H (2003) C-OWL: contextualizing ontologies. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 164–179Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bruegge B, Dutoit A (2003) Object-oriented software engineering: using UML, patterns and Java. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2006) Epistemic first-order queries over description logic knowledge bases. In: Proc. DLGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2007) EQL-Lite: effective first-order query processing in description logics, pp 274–279Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2008) Inconsistency tolerance in P2P data integration: an epistemic logic approach. Inf Syst 33(4–5): 360–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calvanese D, Giacomo GD, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2007) Eql-lite: effective first-order query processing in description logics. In: International joint conferences on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), pp 274–279Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calvanese D, Giacomo GD, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2004) Logical foundations of peer-to-peer data integration. In: PODS ’04: proceedings of the twenty-third ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, ACM, New York, pp 241–251Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cuenca Grau B, Parsia B, Sirin E, Kalyanpur A (2006) Modularity and web ontologies. In: Proceedings of KR-2006, AAAI Press, pp 198–209Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ding Y, Foo S (2002) Ontology research and development. Part 1—a review of ontology generation. J Inform Sci 28(2): 123–136Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Donini F, Lenzerini M, Nardi D, Nutt W, Schaerf A (1992) Adding epistemic operators to concept languages. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-92), pp 342–353Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Donini FM, Lenzerini M, Nardi D, Nutt W, Schaerf A (1998) An epistemic operator for description logics. Artif Intell 100(1-2): 225–274MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Doran P, Tamma V, Iannone L (2007) Ontology module extraction for ontology reuse: an ontology engineering perspective. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on conference on information and knowledge management, ACM, New York, pp 61–70Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ensan F (2008a) An architecture and formalism for handling modular ontologies. In: Twenty-third conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI2008), pp 1847–1848Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ensan F (2008b) Formalizing ontology modularization through the notion of interfaces. In: 16th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW 2008), pp 74–82Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ensan F (2009) A framework for handling revisions in distributed ontologies, http://falcon.unb.ca/~m4742/revision/paper.pdf. Technical report
  27. 27.
    Ensan F, Du W (2007) Towards domain-centric ontology development and maintenance frameworks. In: The nineteenth international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE), pp 622–627Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ensan F, Du W (2008a) Aspects of inconsistency resolution in modular ontologies. In: 21st Conference of the Canadian society for computational studies of intelligence, Canadian AI 2008. Springer, pp 84–95Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ensan F, Du W (2008b) Formalizing the role of goals in the development of domain-specific ontological frameworks. In: 41st Hawaii international conference on systems science (HICSS-41), p 120Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ensan F, Du W (2008c) An interface-based ontology modularization framework for knowledge encapsulation. In: International semantic web conference, pp 517–532Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fernandez-Lopez M, Gomez-Perez A (2002) Overview and analysis of methodologies for building ontologies. Knowl Eng Rev 17(2): 129–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    FOAF Vocabulary Specification 0.91 (2008) http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
  33. 33.
    Franconi E, Kuper GM, Lopatenko A, Serafini L (2003) A robust logical and computational characterisation of peer-to-peer database systems. In: DBISP2P, pp 64–76Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gardenfors P (1992) Belief revision: an introduction. Belief Revis 29: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ghidini C, Serafini L (2006) Mapping properties of heterogeneous ontologies. In: 1st International workshop on modular ontologies (WoMo 2006), co-located with ISWC, vol 3. Springer, pp 2–2Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ghilardi S, Lutz C, Wolter F (2006) Did I damage my ontology. In: Proceedings of 10th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR2006), pp 187–197Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Glimm B, Horrocks I, Lutz C, Sattler U (2008) Conjunctive query answering for the description logic. J Artif Intell Res 31: 157–204MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grau BC, Horrocks I, Kazakov Y, Sattler U (2007a) Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies. In: 16th international world wide web conference (WWW ’07). ACM, pp 717–726Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grau BC, Horrocks I, Kazakov Y, Sattler U (2007b) A logical framework for modularity of ontologies. In: IJCAI, pp 298–303Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Grau BC, Kutz O (2007) Modular ontology languages revisited. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI’07 workshop on semantic web for collaborative knowledge acquisitionGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grau BC, Parsia B, Sirin E (2006) Combining owl ontologies using e-connections. J Web Semant 4(1): 40–59Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grau B, Horrocks I, Kazakov Y, Sattler U (2008) Modular reuse of ontologies: theory and practice. J Artif Intell Res 31: 273–318MATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gruber T (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Human Comput Stud 43(5): 907–928CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Haase P, van Harmelen F, Huang Z, Stuckenschmidt H, Sure Y (2005) A framework for handling inconsistency in changing ontologies. In: International semantic web conference, pp 353–367Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider P (2004) Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. Web Semant Sci Serv Agents World Wide Web 1(4): 345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Horrocks I, Sattler U (2007) A tableau decision procedure for shoiq. J Autom Reason 39(3): 249–276MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Huang Z, van Harmelen F, ten Teije A (2005) Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies In: IJCAI, pp 454–459Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jing Y, Jeong D, Baik D-K (2008) Sparql graph pattern rewriting for owl-dl inference queries. Knowl Inform SystGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jurisica I, Mylopoulos J, Yu E (2004) Ontologies for knowledge management: an information systems perspective. Knowl Inform Syst 6(4): 380–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kalyanpur A, Parsia B, Sirin E, Grau BC, Hendler JA (2006) Swoop: a web ontology editing browser. J Web Sem 4(2): 144–153Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Konev B, Lutz C, Walther D, Wolter F (2008) Logical difference and module extraction with cex and mex. In: Proceedings of the 21st international workshop on description logics (DL2008). CEUR-WS, vol 353Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Konev B, Lutz C, Walther D, Wolter F (2009) Formal properties of modularisation. In: Parent C, Spaccapietra S, Stuckenschmidt H (eds) Ontology modularisation. Springer, LNCSGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kontchakov R, Wolter F, Zakharyaschev M (2007) Modularity in DL-Lite. In: International workshop on description logicsGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kotis K, Vouros G (2006) Human-centered ontology engineering: the HCOME methodology. Knowl Inform Syst 10(1): 109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kutz O, Lutz C, Wolter F, Zakharyaschev M (2004) E-connections of abstract description systems. Artif Intell 156(1): 1–73MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kutz O, Mossakowski T (2008) Conservativity in structured ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 18th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI-08). Patras, Greece, ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Linhalis F, de Mattos Fortes R, de Abreu Moreira D (2009) Ontomap: an ontology-based architecture to perform the semantic mapping between an interlingua and software components. Knowl Inform SystGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
  59. 59.
    Lutz C, Walther D, Wolter F (2007) Conservative extensions in expressive description logics. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, vol 2007, pp 453–458Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Meyer B (1997) Object-oriented software construction. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Meyer T, Lee K, Booth R (2005) Knowledge integration for description logics. In: AAAI, pp 645–650Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Motik B, Horrocks I, Rosati R, Sattler U (2006) Can owl and logic programming live together happily ever after? In: International semantic web conference, pp 501–514Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Noy N, Klein M (2004) Ontology evolution: not the same as schema evolution. Knowl Inform Syst 6(4): 428–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Parsia B, Sattler U, Toman D (eds) (2006) Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on description logics (DL2006), Windermere, Lake District, UK, May 30–June 1, 2006. CEUR workshop proceedings, vol 189, CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Parsia B, Sirin E (2004) Pellet: an OWL DL reasoner. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on description logics, vol 104Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Haase P, Rudolph S, Euzenat J, Zimmermann A, Dzbor M, Iglesias M, Jacques Y, Caracciolo C, Aranda CB, Gomez JM (2008) Deliverable d1.1.3 neon formalisms for modularization: syntax, semantics, algebra. NEON EU-IST-2005-027595Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pinto H, Martins J (2004) Ontologies: how can they be built? Knowl Inform Syst 6(4): 441–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pressman R, Ince D (1982) Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    PrudHommeaux E, Seaborne A, et al (2006) SPARQL query language for RDF. In: W3C working draft 4Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Qi G, Liu W, Bell D (2006) A revision-based approach to handling inconsistency in description logics. Artif Intell Rev 26(1-2): 115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rousset M-C, Adjiman P, Chatalic P, Goasdoue F, Simon L (2006) Somewhere: a scalable peer-to-peer infrastructure for querying distributed ontologies. In: OTM conferences (1), pp 698–703Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Seaborne A (2004) Rdql-a query language for rdf. W3C Memb Submiss 9: 29–31Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Seidenberg J, Rector A (2006) Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classification and use. In: WWW ’06’ ACM, New York, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Serafini L, Borgida A, Tamilin A (2005) Aspects of distributed and modular ontology reasoning. In: IJCAI, pp 570–575Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Serafini L, Tamilin A (2004) Local tableaux for reasoning in distributed description logics. In: 2004 international workshop on description logicsGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Serafini L, Tamilin A (2005) Drago: distributed reasoning architecture for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the second european semantic web conference (ESWC05), Springer, pp 361–376Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sirin E, Parsia B (2006) Optimizations for answering conjunctive ABox queries: first results. In: 2006 International workshop on description logics DL06, p 215Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sirin E, Parsia B, Grau BC, Kalyanpur A, Katz Y (2007) Pellet: a practical owl-dl reasoner. Web Semant 5(2): 51–53Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Snyder A (1986) Encapsulation and inheritance in object-oriented programming languages. In: OOPLSA ’86, ACM, New York, pp 38–45Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Stuckenschmidt H, Klein M (2007) Reasoning and change management in modular ontologies. Data Knowl Eng 63(2): 200–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Stuckenschmidt H, Klein MCA (2003) Integrity and change in modular ontologies. In: ‘IJCAI’, pp 900–908Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Stuckenschmidt H, Klein MCA (2004) Structure-based partitioning of large concept hierarchies. In: International semantic web conference, pp 289–303Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    The Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT) Reference Ontology (2008) http://www.aktors.org/publications/ontology/
  84. 84.
    The Friend of a Friend (FOAF) project (2008) http://www.foaf-project.org/
  85. 85.
    Thomson Master Journal List (2008) http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
  86. 86.
    Vongdoiwang W, Batanov D (2006) An ontology-based procedure for generating object model from text description. Knowl Inform Syst 10(1): 93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Wang Y, Haase P, Bao J (2007) A survey of ontology modularization formalisms. In: IJCAI workshop on semantic web for collaborative knowledge acquisition (SWeCKa)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wessel M, Moller R (2005) A high performance semantic web query answering engine. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on description logics, CiteseerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations