Advertisement

Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 337–369 | Cite as

Incremental Classification of Description Logics Ontologies

  • Bernardo Cuenca Grau
  • Christian Halaschek-Wiener
  • Yevgeny Kazakov
  • Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
Article

Abstract

The development of ontologies involves continuous but relatively small modifications. However, existing ontology reasoners do not take advantage of the similarities between different versions of an ontology. In this paper, we propose a collection of techniques for incremental reasoning—that is, reasoning that reuses information obtained from previous versions of an ontology. We have applied our results to incremental classification of OWL ontologies and found significant improvement over regular classification time on a set of real-world ontologies.

Keywords

Description logics Ontologies OWL 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\mathcal{EL}\) envelope. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-05. Morgan-Kaufmann, Edinburgh (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Lutz, C., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Is tractable reasoning in extensions of the description logic el useful in practice? In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Workshop on Methods for Modalities (M4M-05) (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Lutz, C., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: CEL—a polynomial-time reasoner for life science ontologies. In: IJCAR 2006, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4130, pp. 287–291. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Lutz, C., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Efficient reasoning in \(\mathcal{EL}+\). In: Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-06). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 189 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Nutt, W.: Basic description logics. In: Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, pp. 43–95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blakeley, J.A., Larson, P.-A., Tompa, F.W.: Efficiently updating materialized views. In: Proc. of SIGMOD ’86: ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 61–71 (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Halaschek-Wiener, C., Kazakov, Y.: History matters: incremental ontology reasoning using modules. In: 6th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4825, pp. 183–196. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies. In: Proc. of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: A logical framework for modularity of ontologies. In: Proc. of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2007), pp. 298–303. AAAI, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Modular reuse of ontologies: theory and practice. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 31, 273–318 (2008)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: the next step for OWL. Journal of Web Semantics 6(4), 309–322 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Kleer, J.: An assumption-based TMS. Artif. Intell. 28(2), 127–162, ISSN 0004-3702 (1986). doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(86)90080-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dong, G., Su, J., Topor, R.W.: Nonrecursive incremental evaluation of datalog queries. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 14(2–4) (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dong, G., Topor, R.W.: Incremental evaluation of datalog queries. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Conference on Database Theory (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dowling, W., Gallier, J.: Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional horn formulae. J. Log. Program. 3(1), 267–284 (1984)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doyle, J.: A truth maintenance system. In: Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 259–279 (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haarslev, V., Moeller, R.: Racer system description. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2083, pp. 701–705 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Incremental query answering for implementing document retrieval services. In: Proc. of DL-2003, pp. 85–94 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halaschek-Wiener, C., Hendler, J.: Toward expressive syndication on the web. In: Proc. of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halaschek-Wiener, C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Description logic reasoning with syntactic updates. In: Proc. of ODBase2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\) and rdf to owl: the making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Deciding expressive description logics in the framework of resolution. Inf. Comput. 206(5), 579–601 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Horridge, M., Sirin, E.: Finding all justifications of owl dl entailments. In: 6th International Semantic Web Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4825, pp. 267–280. Springer, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kazakov, Y.: \(\mathcal{RIQ}\) and \(\mathcal{SROIQ}\) are harder than \(\mathcal{SHOIQ}\). In: Proc. of the Eleventh International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2008), pp. 274–284 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kutz, O., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible \(\mathcal{SROIQ}\). In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 68–78. AAAI, Lake District (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lutz, C., Walther, D., Wolter, F.: Conservative extensions in expressive description logics. In: Proc. of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lutz, C., Wolter, F.: Conservative extensions in the lightweight description logic \(\mathcal{EL}\). In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 21th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-21). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4603, pp. 84–99. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Motik, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C. (eds.): OWL 2 web ontology language profiles. W3C Recommendation (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B. (eds.): OWL 2 web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax. W3C Recommendation (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Motik, B., Shearer, R., Horrocks, I.: Optimized reasoning in description logics using hypertableaux. In: Proc. of the 21st Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-21). LNAI, vol. 4603, pp. 67–83. Springer, Bremen (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parsia, B., Halaschek-Wiener, C., Sirin, E.: Towards incremental reasoning through updates in OWL-DL. In: Reasoning on the Web Workshop (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging OWL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 14th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2005), pp. 633–640 (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patel-Schneider, P., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: Web ontology language OWL abstract syntax and semantics. W3C Recommendation (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sattler, U., Schneider, T., Zakharyaschev, M.: Which kind of module should i extract? In: Proc. of the 22nd International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2009). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 477 (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proc. of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI, 2003). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp. 355–362 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schlobach, S., Huang, Z., Cornet, R., van Harmelen, F.: Debugging incoherent terminologies. J. Autom. Reason. 39(3), 317–349 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5(2), 51–53 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stonebraker, M.: Implementation of integrity constraints and views by query modification. In: SIGMOD ’75: Proc. of the 1975 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 65–78. ACM, New York (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Module extraction and incremental classification: a pragmatic approach for ontologies. In: 5th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5021, pp. 230–244. Springer, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Terry, D.B., Goldberg, D., Nichols, D., Oki, B.M.: Continuous queries over append-only databases. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data (1992)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: FaCT+ + description logic reasoner: system description. In: Proc. of the Third International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4130, pp. 292–297. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernardo Cuenca Grau
    • 1
  • Christian Halaschek-Wiener
    • 2
  • Yevgeny Kazakov
    • 1
  • Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
    • 3
  1. 1.Computing LaboratoryUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Clados Management LLCSan MateoUSA
  3. 3.ICT, Sirindhorn International Institute of TechnologyThammasat UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations