Advertisement

Debugging and Semantic Clarification by Pinpointing

  • Stefan Schlobach
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3532)

Abstract

Ontologies are the backbone of the Semantic Web as they allow one to share vocabulary in a semantically sound way. For ontologies, specified in OWL or a related web ontology language, Description Logic reasoner can often detect logical contradictions. Unfortunately, there are two drawbacks: they lack in support for debugging incoherence in ontologies, and they can only be applied to reasonably expressive ontologies (containing at least some sort of negation).

In this paper, we attempt to close these gaps using a technique called pinpointing. In pinpointing we identify minimal sets of axioms which need to be removed or ignored to turn an ontology coherent. We then show how pinpointing can be used for debugging of web ontologies in two typical cases. More unusual is the application of pinpointing in the semantic clarification of underspecified web ontologies which we experimentally evaluate on a number of well-known web-ontologies. Our findings are encouraging: even though semantic ambiguity remains an issue, we show that pinpointing can be useful for debugging, and that it can significantly improve the quality of our semantic enrichment in a fully automatic way.

Keywords

Description Logic Ontology Language Semantic Ambiguity Logical Contradiction Reasoning Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms. Technical Report RR-93-20, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgida, A., Franconi, E., Horrocks, I.: Explaining \(\mathcal{ALC}\) subsumption. In: Proc. of the 14th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 209–213 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cornet, R., Abu-Hanna, A.: Evaluation of a frame-based ontology. A formalization-oriented approach. In: Proceedings of MIE 2002, Studies in Health Technology & Information, vol. 90, 488-93 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DAML ontology library, URL: http://www.daml.org/ontologies/
  6. 6.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: RACER system description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, p. 701. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horrocks, I.: The FaCT system. In: de Swart, H. (ed.) TABLEAUX 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1397, pp. 307–312. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marquis, P., Lang, J.: Removing inconsistencies in assumption-based theories through knowledge-gathering actions. Studia Logica 67(2), 179–214 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGuinness, D., Fikes, R., Rice, J., Wilder, S.: The Chimaera Ontology Environment. In: The Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nebel, B.: Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable. AI 43, 235–249 (1990)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noy, N., Musen, M.: Prompt: Algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 450–455. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence 32, 57–95 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schaerf, M., Cadoli, M.: Tractable reasoning via approximation. Artif. Intell. 74(2), 249–310 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2003. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sumo (Suggested Upper Merged Ontology), as visited on April 16 (2004), URL: http://ontology.teknowledge.com/
  18. 18.
    Web-ontology (WebOnt) working group of the W3C, as of April 16 (2004), URL: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Schlobach
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations