Debugging OWL-DL Ontologies: A Heuristic Approach

  • Hai Wang
  • Matthew Horridge
  • Alan Rector
  • Nick Drummond
  • Julian Seidenberg
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3729)


After becoming a W3C Recommendation, OWL is becoming increasingly widely accepted and used. However most people still find it difficult to create and use OWL ontologies. On major difficulty is “debugging” the ontologies – discovering why a reasoners has inferred that a class is “unsatisfiable” (inconsistent). Even for people who do understand OWL and the logical meaning of the underlining description logic, discovering why concepts are unsatisfiable can be difficult. Most modern tableaux reasoners do not provide any explanation as to why the classes are unsatisfiable. This paper presents a ‘black boxed’ heuristic approach based on identifying common errors and inferences.


Heuristic Approach Description Logic Cardinality Restriction Class Axiom Super Condition 
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.


  1. 1.
    Bechhoffer, S.: The dig description logic interface: Dig/1.1. Technical report, The University Of Manchester, The University Of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bechoffer, S., van Harmlen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinnes, D., Patel-Schneider, P., Stein, L.A.: Owl web ontology langauge reference (February 2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgida, A., Franconi, E., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: Explaining alc subsumption. In: Description Logics (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Pellet: An owl dl reasoner. In: Moller, R., Haaslev, V. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2004) (June 2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rector, A., Knublauch, H., Musen, M.: Editing description logic ontologies with the protege-owl plugin. In: International Workshop on Description Logics - DL 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horridge, M., Knublauch, H., Rector, A., Stevens, R., Wroe, C.: A practical guide to building owl ontologies using protégé-owl and the co-ode tools (2004), Available from
  7. 7.
    Horrocks, I.: Fact++ web site,
  8. 8.
    Horrocks, I.: The fact system. In: de Swart, H. (ed.) TABLEAUX 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1397, pp. 307–312. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liebig, T., Noppens, O.: Ontotrack: Combining browsing and editing with reasoning and explaining for owl lite ontologies. In: McIlraith, S.A., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 244–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rector, A.L., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., Wroe, C.: Owl pizzas: Practical experience of teaching owl-dl: Common errors and common patterns. In: Proceedings of Engineering Knowledge in the Age of the Semantic Web 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moller, R., Haarslev, V.: 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hai Wang
    • 1
  • Matthew Horridge
    • 1
  • Alan Rector
    • 1
  • Nick Drummond
    • 1
  • Julian Seidenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations