Repairing Unsatisfiable Concepts in OWL Ontologies

  • Aditya Kalyanpur
  • Bijan Parsia
  • Evren Sirin
  • Bernardo Cuenca-Grau
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4011)


In this paper, we investigate the problem of repairing unsatisfiable concepts in an OWL ontology in detail, keeping in mind the user perspective as much as possible. We focus on various aspects of the repair process – improving the explanation support to help the user understand the cause of error better, exploring various strategies to rank erroneous axioms (with motivating use cases for each strategy), automatically generating repair plans that can be customized easily, and suggesting appropriate axiom edits where possible to the user. Based on the techniques described, we present a preliminary version of an interactive ontology repair tool and demonstrate its applicability in practice.


Atomic Concept Provenance Information Repair Plan Ontology Change Original Ontology 
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.
    Gardenfors, P., Makinson, D., Alchourron, C.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (1985)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ding, L., Pan, R., Finin, T.W., Joshi, A., Peng, Y., Kolari, P.: Finding and Ranking Knowledge on the Semantic Web. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 156–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Evaluating ontological decisions with ontoclean. Commun. ACM 45(2), 61–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Cuenca-Grau, B., Sirin, E.: Axiom pinpointing: Finding (precise) justifications for arbitrary entailments in \(\mathcal{SHOIN}\) (owl-dl). Technical report, UMIACS, 2005-66 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca-Grau, B., Hendler, J.: Swoop: A web ontology editing browser. Journal of Web Semantics (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J.: Debugging unsatisfiable classes in owl ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics 3(4) (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Noy, N., Sintek, M., Decker, S., Crubezy, M., Fergerson, R., Musen, M.: Creating semantic web contents with Protégé 2000. IEEE Intelligent Systems (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oberle, D., Volz, R., Motik, B., Staab, S.: An extensible ontology software environment. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems, ch. III, pp. 311–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., Wroe, C.: OWL Pizzas: Practical Experience of Teaching OWL-DL: Common Errors & Common Patterns. In: EKAW, pp. 63–81 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence 32, 57–95 (1987)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schlobach, S.: Debugging and Semantic Clarification by Pinpointing. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 226–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schlobach, S.: Diagnosing terminologies. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of IJCAI (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Cuena Grau, B., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Technical report, University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computes Studies (UMIACS), 2005-68 (2005), Available online at :

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aditya Kalyanpur
    • 1
  • Bijan Parsia
    • 1
  • Evren Sirin
    • 1
  • Bernardo Cuenca-Grau
    • 2
  1. 1.MINDLABUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations