Advertisement

Information Flow within Relational Multi-context Systems

  • Luís Cruz-Filipe
  • Graça Gaspar
  • Isabel Nunes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8876)

Abstract

Multi-context systems (MCSs) are an important framework for heterogeneous combinations of systems within the Semantic Web. In this paper, we propose generic constructions to achieve specific forms of interaction in a principled way, and systematize some useful techniques to work with ontologies within an MCS. All these mechanisms are presented in the form of general-purpose design patterns. Their study also suggests new ways in which this framework can be further extended.

Keywords

Logic Program Design Pattern Description Logic Transitive Closure Belief State 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G.: A tutorial on default logics. ACM Computing Surveys 31(3), 337–359 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoy, S., Hanus, M.: Functional logic design patterns. In: Hu, Z., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (eds.) FLOPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2441, pp. 67–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Equilibria in heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: AAAI 2007, pp. 385–390. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Managed multi-context systems. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 786–791. IJCAI/AAAI (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G., Niemelä, I., Truszczyński, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, ch. 6, pp. 239–284. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Bruijn, J., Ehrig, M., Feier, C., Martíns-Recuerda, F., Scharffe, F., Weiten, M.: Ontology mediation, merging, and aligning. In: Davies, J., Studer, R., Warren, P. (eds.) Semantic Web Technologies: Trends and Research in Ontology-based Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cóbe, R., Wassermann, R.: Ontology merging and conflict resolution: Inconsistency and incoherence solving approaches. In: Workshop on Belief change, Non-monotonic reasoning and Conflict Resolution, BNC (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Gaspar, G., Nunes, I.: Information flow within relational multi-context systems. Technical Report 2014;03, Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon (September 2014), http://hdl.handle.net/10455/6900
  9. 9.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Henriques, R., Nunes, I.: Description logics, rules and multi-context systems. In: McMillan, K., Middeldorp, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-19 2013. LNCS, vol. 8312, pp. 243–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Nunes, I., Gaspar, G.: Patterns for interfacing between logic programs and multiple ontologies. In: Filipe, J., Dietz, J. (eds.) KEOD 2013, pp. 58–69. INSTICC (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: Dynamic distributed nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: Brewka, G., Marek, V., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Essays Celebrating its 30th Anniversary. Studies in Logic, vol. 31. College Publications (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dou, D., McDermott, D., Qi, P.: Ontology translation by ontology merging and automated reasoning. In: Ontologies for Agents: Theory and Experiences, pp. 73–94. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R.: Well-founded semantics for description logic programs in the semantic Web. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 12(2) (2011) Article Nr 11Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) IJCAI 2005, pp. 90–96. Professional Book Center (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fink, M., Ghionna, L., Weinzierl, A.: Relational information exchange and aggregation in multi-context systems. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 120–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fowler, M.: Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. Addison–Wesley (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison–Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: Ontology design patterns. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, 2nd edn. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 221–243. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Homola, M., Knorr, M., Leite, J., Slota, M.: MKNF knowledge bases in multi-context systems. In: Fisher, M., van der Torre, L., Dastani, M., Governatori, G. (eds.) CLIMA XIII 2012. LNCS, vol. 7486, pp. 146–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, J., Jang, M., Ha, Y.-g., Sohn, J.-C., Lee, S.J.: MoA: OWL ontology merging and alignment tool for the semantic web. In: Ali, M., Esposito, F. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3533, pp. 722–731. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: MAFRA – A mApping fRAmework for distributed ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 235–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyer, T.A., Lee, K., Booth, R.: Knowledge integration for description logics. In: Veloso, M.M., Kambhampati, S. (eds.) AAAI 2005, pp. 645–650. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling description logics and rules. Journal of the ACM 57 (June 2010) Article Nr 30Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scharffe, F., Zamazal, O., Fensel, D.: Ontology alignment design patterns. Knowledge and Information Systems, 1–28 (April 2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sterling, L.: Patterns for Prolog programming. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2407, pp. 374–401. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luís Cruz-Filipe
    • 1
  • Graça Gaspar
    • 2
  • Isabel Nunes
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of Southern DenmarkDenmark
  2. 2.LabMAg, Faculdade de CiênciasUniversidade de LisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations