Advertisement

Towards Extracting Ontology Excerpts

  • Jieying Chen
  • Michel Ludwig
  • Yue Ma
  • Dirk Walther
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9403)

Abstract

In the presence of an ever growing amount of information, organizations and human users need to be able to focus on certain key pieces of information and to intentionally ignore all other possibly relevant parts. Knowledge about complex systems that is represented in ontologies yields collections of axioms that are too large for human users to browse, let alone to comprehend or reason about it. We introduce the notion of an ontology excerpt as being a fixed-size subset of an ontology, consisting of the most relevant axioms for a given set of terms. These axioms preserve as much as possible the knowledge about the considered terms described in the ontology. We consider different extraction techniques for ontology excerpts based on methods from the area of information retrieval. To evaluate these techniques, we propose to measure the degree of incompleteness of the resulting excerpts using the notion of logical difference.

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 \(\cal EL\) envelope. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2005. Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ecke, A., Ludwig, M., Walther, D.: The concept difference for \(\cal EL\)-terminologies using hypergraphs. In: Proceedings of DChanges 2013. CEUR-WS.org (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Modular reuse of ontologies: theory and practice. JAIR 31, 273–318 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Konev, B., Ludwig, M., Walther, D., Wolter, F.: The logical difference for the lightweight description logic \(\cal EL\). JAIR 44, 633–708 (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Konev, B., Lutz, C., Walther, D., Wolter, F.: Semantic modularity and module extraction in description logics. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2008. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 178, pp. 55–59. IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Konev, B., Walther, D., Wolter, F.: The logical difference problem for description logic terminologies. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 259–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ludwig, M., Walther, D.: The logical difference for \(\cal ELH^r\)-terminologies using hypergraphs. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2014. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263, pp. 555–560. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., Schütze, H.: Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, New York (2008) CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rudolph, S., Tserendorj, T., Hitzler, P.: What is approximate reasoning? In: Lausen, G., Calvanese, D. (eds.) RR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5341, pp. 150–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    W3C OWL Working Group. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Document Overview (2009). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jieying Chen
    • 1
  • Michel Ludwig
    • 2
  • Yue Ma
    • 3
  • Dirk Walther
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Computer Science and TechnologyJilin UniversityChangchunChina
  2. 2.Theoretical Computer ScienceTU DresdenDresdenGermany
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Recherche en InformatiqueUniversité Paris-SudOrsayFrance

Personalised recommendations