Advertisement

Repairing Socially Aggregated Ontologies Using Axiom Weakening

  • Daniele Porello
  • Nicolas Troquard
  • Roberto Confalonieri
  • Pietro Galliani
  • Oliver Kutz
  • Rafael Peñaloza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10621)

Abstract

Ontologies represent principled, formalised descriptions of agents’ conceptualisations of a domain. For a community of agents, these descriptions may significantly differ. We propose an aggregative view of the integration of ontologies based on Judgement Aggregation (JA). Agents may vote on statements of the ontologies, and we aim at constructing a collective, integrated ontology, that reflects the individual conceptualisations as much as possible. As several results in JA show, many attractive and widely used aggregation procedures are prone to return inconsistent collective ontologies. We propose to solve the possible inconsistencies in the collective ontology by applying suitable weakenings of axioms that cause inconsistencies.

References

  1. 1.
    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 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Peñaloza, R.: Axiom pinpointing in general tableaux. J. Logic Comput. 20(1), 5–34 (2010). Special Issue: Tableaux and Analytic Proof MethodsMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Confalonieri, R., Eppe, M., Schorlemmer, M., Kutz, O., Peñaloza, R., Plaza, E.: Upward refinement operators for conceptual blending in \(\cal{EL}^{++}\). Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. (2016). doi: 10.1007/s10472-016-9524-8
  4. 4.
    Confalonieri, R., Kutz, O., Troquard, N., Galliani, P., Porello, D., Peñaloza, R., Schorlemmer, M.: Coherence, similarity, and concept generalisation. In: Proceedings of DL 2017. CEUR (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dietrich, F., List, C.: Judgment aggregation by quota rules: majority voting generalized. J. Theor. Polit. 19(4), 391–424 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaertner, W.: A Primer in Social Choice Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Justification masking in ontologies. In: KR 2012. AAAI Press (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kornhauser, L.A., Sager, L.G.: The one and the many: adjudication in collegial courts. Calif. Law Rev. 81(1), 1–59 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kutz, O., Mossakowski, T., Lücke, D.: Carnap, Goguen, and the Hyperontologies: Logical Pluralism and Heterogeneous Structuring in Ontology Design. Logica Universalis 4(2), 255–333 (2010). Special Issue on Is Logic Universal?Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Laag, P.R., Nienhuys-Cheng, S.H.: Completeness and properness of refinement operators in inductive logic programming. J. Logic Program. 34(3), 201–225 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    List, C., Pettit, P.: Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Econ. Philos. 18(1), 89–110 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    List, C.: Deliberation and agreement. In: Rosenberg, S.W. (ed.) Deliberation, Participation and Democracy, pp. 64–81. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London (2007). doi: 10.1057/9780230591080_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    List, C., Puppe, C.: Judgment aggregation: a survey. In: Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ottonelli, V., Porello, D.: On the elusive notion of meta-agreement. Politics Philos. Econ. 12(1), 68–92 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Porello, D., Endriss, U.: Ontology merging as social choice: judgment aggregation under the open world assumption. J. Logic Comput. 24(6), 1229–1249 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2003, pp. 355–362. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniele Porello
    • 1
  • Nicolas Troquard
    • 1
  • Roberto Confalonieri
    • 1
  • Pietro Galliani
    • 1
  • Oliver Kutz
    • 1
  • Rafael Peñaloza
    • 1
  1. 1.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations