An Approach to Description Logic with Support for Propositional Attitudes and Belief Fusion

  • Matthias Nickles
  • Ruth Cobos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5327)


In the (Semantic) Web, the existence or producibility of certain, consensually agreed or authoritative knowledge cannot be assumed, and criteria to judge the trustability and reputation of knowledge sources may not be given. These issues give rise to formalizations of web information which factor in heterogeneous and possibly inconsistent assertions and intentions, and make such heterogeneity explicit and manageable for reasoning mechanisms. Such approaches can provide valuable meta-knowledge in contemporary application fields, like open or distributed ontologies, social software, ranking and recommender systems, and domains with a high amount of controversies, such as politics and culture.

As an approach to this, we introduce a lean formalism for the Semantic Web which allows for the explicit representation of controversial individual and group opinions and goals by means of so-called social contexts, and optionally for the probabilistic belief merging of uncertain or conflicting statements.

Doing so, our approach generalizes concepts such as provenance annotation and voting in the context of ontologies and other kinds of Semantic Web knowledge.


Semantic Web OWL Knowledge Integration Context Logic Voting Provenance Annotation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    McCarthy, J.L.: Notes on formalizing context. In: IJCAI, pp. 555–562 (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guha, R.V., McCool, R., Fikes, R.: Contexts for the Semantic Web. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richardson, M., Domingos, P.: Building Large Knowledge Bases by Mass Collaboration. Technical Report UW-TR-03-02-04, Dept. of CSE, University of Washington (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: C-OWL: Contextualizing Ontologies. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nickles, M., Fischer, F., Weiss, G.: Communication Attitudes: A Formal Approach to Ostensible Intentions, and Individual and Group Opinions. In: Procs. of the 3rd Intl. Workshop on Logic and Communication in Multiagent Systems, LCMAS 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klyne, G.: Contexts for RDF Information Modelling (2000),
  7. 7.
    Costa, P., Laskey, K.B., Laskey, K.J.: PR-OWL: A Bayesian Framework for the Semantic Web. In: Procs. First Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web, URSW 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Froehner, T., Nickles, M., Weiss, G.: Towards Modeling the Social Layer of Emergent Knowledge Using Open Ontologies. In: Proceedings of The ECAI 2004 Workshop on Agent-Mediated Knowledge Management, AMKM 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ullmann, J.: Information Integration Using Logical Views. In: Proc. 6th Int’l Conference on Database Theory. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giugno, R., Lukasiewicz, T.: P-SHOQ(d): A Probabilistic Extension of SHOQ(d) for Probabilistic Ontologies in the Semantic Web. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS, vol. 2424, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer, F., Nickles, M.: Computational Opinions. In: Procs. of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2006 (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaudou, B., Herzig, A., Longin, D., Nickles, M.: A New Semantics for the FIPA Agent Communication Language based on Social Attitudes. In: Procs. of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2006 (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nickles, M.: Modeling Social Attitudes on the Web. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cobos, R.: Mechanisms for the Crystallisation of Knowledge, a Proposal Using a Collaborative System. Ph.D. thesis. Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cooke, R.M.: Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL entailment to Description Logic Satisfiability. Journal of Web Semantics 1(4) (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haase, P., Motik, B.: A Mapping System for the Integration of OWL-DL Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Interoperability of Heterogeneous Information Systems. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bonifacio, M., Bouquet, P., Cuel, R.: Knowledge Nodes: The Building Blocks of a Distributed Approach to Knowledge Management. Journal for Universal Computer Science 8(6) (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farquhar, A., Dappert, A., Fikes, R.,, W.: Pratt. Integrating Information Sources using Context Logic. In: Procs. of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Information Gathering from Distributed Heterogeneous Environments (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carroll, J., Bizer, C., Hayes, P., Stickler, P.: Named Graphs, Provenance and Trust. In: Procs. of the 14th International World Wide Web Conference (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dragoni, A., Giorgini, P.: Revisining Beliefs Received from Multiple Sources. In: Roth, H., Williams, M. (eds.) Frontiers in Belief Revision, pp. 431–444. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nickles, M.: Social Acquisition of Ontologies from Communication Processes. Applied Ontology 2(3-4) (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh, M.P.: The Pragmatic Web: Preliminary thoughts. In: Proceedings of the NSF-OntoWeb Workshop on Database and Information Systems Research for Semantic Web and Enterprises, pp. 82–90 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nickles, M., Weiss, G.: A Framework for the Social Description of Resources in Open Environments. In: Klusch, M., Omicini, A., Ossowski, S., Laamanen, H. (eds.) CIA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2782. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tran, D.T., Haase, P., Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I.: Metalevel Information in Ontology-Based Applications. In: Procs. of the 23th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schueler, B., Sizov, S., Staab, S., Tran, D.T.: Querying for Meta Knowledge. In: Procs. of the 17th International Conference on the World Wide Web, WWW 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pigozzi, G., Hartmann, S.: Judgment aggregation and the problem of truth-tracking. In: Procs. of the 11th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, TARK 2007 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Nickles
    • 1
  • Ruth Cobos
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BathBathUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Departamento de Ingeniería InformáticaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations