Extracting Modules from Ontologies: A Logic-Based Approach

  • Bernardo Cuenca Grau
  • Ian Horrocks
  • Yevgeny Kazakov
  • Ulrike Sattler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5445)

Summary

The ability to extract meaningful fragments from an ontology is essential for ontology reuse. We propose a definition of a module that guarantees to completely capture the meaning of a given set of terms, i.e., to include all axioms relevant to the meaning of these terms. We show that the problem of determining whether a subset of an ontology is a module for a given vocabulary is undecidable even for OWL DL. Given these negative results, we propose sufficient conditions for a for a fragment of an ontology to be a module. We propose an algorithm for computing modules based on those conditions and present our experimental results on a set of real-world ontologies of varying size and complexity.

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 \(\mathcal{EL}\) envelope. In: Proc. IJCAI 2005, pp. 364–370 (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, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Börger, E., Grädel, E., Gurevich, Y.: The Classical Decision Problem. In: Perspectives of Mathematical Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1997); Second printing (Universitext) 2001Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: A logical framework for modularity of ontologies. In: Proc. IJCAI 2007, pp. 298–304 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: Will my Ontologies Fit Together? In: Proc. DL 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Modularity and Web Ontologies. In: Proc. KR 2006, pp. 198–209 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghilardi, S., Lutz, C., Wolter, F.: Did I Damage my Ontology? A Case for Conservative Extensions in Description Logics. In: Proc. KR 2006, pp. 187–197 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Halaschek-Wiener, C., Kazakov, Y.: History matters: Incremental ontology reasoning using modules. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 183–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\) and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In: Proc. of the IJCAI. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Hendler, J.: SWOOP: A web editing browser. Elsevier’s Journal Of Web Semantics 4(2), 144–153 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lutz, C., Walther, D., Wolter, F.: Conservative extensions in expressive description logics. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2007, pp. 453–459 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Möller, R., Haarslev, V.: Description logic systems. In: The Description Logic Handbook, ch. 8, pp. 282–305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Motik, B.: Reasoning in Description Logics using Resolution and Deductive Databases. PhD thesis, Univesität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: The PROMPT suite: Interactive tools for ontology mapping and merging. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Studies 6(59) (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: Web ontology language OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics. W3C Recommendation (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidt-Schauß, M., Smolka, G.: Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artif. Intell. 48(1), 1–26 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B.: Pellet system description. In: Proc. DL 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: FaCT++ description logic reasoner: System description. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4130, pp. 292–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernardo Cuenca Grau
    • 1
  • Ian Horrocks
    • 1
  • Yevgeny Kazakov
    • 1
  • Ulrike Sattler
    • 2
  1. 1.University of OxfordUK
  2. 2.University of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations