Wheat and Chaff – Practically Feasible Interactive Ontology Revision
When ontological knowledge is acquired automatically, quality control is essential. We consider the tightest possible approach – an exhaustive manual inspection of the acquired data. By using automated reasoning, we partially automate the process: after each expert decision, axioms that are entailed by the already approved statements are automatically approved, whereas axioms that would lead to an inconsistency are declined. Adequate axiom ranking strategies are essential in this setting to minimize the amount of expert decisions.
In this paper, we present a generalization of the previously proposed ranking techniques which works well for arbitrary validity ratios – the proportion of valid statements within a dataset – whereas the previously described ranking functions were either tailored towards validity ratios of exactly 100% and 0% or were optimizing the worst case. The validity ratio – generally not known a priori – is continuously estimated over the course of the inspection process. We further employ partitioning techniques to significantly reduce the computational effort. We provide an implementation supporting all these optimizations as well as featuring a user front-end for successive axiom evaluation, thereby making our proposed strategy applicable to practical scenarios. This is witnessed by our evaluation showing that the novel parameterized ranking function almost achieves the maximum possible automation and that the computation time needed for each reasoning-based, automatic decision is reduced to less than one second on average for our test dataset of over 25,000 statements.
- 2.Baader, F., Ganter, B., Sertkaya, B., Sattler, U.: Completing description logic knowledge bases using formal concept analysis. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), pp. 230–235 (2007)Google Scholar
- 4.Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Llavori, R.B.: Building ontologies collaboratively using ContentCVS. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2009). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 477. CEUR-WS.org (2009)Google Scholar
- 5.Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Berlanga, R.: Ontology integration using mappings: Towards getting the right logical consequences. In: Aroyo, L., Traverso, P., Ciravegna, F., Cimiano, P., Heath, T., Hyvönen, E., Mizoguchi, R., Oren, E., Sabou, M., Simperl, E. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Konev, B., Lutz, C., Ponomaryov, D., Wolter, F.: Decomposing description logic ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Confonference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
- 7.Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H., Tamilin, A.: Supporting manual mapping revision using logical reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), pp. 1213–1218. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
- 8.Nikitina, N., Rudolph, S., Glimm, B.: Reasoning-supported interactive revision of knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
- 10.Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), pp. 355–362. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar
- 11.W3C OWL Working Group: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Document Overview. W3C Recommendation (October 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/