Comparing Inconsistency Resolutions in Multi-Context Systems

  • Antonius Weinzierl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7415)


Inconsistency in heterogeneous knowledge-integration systems with non-monotonic information exchange is a major concern as it renders systems useless at its occurrence. For the knowledge-integration framework of Multi-Context Systems, the problem of finding all possible resolutions to inconsistency has been addressed previously and some basic steps have been proposed to find most preferred resolutions. Here, we refine the techniques of finding preferred resolutions of inconsistency in two directions. First, we extend available qualitative methods using domain knowledge on the intention and category of information exchange to minimize the number of categories that are affected by a resolution. Second, we present a quantitative inconsistency measure for inconsistency resolutions, being suitable for scenarios where no further domain knowledge is available.


Logic Program Human Insulin Preference Order Belief State Prefer Resolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bikakis, A., Antoniou, G., Hassapis, P.: Strategies for contextual reasoning with conflicts in ambient intelligence. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 27(1), 45–84 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Equilibria in heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: AAAI, pp. 385–390. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Managed multi-context systems. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 786–791. IJCAI/AAAI (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Inconsistency Tolerance in P2P Data Integration: An Epistemic Logic Approach. In: Bierman, G., Koch, C. (eds.) DBPL 2005. LNCS, vol. 3774, pp. 90–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damásio, C.V., Pereira, L.M.: A survey of paraconsistent semantics for logic programs. In: Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, pp. 241–320. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Schüller, P., Weinzierl, A.: Finding explanations of inconsistency in multi-context systems. In: Lin, F., Sattler, U., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) KR. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Preference-Based Inconsistency Assessment in Multi-Context Systems. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6341, pp. 143–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T.: Answer Set Programming: A Primer. In: Tessaris, S., Franconi, E., Eiter, T., Gutierrez, C., Handschuh, S., Rousset, M.-C., Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 5689, pp. 40–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faber, W., Pfeifer, G., Leone, N.: Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming. Artif. Intell. 175(1), 278–298 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fink, M., Ghionna, L., Weinzierl, A.: Relational Information Exchange and Aggregation in Multi-Context Systems. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 120–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giunchiglia, F., Serafini, L.: Multilanguage hierarchical logics or: How we can do without modal logics. Artif. Intell. 65(1), 29–70 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets. In: Brewka, G., Lang, J. (eds.) KR, pp. 358–366. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H., Tamilin, A.: Repairing ontology mappings. In: AAAI, pp. 1408–1413. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Przymusinski, T.: Stable semantics for disjunctive programs. New Generation Computing 9(3), 401–424 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonius Weinzierl
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge-Based Systems GroupVienna University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations