Advertisement

Ontology Constraints in Incomplete and Complete Data

  • Peter F. Patel-Schneider
  • Enrico Franconi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7649)

Abstract

Ontology and other logical languages are built around the idea that axioms enable the inference of new facts about the available data. In some circumstances, however, the data is meant to be complete in certain ways, and deducing new facts may be undesirable. Previous approaches to this issue have relied on syntactically specifying certain axioms as constraints or adding in new constructs for constraints, and providing a different or extended meaning for constraints that reduces or eliminates their ability to infer new facts without requiring the data to be complete. We propose to instead directly state that the extension of certain concepts and roles are complete by making them DBox predicates, which eliminates the distinction between regular axioms and constraints for these concepts and roles. This proposal eliminates the need for special semantics and avoids problems of previous proposals.

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, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beth, E.W.: On Padoa’s methods in the theory of definitions. Indagotiones Mathematicae 15, 330–339 (1953)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinkley, D., Guha, R.V.: RDF vocabulary description langauge 1.0; RDF schema. W3C Recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
  4. 4.
    de Bruijn, J., Polleres, A., Lara, R., Fensel, D.: OWL Flight. Deliverable D20.3v0.1, WSML (August 2004), http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d20/d20.3/v0.1
  5. 5.
    de Bruijn, J., Polleres, A., Lara, R., Fensel, D.: OWL DL vs. OWL Flight: Conceptual modeling and reasoning on the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2005), pp. 623–632 (May 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donini, F.M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 3(2), 177–225 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franconi, E., Ibáñez-García, Y.A., Seylan, I.: Query answering with DBoxes is hard. Electronic Notes on Theoretical Computer Science 278, 71–84 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franconi, E., Kerhet, V., Ngo, N.: Exact Query Reformulation with First-Order Ontologies and Databases. In: del Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7519, pp. 202–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible SROIQ. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) Proceedings, Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 57–67. AAAI Press (June 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases. Journal of Web Semantics 7(2), 74–119 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 web ontology language: Structural specification and functional-style syntax. W3C recommendation (October 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax
  12. 12.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling description logics and rules. Journal of the ACM 57(5), 1–62 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sengupta, K., Krisnadhi, A.A., Hitzler, P.: Local Closed World Semantics: Grounded Circumscription for OWL. In: Aroyo, L., Welty, C., Alani, H., Taylor, J., Bernstein, A., Kagal, L., Noy, N., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7031, pp. 617–632. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seylan, I., Franconi, E., de Bruijn, J.: Effective query rewriting with ontologies over DBoxes. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), pp. 923–929 (July 2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tao, J., Sirin, E., Bao, J., McGuinness, D.L.: Integrity constraints in OWL. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Atlanta, Georgia. American Association for Artificial Intelligence (July 2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter F. Patel-Schneider
    • 1
  • Enrico Franconi
    • 1
  1. 1.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations