Advertisement

Resolving Inconsistencies in Evolving Ontologies

  • Peter Plessers
  • Olga De Troyer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4011)

Abstract

Changing a consistent ontology may turn the ontology into an inconsistent state. It is the task of an approach supporting ontology evolution to ensure an ontology evolves from one consistent state into another consistent state. In this paper, we focus on checking consistency of OWL DL ontologies. While existing reasoners allow detecting inconsistencies, determining why the ontology is inconsistent and offering solutions for these inconsistencies is far from trivial. We therefore propose an algorithm to select the axioms from an ontology causing the inconsistency, as well as a set of rules that ontology engineers can use to resolve the detected inconsistency.

Keywords

Description Logic Ontology Evolution Cardinality Restriction Concept Dependency Expansion Rule 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The description logic handbook: theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baclawski, K., Matheus, C., Kokar, M., Letkowski, J., Kogut, P.: Towards a symptom ontology for semantic web applications. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 650–667. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web: A new form of web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities. Scientific American 5(1) (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haase, P., Stojanovic, L.: Consistent evolution of OWL ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 182–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horrocks, I.: The fact system. In: Proceedings of Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods: International Conference Tableaux 1998, pp. 307–312. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klein, M.: Change Management for Distributed Ontologies. Ph.D Thesis (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Menzies, T.: Knowledge maintenance: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 14(1), 1–46 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moller, R., Haarslev, V.: Racer system description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2083, p. 701. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Pellet: An OWL DL reasoner. In: Moller, R., Haaslev, V. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging OWL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 14th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2005), Chiba, Japan (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plessers, P., De Troyer, O., Casteleyn, S.: Event-based modeling of evolution for semantic-driven systems. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Plessers, P., De Troyer, O.: Ontology change detection using a version log. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Richard Benjamins, V., Musen, M.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, Galway, Ireland, pp. 578–592. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roddick, J.F.: A survey of schema versioning issues for database systems. Information and Software Technology 37(7), 383–393 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stojanovic, L., Maedche, A., Motik, B., Stojanovic, N.: User-Driven Ontology Evolution Management. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2473, p. 285. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stojanovic, L.: Methods and Tools for Ontology Evolution. Ph.D Thesis (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tallis, M., Gil, Y.: Designing scripts to guide users in modifying knowledge-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI 1999), Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 242–249 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, H., Horridge, M., Rector, A., Drummond, N., Seidenberg, J.: Debugging OWL-DL ontologies: A heuristic approach. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Richard Benjamins, V., Musen, M.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, Galway, Ireland. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Plessers
    • 1
  • Olga De Troyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations