Aspects of Inconsistency Resolution in Modular Ontologies

  • Faezeh Ensan
  • Weichang Du
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5032)


Modularization entails more efficient reasoning and better performance in the ontology manipulation process. Therefore, the development of modular ontologies has recently received much attention. One of the most important issues in modular ontologies is dealing with inconsistencies. An inconsistent module may affect the other modules and cause a modular ontology to become inconsistent. Furthermore, the integration of different consistent modules may also result in inconsistency. In this paper, we investigate various types of inconsistencies in modular ontologies. We mostly focus on an interface-based ontology modularity formalism and propose a strategy and an algorithm for isolating inconsistent modules and resolving inconsistencies arisen from the integration of different ontology modules.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    On the formalization of interface-based modular ontologies under the closed-world assumption. Tech. rep. (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bao, J., Caragea, D., Honavar, V.: Modular ontologies - a formal investigation of semantics and expressivity. In: Mizoguchi, R., Shi, Z.-Z., Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) ASWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4185, pp. 616–631. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bao, J., Caragea, D., Honavar, V.: On the semantics of linking and importing in modular ontologies. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 72–86 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bao, J., Slutzki, G., Honavar, V.: A semantic importing approach to knowledge reuse from multiple ontologies. In: AAAI, pp. 1304–1309 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: A comparative study part 1: The flat case. Studia Logica 58(1), 17–45 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. J. Data Semantics 1, 153–184 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies. In: WWW 2007: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 717–726. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grau, B.C., Kutz, O.: Modular ontology languages revisited. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 2007 Workshop on Semantic Web for Collaborative Knowledge Acquisition, Hyderabad, India (January 2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haase, P., van Harmelen, F., Huang, Z., Stuckenschmidt, H., Sure, Y.: A framework for handling inconsistency in changing ontologies. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 353–367 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Ontology reasoning in the shoq(d) description logic. In: IJCAI, pp. 199–204 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, Z., van Harmelen, F., ten Teije, A.: Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies. In: IJCAI, pp. 454–459 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kutz, O., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: E-connections of abstract description systems. Artif. Intell. 156(1), 1–73 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer, T., Lee, K., Booth, R.: Knowledge integration for description logics. In: AAAI, pp. 645–650 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Qi, G., Liu, W., Bell, D.: A revision-based approach to handling inconsistency in description logics. Artif. Intell. Rev. 26(1-2), 115–128 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Serafini, L., Borgida, A., Tamilin, A.: Aspects of distributed and modular ontology reasoning. In: IJCAI, pp. 570–575 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Klein, M.C.A.: Integrity and change in modular ontologies. In: IJCAI, pp. 900–908 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faezeh Ensan
    • 1
  • Weichang Du
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations