Towards Ontology Evolution in Physics

  • Alan Bundy
  • Michael Chan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5110)


We investigate the problem of automatically repairing inconsistent ontologies. A repair is triggered when a contradiction is detected between the current theory and new experimental evidence. We are working in the domain of physics because it has good historical records of such contradictions and how they were resolved. We use these records to both develop and evaluate our techniques. To deal with problems of inferential search control and ambiguity in the atomic repair operations, we have developed ontology repair plans, which represent common patterns of repair. They first diagnose the inconsistency and then direct the resulting repair. Two such plans have been developed to repair ontologies that disagree over the value and the dependence of a function, respectively. We have implemented the repair plans in the galileo system and successfully evaluated galileo on a diverse range of examples from the history of physics.


Dark Matter Belief Revision Spiral Galaxy Orbital Velocity Main Clause 
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.
    Bundy, A., McNeill, F.: Representation as a fluent: An AI challenge for the next half century. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(3), 85–87 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McNeill, F., Bundy, A.: Dynamic, automatic, first-order ontology repair by diagnosis of failed plan execution. IJSWIS, Special issue on ontology matching 3(3), 1–35 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bundy, A.: Where’s my stuff? An ontology repair plan. In: Ahrendt, W., Baumgartner, P., de Nivelle, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Disproving - Non-Theorems, Non-Validity, Non-Provability, Bremen, Germany, July 2007, pp. 2–12 (2007),
  4. 4.
    Miller, D., Nadathur, G.: An overview of λProlog. In: Bowen, R. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Logic Programming Conference/ Fifth Symposium on Logic Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bundy, A.: A science of reasoning. In: Lassez, J.L., Plotkin, G. (eds.) Computational Logic: Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson, pp. 178–198. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Grau, B.: Repairing Unsatisfiable Concepts in OWL Ontologies. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wiser, M., Carey, S.: When heat and temperature were one. In: Stevens, A., Gentner, D. (eds.) Mental Models, pp. 267–297. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rubin, V.C., Thonnard, N., Ford, W.K.J.: Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 /R = 4kpc/ to UGC 2885 /R = 122 kpc/. Astrophysical Journal 238, 471 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Langley, P., Zytkow, J., Simon, H., Bradshaw, G.: Mechanisms for qualitative and quantitative discovery. In: Michalski, R.S. (ed.) Proceedings of the International Machine Learning Workshop, University of Illinois, June 1983, pp. 121–132 (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Bundy
    • 1
  • Michael Chan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations