Advertisement

Justification Oriented Proofs in OWL

  • Matthew Horridge
  • Bijan Parsia
  • Ulrike Sattler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6496)

Abstract

Justifications — that is, minimal entailing subsets of an ontology — are currently the dominant form of explanation provided by ontology engineering environments, especially those focused on the Web Ontology Language (OWL). Despite this, there are naturally occurring justifications that can be very difficult to understand. In essence, justifications are merely the premises of a proof and, as such, do not articulate the (often non-obvious) reasoning which connect those premises with the conclusion. This paper presents justification oriented proofs as a potential solution to this problem.

Keywords

Description Logic Natural Deduction Class Expression Deduction Rule Real Ontology 
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.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Debugging SNOMED CT using axiom pinpointing in the description logic \(\mathcal{EL}^+\). In: KR-MED 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgida, A., Calvanese, D., Rodriguez, M.: Explanation in DL-Lite. In: DL 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Laconic and precise justifications in OWL. In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 323–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Lemmas for justifications in OWL. In: DL 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible \(\mathcal{SROIQ}\). In: KR 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang, X.: Reconstructing proofs at the assertion level. In: Bundy, A. (ed.) CADE 1994. LNCS, vol. 814, pp. 738–752. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N., Byrne, R.M.J.: Deduction. Psychology Press, San Diego (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging and Repair of OWL Ontologies. PhD thesis, The Graduate School of the University of Maryland (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Horridge, M., Sirin, E.: Finding all justifications of OWL DL entailments. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 267–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kwong, F.K.H.: Practical approach to explaining \(\mathcal{ALC}\) subsumption. Technical report, The University of Manchester (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language structural specification and functional style syntax. W3C Recommendation, W3C – World Wide Web Consortium (October 2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Motik, B., Shearer, R., Horrocks, I.: Optimized reasoning in description logics using hypertableaux. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 67–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Newstead, S.E., Brandon, P., Handley, S.J., Dennis, I., Evans, J.S.B.: Predicting the Difficult of Complex Logical Reasoning Problems, vol. 12. Psychology Press, San Diego (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plaisted, D.A., Greenbaum, S.: A structure-preserving clause form translation. Journal of Symbolic Computation (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rips, L.J.: The Psychology of Proof. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schlobach, S.: Explaining subsumption by optimal interpolation. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 413–425. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strube, G.: The role of cognitive science in knowledge engineering. In: Proc. of Contemporary Knowledge Engineering and Cognition (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Horridge
    • 1
  • Bijan Parsia
    • 1
  • Ulrike Sattler
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceThe University of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations