Abstract
In recent years, various approaches have been developed for representing and reasoning with exceptions in OWL. The price one pays for such capabilities, in terms of practical performance, is an important factor that is yet to be quantified comprehensively. A major barrier is the lack of naturally occurring ontologies with defeasible features - the ideal candidates for evaluation. Such data is unavailable due to absence of tool support for representing defeasible features. In the past, defeasible reasoning implementations have favoured automated generation of defeasible ontologies. While this suffices as a preliminary approach, we posit that a method somewhere in between these two would yield more meaningful results. In this work, we describe a systematic approach to modify real-world OWL ontologies to include defeasible features, and we apply this to the Manchester OWL Repository to generate defeasible ontologies for evaluating our reasoner DIP (Defeasible-Inference Platform). The results of this evaluation are provided together with some insights into where the performance bottle-necks lie for this kind of reasoning. We found that reasoning was feasible on the whole, with surprisingly few bottle-necks in our evaluation.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
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
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F., (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge Univ. Press (2003)
Bonatti, P., Faella, M., Petrova, I., Sauro, L.: A New Semantics for Overriding in Description Logics. Artificial Intelligence (2015)
Bonatti, P., Faella, M., Sauro, L.: Defeasible Inclusions in Low-Complexity DLs. JAIR 42, 719–764 (2011)
Bonatti, P., Lutz, C., Wolter, F.: Description logics with circumscription. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 400–410 (2006)
Britz, K., Casini, G., Meyer, T., Moodley, K., Varzinczak, I.J.: Ordered Interpretations and Entailment for Defeasible Description Logics. Technical report, CAIR, CSIR Meraka and UKZN, South Africa (2013)
Britz, K., Meyer, T., Varzinczak, I.: Semantic foundation for preferential description logics. In: Wang, D., Reynolds, M. (eds.) AI 2011. LNCS, vol. 7106, pp. 491–500. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Casini, G., Meyer, T., Moodley, K., Varzinczak, I.: Towards practical defeasible reasoning for description logics. In: Proc. of DL (2013)
Casini, G., Straccia, U.: Rational closure for defeasible description logics. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6341, pp. 77–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Cuenca-Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: The Next Step for OWL. Web Semantics: SSAWWW 6(4), 309–322 (2008)
Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.L.: Preferential description logics. In: Dershowitz, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4790, pp. 257–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: LUBM: A Benchmark for OWL Knowledge Base Systems. Web Semantics: SSAWWW 3(2), 158–182 (2005)
Horridge, M.: Justification Based Explanation in Ontologies. PhD thesis, University of Manchester (2011)
Horridge, M., Bechhofer, S.: The OWL API: A Java API for OWL Ontologies. Semantic Web 2(1), 11–21 (2011)
Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In: Ganzinger, H., McAllester, D., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1705, pp. 161–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Ke, P., Sattler, U.: Next steps for description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. In: Proc. of DL (2008)
Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: What Does a Conditional Knowledge Base Entail? Art. Intell. 55(1), 1–60 (1992)
Lukasiewicz, T.: Expressive Probabilistic Description Logics. Art. Intell. 172(6), 852–883 (2008)
Matentzoglu, N., Bail, S., Parsia, B.: A snapshot of the OWL web. In: Alani, H., Kagal, L., Fokoue, A., Groth, P., Biemann, C., Parreira, J.X., Aroyo, L., Noy, N., Welty, C., Janowicz, K. (eds.) ISWC 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8218, pp. 331–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Matentzoglu, N., Tang, D., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: The manchester OWL repository: system description. In: Proc. of ISWC, pp. 285–288 (2014)
McCarthy, J.: Circumscription - A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Art. Intell. 13(1–2), 27–39 (1980)
Meyer, T., Moodley, K., Sattler, U.: DIP: a defeasible-inference platform for OWL. In: Proc. of DL (2014)
Reiter, R.: A Logic for Default Reasoning. Art. Intell. 13(1), 81–132 (1980)
Sattler, U., Schneider, T., Zakharyaschev, M.: Which kind of module should i extract? In: Proc. of DL (2009)
Sazonau, V., Sattler, U., Brown, G.: Predicting performance of OWL reasoners: locally or globally? In: Proc. of KR (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Casini, G., Meyer, T., Moodley, K., Sattler, U., Varzinczak, I. (2015). Introducing Defeasibility into OWL Ontologies. In: Arenas, M., et al. The Semantic Web - ISWC 2015. ISWC 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9367. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25010-6_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25010-6_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25009-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25010-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)