Skip to main content

Repairing Socially Aggregated Ontologies Using Axiom Weakening

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10621))

Abstract

Ontologies represent principled, formalised descriptions of agents’ conceptualisations of a domain. For a community of agents, these descriptions may significantly differ. We propose an aggregative view of the integration of ontologies based on Judgement Aggregation (JA). Agents may vote on statements of the ontologies, and we aim at constructing a collective, integrated ontology, that reflects the individual conceptualisations as much as possible. As several results in JA show, many attractive and widely used aggregation procedures are prone to return inconsistent collective ontologies. We propose to solve the possible inconsistencies in the collective ontology by applying suitable weakenings of axioms that cause inconsistencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The finite set of TBox formulas in \(\varPhi \) might be all TBox formulas of a certain maximum length or the union of all TBox formulas that a given population of agents choose to include in their TBoxes.

References

  1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baader, F., Peñaloza, R.: Axiom pinpointing in general tableaux. J. Logic Comput. 20(1), 5–34 (2010). Special Issue: Tableaux and Analytic Proof Methods

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Confalonieri, R., Eppe, M., Schorlemmer, M., Kutz, O., Peñaloza, R., Plaza, E.: Upward refinement operators for conceptual blending in \(\cal{EL}^{++}\). Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. (2016). doi:10.1007/s10472-016-9524-8

  4. Confalonieri, R., Kutz, O., Troquard, N., Galliani, P., Porello, D., Peñaloza, R., Schorlemmer, M.: Coherence, similarity, and concept generalisation. In: Proceedings of DL 2017. CEUR (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dietrich, F., List, C.: Judgment aggregation by quota rules: majority voting generalized. J. Theor. Polit. 19(4), 391–424 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gaertner, W.: A Primer in Social Choice Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Justification masking in ontologies. In: KR 2012. AAAI Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kornhauser, L.A., Sager, L.G.: The one and the many: adjudication in collegial courts. Calif. Law Rev. 81(1), 1–59 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kutz, O., Mossakowski, T., Lücke, D.: Carnap, Goguen, and the Hyperontologies: Logical Pluralism and Heterogeneous Structuring in Ontology Design. Logica Universalis 4(2), 255–333 (2010). Special Issue on Is Logic Universal?

    Google Scholar 

  10. van der Laag, P.R., Nienhuys-Cheng, S.H.: Completeness and properness of refinement operators in inductive logic programming. J. Logic Program. 34(3), 201–225 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. List, C., Pettit, P.: Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Econ. Philos. 18(1), 89–110 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. List, C.: Deliberation and agreement. In: Rosenberg, S.W. (ed.) Deliberation, Participation and Democracy, pp. 64–81. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London (2007). doi:10.1057/9780230591080_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. List, C., Puppe, C.: Judgment aggregation: a survey. In: Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ottonelli, V., Porello, D.: On the elusive notion of meta-agreement. Politics Philos. Econ. 12(1), 68–92 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Porello, D., Endriss, U.: Ontology merging as social choice: judgment aggregation under the open world assumption. J. Logic Comput. 24(6), 1229–1249 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2003, pp. 355–362. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniele Porello .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Porello, D., Troquard, N., Confalonieri, R., Galliani, P., Kutz, O., Peñaloza, R. (2017). Repairing Socially Aggregated Ontologies Using Axiom Weakening. In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds) PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10621. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69130-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69131-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics