Advertisement

Get My Pizza Right: Repairing Missing is-a Relations in \({\cal ALC}\) Ontologies

  • Patrick Lambrix
  • Zlatan Dragisic
  • Valentina Ivanova
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7774)

Abstract

With the increased use of ontologies in semantically-enabled applications, the issue of debugging defects in ontologies has become increasingly important. These defects can lead to wrong or incomplete results for the applications. Debugging consists of the phases of detection and repairing. In this paper we focus on the repairing phase of a particular kind of defects, i.e. the missing relations in the is-a hierarchy. Previous work has dealt with the case of taxonomies. In this work we extend the scope to deal with \({\cal ALC}\) ontologies that can be represented using acyclic terminologies. We present algorithms and discuss a system.

Keywords

Domain Expert Description Logic Ancestor Node Abductive Reasoning Ontology Alignment 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Sattler, U.: An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica 69, 5–40 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bada, M., Hunter, L.: Identification of OBO nonalignments and its implication for OBO enrichment. Bioinformatics 24(12), 1448–1455 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cimiano, P., Buitelaar, P., Magnini, B.: Ontology Learning from Text: Methods, Evaluation and Applications. IOS Press (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colucci, S., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F., Mongiello, M.: A uniform tableaux-based approach to concept abduction and contraction in ALN. In: International Workshop on Description Logics, pp. 158–167 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corcho, O., Roussey, C., Vilches, L.M., Pérez, I.: Pattern-based owl ontology debugging guidelines. In: Workshop on Ontology Patterns, pp. 68–82 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donini, F., Colucci, S., Di Noia, T., Di Sciasco, E.: A tableaux-based method for computing least common subsumers for expressive description logics. In: 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 739–745 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Du, J., Qi, G., Shen, Y.-D., Pan, J.: Towards practical abox abduction in large owl dl ontologies. In: 25th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1160–1165 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elsenbroich, C., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: A case for abductive reasoning over ontologies. In: OWL: Experiences and Directions (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flouris, G., Manakanatas, D., Kondylakis, H., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: Ontology Change: Classification and Survey. Knowledge Engineering Review 23(2), 117–152 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haase, P., Stojanovic, L.: Consistent Evolution of OWL Ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 182–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hearst, M.: Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In: 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 539–545 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hubauer, T., Lamparter, S., Pirker, M.: Automata-based abduction for tractable diagnosis. In: International Workshop on Description Logics, pp. 360–371 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ji, Q., Haase, P., Qi, G., Hitzler, P., Stadtmüller, S.: RaDON — repair and diagnosis in ontology networks. In: Aroyo, L., Traverso, P., Ciravegna, F., Cimiano, P., Heath, T., Hyvönen, E., Mizoguchi, R., Oren, E., Sabou, M., Simperl, E. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 863–867. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Berlanga, R.: Ontology Integration Using Mappings: Towards Getting the Right Logical Consequences. In: Aroyo, L., Traverso, P., Ciravegna, F., Cimiano, P., Heath, T., Hyvönen, E., Mizoguchi, R., Oren, E., Sabou, M., Simperl, E. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca-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
  16. 16.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J.: Debugging Unsatisfiable Classes in OWL Ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics 3(4), 268–293 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klarman, S., Endriss, U., Schlobach, S.: Abox abduction in the description logic ALC. Journal of Automated Reasoning 46, 43–80 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lambrix, P., Dragisic, Z., Ivanova, V.: Get my pizza right: Repairing missing is-a relations in ALC ontologies, extended version (2012), http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7154
  19. 19.
    Lambrix, P., Liu, Q.: Debugging is-a structure in networked taxonomies. In: 4th International Workshop on Semantic Web Applications and Tools for Life Sciences, pp. 58–65 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lambrix, P., Liu, Q., Tan, H.: Repairing the Missing is-a Structure of Ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Yu, Y., Ding, Y. (eds.) ASWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5926, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lambrix, P., Strömbäck, L., Tan, H.: Information Integration in Bioinformatics with Ontologies and Standards. In: Bry, F., Maluszynski, J. (eds.) Semantic Techniques for the Web. LNCS, vol. 5500, pp. 343–376. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin, H., Sirin, E.: Pellint - a performance lint tool for pellet. In: OWL: Experiences and Directions (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lutz, C.: Complexity of terminiological reasoning revisited. In: Ganzinger, H., McAllester, D., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1705, pp. 181–200. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H., Tamilin, A.: Repairing Ontology Mappings. In: 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1408–1413 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    MeSH. Medical subject headings, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Qi, G., Ji, Q., Haase, P.: A Conflict-Based Operator for Mapping Revision. In: Bernstein, A., Karger, D.R., Heath, T., Feigenbaum, L., Maynard, D., Motta, E., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5823, pp. 521–536. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schlobach, S.: Debugging and Semantic Clarification by Pinpointing. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 226–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Serafini, L., Borgida, A., Tamilin, A.: Aspects of distributed and modular ontology reasoning. In: 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 570–575 (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, P., Xu, B.: Debugging ontology mappings: a static approach. Computing and Informatics 27, 21–36 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Lambrix
    • 1
  • Zlatan Dragisic
    • 1
  • Valentina Ivanova
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information Science and Swedish e-Science Research CentreLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations