A Kernel Revision Operator for Terminologies — Algorithms and Evaluation

Qi, Guilin; Haase, Peter; Huang, Zhisheng; Ji, Qiu; Pan, Jeff Z.; Völker, Johanna

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88564-1_27

Cited by 33 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is now possible to form an evidence-based reasoning process over the evidence space. The evidence-based reasoning process over the set of contradicting axioms in an incoherent terminology operates similar to the incision function, which selects formulas to be discarded from among the inconsistent formulas [24,14]. Here, the reasoning process considers the likelihood of the correctness of all the alternative axioms and can hence also be viewed as an ordering function.…”

Section: Where H Is Incoherent Ie It Includes a Concept Name Whichmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidential reasoning for the treatment of incoherent terminologies

Bagheri

Ensan

2010

Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many reasoning algorithms and techniques require consistent terminologies to be able to operate correctly and efficiently. However, many ontologies become inconsistent during their evolution and lifecycle. Many methods have been proposed to handle inconsistent terminologies including those that tolerate or repair inconsistencies. Most of these approaches focus on the syntactic properties of ontology terminologies and attempt to address inconsistency from that perspective and satisfy postulates such as the principle of minimal change. In this paper, we will employ evidential reasoning to take into account assertional statements of an ontology as observations and probable indications for the correctness and validity of one axiom over other competing axioms. We will show how ontology assertions are beneficial in ranking axioms to be used in Reiter's hitting set algorithm.

show abstract

Section: Where H Is Incoherent Ie It Includes a Concept Name Whichmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidential reasoning for the treatment of incoherent terminologies

Bagheri

Ensan

2010

Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…O . This kind of procedure can be found in the literature, such as GETMUPS in [18]. It is possible that some axioms that are involved in a conflict set are not selected by the selection function.…”

Section: Proposition 2 For Any Distributed Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neither of the above proposed revision operators removes minimal number of correspondences to resolve inconsistencies. To better fulfil the principle of minimal change, we consider the revision operator given in [18] which utilizes a heuristics based on a scoring function which returns the number of minimal incoherence-preserving sub-ontologies (MIPS) that an axiom belongs to. Instantiating our iterative algorithm with this existing revision operator results in a new conflict-based mapping revision operator.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Conflict-Based Operator for Mapping Revision

Haase

2009

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Ontology matching is one of the key research topics in the field of the Semantic Web. There are many matching systems that generate mappings between different ontologies either automatically or semiautomatically. However, the mappings generated by these systems may be inconsistent with the ontologies. Several approaches have been proposed to deal with the inconsistencies between mappings and ontologies. This problem is often called a mapping revision problem because we give priority to ontologies when resolving inconsistencies. In this paper, we first propose a conflict-based mapping revision operator and show that it can be characterized by a logical postulate. We then provide an iterative algorithm for mapping revision by using an ontology revision operator and show that this algorithm defines a conflict-based mapping revision operator. Three concrete ontology revision operators are given to instantiate the iterative algorithm, which result in three different mapping revision algorithms. We implement these algorithms and provide some preliminary but interesting evaluation results.

show abstract

“…For example, some researchers proposed methods to debug erroneous terminologies and have them repaired when inconsistencies are detected [17,18,13,16,11,4]. Some researchers considered resolving the logical inconsistencies during ontology evolution through some revision operators (see, for example, [15]).…”

Section: The State Of Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with Inconsistencies in DL-Lite Ontologies

Zhou

2009

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Research ProblemAs a shared conceptualization of a particular domain, ontologies play an important role for the success of the Semantic Web. However it is often difficult to create an absolutely consistent ontology. Inconsistency can occur due to several reasons, such as modeling errors, migration or merging ontologies, and ontology evolution. So it is essential to study how to deal with inconsistent ontologies. Many approaches have been proposed to solve this problem. These approaches are mainly used for dealing with inconsistency in expressive Description Logics(DLs). In our work, we consider inconsistency handling in the DL-Lite family, which is a family of DLs that preserve tractable reasoning and are specifically tailored to deal with large amounts of data. Like other DLs, inconsistencies in DL-Lite can also easily occur because disjoint axioms are allowed.

show abstract

A Kernel Revision Operator for Terminologies — Algorithms and Evaluation

Cited by 33 publications

References 17 publications

Evidential reasoning for the treatment of incoherent terminologies

Evidential reasoning for the treatment of incoherent terminologies

A Conflict-Based Operator for Mapping Revision

Dealing with Inconsistencies in DL-Lite Ontologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About