Empirical Study of Logic-Based Modules: Cheap Is Cheerful

Vescovo, Chiara Del; Klinov, Pavel; Parsia, Bijan; Sattler, Ulrike; Schneider, Thomas; Tsarkov, Dmitry

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41335-3_6

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In that sense, LKs are more closely related to semantic locality-based modules [13]. It has been observed in [15] that the difference between syntactic and semantic LBMs is not statistically significant. Our results thus suggest that the size difference between semantic LBMs and LKs is also statistically significant, although a full empirical analysis is needed to justify this conclusion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lean Kernels in Description Logics

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lean kernels (LKs) are an effective optimization for deriving the causes of unsatisfiability of a propositional formula. Interestingly, no analogous notion exists for explaining consequences of description logic (DL) ontologies. We introduce LKs for DLs using a general notion of consequence-based methods, and provide an algorithm for computing them which incurs in only a linear time overhead. As an example, we instantiate our framework to the DL ALC. We prove formally and empirically that LKs provide a tighter approximation of the set of relevant axioms for a consequence than syntactic locality-based modules.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lean Kernels in Description Logics

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A comprehensive study of different locality flavours [101] identified that there is no statistically significant difference in the sizes of semantic and syntactic locality modules. In contrast, [56] found that the difference in size between minimal modules (only available for acyclic EL TBoxes) and locality-based approximations can be large.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasoning Web: Logical Foundation of Knowledge Graph Construction and Query Answering

Pan¹,

Calvanese²,

Eiter³

et al. 2017

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question whether an ontology can safely be replaced by another, possibly simpler, one is fundamental for many ontology engineering and maintenance tasks. It underpins, for example, ontology versioning, ontology modularization, forgetting, and knowledge exchange. What 'safe replacement' means depends on the intended application of the ontology. If, for example, it is used to query data, then the answers to any relevant ontology-mediated query should be the same over any relevant data set; if, in contrast, the ontology is used for conceptual reasoning, then the entailed subsumptions between concept expressions should coincide. This gives rise to different notions of ontology inseparability such as query inseparability and concept inseparability, which generalize corresponding notions of conservative extensions. We survey results on various notions of inseparability in the context of description logic ontologies, discussing their applications, useful model-theoretic characterizations, algorithms for determining whether two ontologies are inseparable (and, sometimes, for computing the difference between them if they are not), and the computational complexity of this problem.ALC obtained by disallowing the constructors ⊥, ¬, ⊔ and ∀ is known as EL. Thus, EL concepts are constructed using ⊤, ⊓ and ∃ only [6]. We also consider extensions of EL with the constructors in Table 2. For example, ELI u denotes the extension of EL with inverse roles and the universal role. The fragments of ALCI and ALCHI, in which CIs are of the form

show abstract

“…Since inseparability and CEs are very hard or even undecidable for most DLs [170,281,283], most logic-based a-posteriori module notions either apply to inexpressive DLs [168,235,241] or approximate minimal modules while guaranteeing conservativity [133,304,337]; the latter often provide further guarantees such as self-containment and depletingness [242]. Among those, locality-based modules (LBMs) [133] are particularly versatile, well-behaved [139,348], and available in the OWL API 10 ; they have recently been generalized via an approach based on Datalog reasoning [337]. 11 Other studies have investigated the size of modules depending on the chosen module notion [168,304]; further implementations exist (such as AMEX, or in the CEL reasoner; see the links in the original articles).…”

Section: Design-phase Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%