Semantic Matchmaking of Web Resources with Local Closed-World Reasoning

Abstract

Ontology languages like OWL allow for semantically rich annotation of resources, such as products advertised at an electronic online marketplace, while the Description Logic (DL) formalism underlying OWL provides reasoning techniques to perform matchmaking on such annotations. We identify peculiarities in the use of DL inferences for matchmaking which are due to the open-world semantics of OWL, and we analyse the use of local closed-world reasoning for its applicability to matchmaking. In particular, we investigate two nonmonotonic extensions to DL, namely autoepistemic DLs and DLs with circumscription, for their suitability of realising local closed-world reasoning in the matchmaking context to overcome these problems. We discuss their different characteristics by means of an elaborate example of an electronic marketplace for PC product catalogues from the eCommerce domain and demonstrate how these formalisms can be used to realise such scenarios.

Reconciling description logics and rules

“…These extensions can be put to numerous uses, such as modeling default rules, expressing integrity constraints, and formalizing role and concept closure. For example, Grimm and Hitzler [2008] applied such extensions to the problem of semantic matchmaking of Web resources.…”

Logics for the Semantic Web

“…Similar investgations have been pursued in recent years in order to extend description logics with such non-monotonic features, resulting in a significant body of work (e.g., [Baader and Hollunder, 1995;Bonatti et al, 2009;Donini et al, 2002;Eiter et al, 2008a;Giordano et al, 2013;Grimm and Hitzler, 2008;Huang et al, 2013;Knorr et al, 2011;Lukasiewicz and Straccia, 2009;Motik and Rosati, 2010;Sengupta et al, 2011]) which seems to converge towards a unifying perspective Knorr et al, 2012].…”

Practical Reasoning for Defeasible Description Logics

“…Such an assumption is useful in certain applications such as matchmaking in web services [85]. A scenario is also given by the conclusion EmployedStudent ≡ Ab Student ≡ {john} in Example 7 on Page 51.…”