Extracting a justification for OWL ontologies by critical axioms
Yuxin YE1,2, Xianji CUI2,3, Dantong OUYANG1,2()
1. College of Computer Science and Technology, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China 2. Key Lab of Symbolic Computation and Knowledge Engineering (Jilin University), Ministry of Education, Changchun 130012, Chin 3. College of Information and Communication Engineering, Dalian Minzu University, Dalian 116600, China
Extracting justifications for web ontology language (OWL) ontologies is an important mission in ontology engineering. In this paper, we focus on black-box techniques which are based on ontology reasoners. Through creating a recursive expansion procedure, all elements which are called critical axioms in the justification are explored one by one. In this detection procedure, an axiom selection function is used to avoid testing irrelevant axioms. In addition, an incremental reasoning procedure has been proposed in order to substitute series of standard reasoning tests w.r.t. satisfiability. It is implemented by employing a pseudo model to detect “obvious” satisfiability directly. The experimental results show that our proposed strategy for extracting justifications for OWL ontologies by adopting incremental expansion is superior to traditional Black-box methods in terms of efficiency and performance.
S Schlobach, R Cornet. Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2003, 355–362
2
A Kalyanpur, B Parsia, M Horridge, E Sirin. Finding all justifications of OWL DL entailments. In: Proceedings of the 6th International the Semantic Web and 2nd Asian Conference on Asian Semantic Web Conference. 2007, 267–280 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_20
3
S Schlobach, Z S Huang, R Cornet, F V Harmelen. Debugging incoherent terminologies. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2007, 39(3): 317–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-007-9076-z
Y Ma, R Penaloza. Towards parallel repair: an ontology decomposition-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Workshop on Description Logics. 2014, 633–645
6
M Teymourlouie, A Zaeri, M A Nematbakhsh, S Staab. Detecting hidden errors in an ontology using contextual knowledge. Expert Systems with Applications, 2018, 95: 312–323 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.11.034
7
H Xue, B Qin, T Liu. Topic hierarchy construction from heterogeneous evidence. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2016, 10(1): 136–146 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-015-4548-5
8
L Wu, K Su, Y Han. Reasoning about knowledge, belief and certainty in hierarchical multi-agent systems. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2017, 11(3): 499–510 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-016-5100-y
9
D Ouyang, X Cui, Y Ye. Integrity constraints in OWL ontologies based on grounded circumscription. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2013, 7(6): 812–821 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-013-2284-2
10
Y Zhang, D Ouyang, Y Ye. Glass box debugging algorithm based on unsatisfiable dependent paths. IEEE Access, 2017, 5: 18725–18736 https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2753381
11
Y Zhang, D Ouyang, Y Ye. An optimization strategy for debugging incoherent terminologies in dynamic environments. IEEE Access, 2017, 5: 24284–24300 https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2758521
12
G Friedrich, K M Shchekotykhin. A general diagnosis method for ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Semantic Web. 2005, 232–246 https://doi.org/10.1007/11574620_19
13
S Schlobach. Diagnosing terminologies. In: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2005, 670–675 https://doi.org/10.1080/02684520500427048
14
K M Shchekotykhin, G Friedrich, P Fleiss, P Rodler. Interactive ontology debugging: two query strategies for efficient fault localization. Journal of Web Semantics, 2012, 12: 88–103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2011.12.006
15
D Jannach, T Schmitz, K M Shchekotykhin. Parallel model-based diagnosis on multi-core computers. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2016, 55: 835–887 https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.5001
16
M Horridge, J Bauer, B Parsia, U Sattler. Understanding entailments in OWL. In: Proceedings of the 5th OWLED Workshop on OWL. 2008, 26–27
17
S Bail, B Parsia, U Sattler. Declutter your justifications: determining similarity between OWL explanations. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Debugging Ontologies and Ontology Mappings. 2012, 13–24
H V Maaren, S Wieringa. Finding guaranteed MUSes fast. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conferences on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. 2008, 291–304 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79719-7_27
20
O Kullmann, I Lynce, J Marques. Categorisation of clauses in conjunctive normal forms: minimally unsatisfiable sub-clause-sets and the lean kernel. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. 2006, 22–35 https://doi.org/10.1007/11814948_4
21
Z S Huang, F V Harmelen, A Y Teije. Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies: framework, prototype, and experiment. In: Davies J, Studer R,Warren P, eds. SemanticWeb Technologies: Trends and Research in Ontology-based Systems. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006 https://doi.org/10.1002/047003033X.ch5
22
I Horrocks. Implementation and optimisation techniques. In: Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Nardi D, Schneider P F, eds. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press, 2007
23
B Parsia, C Halaschek, E Sirin. Towards incremental reasoning through updates in OWL-DL. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of World Wide Web. 2006
24
B C Grau, C Halaschek, Y Kazakov, B Suntisrivaraporn. Incremental classification of description logics ontologies. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2010, 44(4): 337–369 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-009-9159-0
25
I Horrocks, P F Schneider. Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Semantic Web. 2003, 17–29 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39718-2_2
26
V Haarslev, R Moller, A Y Turhan. Exploiting pseudo models for TBox and ABox reasoning in expressive description logics. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning. 2001, 61–75 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45744-5_6
