ComR: a combined OWL reasoner for ontology classification

doi:10.1007/s11704-016-6397-2

Front. Comput. Sci.

2019, Vol. 13

Issue (1) : 139-156 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-016-6397-2

RESEARCH ARTICLE

ComR: a combined OWL reasoner for ontology classification

Changlong WANG^1,^2,³, Zhiyong FENG^1,², Xiaowang ZHANG^1,²(

), Xin WANG^1,², Guozheng RAO^1,², Daoxun FU^1,²

¹. School of Computer Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
². Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cognitive Computing and Application, Tianjin 300072, China
³. School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Download: PDF(406 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Ontology classification, the problem of computing the subsumption hierarchies for classes (atomic concepts), is a core reasoning service provided by Web Ontology Language (OWL) reasoners. Although general-purpose OWL 2 reasoners employ sophisticated optimizations for classification, they are still not efficient owing to the high complexity of tableau algorithms for expressive ontologies. Profile-specific OWL 2 EL reasoners are efficient; however, they become incomplete even if the ontology contains only a small number of axioms that are outside the OWL 2 EL fragment. In this paper, we present a technique that combines an OWL 2 EL reasoner with an OWL 2 reasoner for ontology classification of expressive SROIQ. To optimize the workload, we propose a task decomposition strategy for identifying the minimal non-EL subontology that contains only necessary axioms to ensure completeness. During the ontology classification, the bulk of the workload is delegated to an efficient OWL 2 EL reasoner and only the minimal non- EL subontology is handled by a less efficient OWL 2 reasoner. The proposed approach is implemented in a prototype ComR and experimental results show that our approach offers a substantial speedup in ontology classification. For the wellknown ontology NCI, the classification time is reduced by 96.9% (resp. 83.7%) compared against the standard reasoner Pellet (resp. the modular reasoner MORe).

Keywords OWL ontology classification reasoner

Corresponding Author(s): Xiaowang ZHANG

Just Accepted Date: 26 December 2016 Online First Date: 06 March 2018 Issue Date: 31 January 2019

Cite this article:

Changlong WANG,Zhiyong FENG,Xiaowang ZHANG, et al. ComR: a combined OWL reasoner for ontology classification[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2019, 13(1): 139-156.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/EN/10.1007/s11704-016-6397-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/EN/Y2019/V13/I1/139

1	IHorrocks, P F Patel-Schneider, Fvan Harmelen. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1): 7–26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2003.07.001
2	PPatel-Schneider, P Hayes, IHorrocks. Web ontology language OWL abstract ayntax and aemantics. W3C Recommendation, 2004
3	BCuenca Grau, I Horrocks, BMotik, BParsia, P F Patel-Schneider, USattler. OWL 2: the next step for OWL. Journal of Web Semantics, 2008, 6(4): 309–322 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2008.05.001
4	BMotik, P F Patel-Schneider, BCuenca Grau. OWL 2 Web ontology language direct semantics. W3C Recommendation, 2009
5	TBerners-Lee, J Hendler, OLassila. The semantic Web. Scientific American, 2001, 284(5): 28–37 https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34
6	ASidhu, TDillon, EChang, B S Sidhu. Protein ontology development using OWL. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshops on OWL: Experiences and Directions. 2005
7	CGolbreich, SZhang, OBodenreider. The foundational model of anatomy in OWL: experience and perspectives. Journal of Web Semantics, 2006, 4(3): 181–195 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2006.05.007
8	ARector, JRogers. Ontological and practical issues in using a description logic to represent medical concept systems: experience from GALEN. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Summer School on Reasoning Web. 2006, 197–231 https://doi.org/10.1007/11837787_9
9	DSoergel, BLauser, ALiang, F Fisseha, JKeizer, SKatz. Reengineering thesauri for new applications: the AGROVOC example. Journal of Digital Information, 2006, 4(4): 1–23
10	SDerriere, A Richard, APreite-Martinez. An ontology of astronomical object types for the virtual observatory. In: Proceedings of the 26th meeting of the IAU on Virtual Observatory in Action: New Science, New Technology, and Next Generation Facilities. 2006
11	LLacy, GAviles, KFraser, W Gerber, AMulvehill, RGaskill . Experiences using OWL in military applications. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions. 2005
12	JGoodwin. Experiences of using OWL at the ordnance survey. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions. 2005
13	FLécué, A Schumann, M LSbodio. Applying semantic web technologies for diagnosing road traffic congestions. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Semantic Web Conference. 2012, 114–130 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35173-0_8
14	FLécué, R Tucker, VBicer, PTommasi, S Tallevi-Diotallevi, MSbodio. Predicting severity of road traffic congestion using semantic Web technologies. In: Proceedings of the 11th Extended Semantic Web Conference. 2014, 611–627 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07443-6_41
15	YKazakov, M Krötzsch, FSimancík. Concurrent classification of EL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Semantic Web Conference. 2011, 305–320
16	BGlimm, I Horrocks, BMotik, RShearer, G Stoilos. A novel approach to ontology classification. Journal of Web Semantics, 2011, 14(1): 84–101
17	FBaader, D Calvanese, DMcGuinness, DNardi, P Patel-Schneider. The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511711787
18	YKazakov. RIQ and SROIQ are harder than SHOIQ. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 2008, 274–284
19	IHorrocks, U Sattler. A tableau decision procedure for SHOIQ. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2007, 39(3): 249–276 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-007-9079-9
20	BMotik, R Shearer, IHorrocks. Hypertableau reasoning for description logics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2009, 36: 165–228
21	BGlimm, I Horrocks, BMotik, GStoilos, ZWang. HermiT: an OWL 2 reasoner. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2014, 53(3): 245–269 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-014-9305-1
22	DTsarkov, I Horrocks. FaCT++ description logic reasoner: system description. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning. 2006, 292–297
23	VHaarslev, R Möller. Racer System description. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning. 2001, 701–705 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45744-5_59
24	ESirin, BParsia, BCuenca Grau, AKalyanpur, YKatz. Pellet: a practical OWL DL reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics, 2007, 5(2): 51–53 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2007.03.004
25	R SGoncalves, BParsia, USattler. Performance heterogeneity and approximate reasoning in description logic ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Semantic Web Conference. 2012, 82–98 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_6
26	MKrözsch. OWL 2 profiles: an introduction to lightweight ontology languages. In: Proceedings of the 8th Reasoning Web Summer School. 2012, 112–183 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33158-9_4
27	FBaader, SBrandt, CLutz. Pushing the EL envelope. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2005, 364–369
28	M AHarris, JClark, AIreland. Gene ontology consortium: the gene ontology (GO) database and informatics resource. Nucleic Acids Research, 2004, 32: 258–261 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh036
29	K ASpackman. Rates of change in a large clinical terminology: three years experience with snomed clinical terms. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium. 2005, 714–718
30	JMendez, B Suntisrivaraporn. Reintroducing CEL as an OWL 2 EL reasoner. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Description Logics. 2009
31	JMendez. JCel: a modular rule-based reasoner. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on OWL Reasoner Evaluation. 2012, 858
32	YKazakov, M Krözsch, FSimani¨ck. The incredible ELK. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2014, 53(1): 1–61 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-013-9296-3
33	BSmith, M Ashburner, CRosse, JBard, WBug, WCeusters, L J Goldberg, KEilbeck, AIreland, C J Mungall, ConsortiumOBI, NLeontis, P Rocca-Serra, ARuttenberg, e S ASanson, R H Scheuermann, NShah, LWhetzel, SLewis. The OBO foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nature Biotechnology, 2007, 25(11): 1251–1255 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1346
34	NSioutos, S De Coronado, M WHaber, F WHartel, W LShaiu, L WWright. NCI thesaurus: a semantic model integrating cancerrelated clinical and molecular information. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2007, 40: 30–43 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2006.02.013
35	AArmas Romero, B Cuenca Grau, IHorrocks. MORe: modular combination of OWL Reasoners for ontology classification. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Semantic Web Conference. 2012, 1–16 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_1
36	DTsarkov, I Palmisano. Divide Et Impera: metareasoning for large ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 9th Internation Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions. 2012
37	WSong, B Spencer, WDu. Complete classification of complex ALCHO ontologies using a hybrid reasoning approach. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Description Logics. 2013, 942–961
38	ASteigmiller, BGlimm, TLiebig. Coupling tableau algorithms for expressive description logics with completion-based saturation procedures. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning. 2014, 449–463 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08587-6_35
39	GAngeli, NNayak, G DManning. Combining natural logic and shallow reasoning for question answering. Technical Report in The Stanford Natural Language Processing Group, 2016
40	CDel Vescovo, BParsia, USattler, T Schneider. The modular structure of an ontology: atomic decomposition. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2011, 2232–2237
41	CDel Vescovo, BParsia, USattler. Topicality in logic-based ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Conceptual Structures. 2011, 25–29 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22688-5_14
42	CDel Vescovo, BParsia, USattler. Logical relevance in ontologies. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics. 2012
43	PKlinov, C Del Vescovo, TSchneider. Incrementally updateable and persistent decomposition of OWL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions. 2012
44	MHorridge, J M Mortensen, BParsia, USattler, M AMusen. A study on the atomic decomposition of ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Semantic Web Conference. 2014, 65–80 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11915-1_5
45	C LWang, Z YFeng. A novel combination of reasoners for ontology classification. In: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. 2013, 463–468 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAI.2013.75
46	BCuenca Grau, I Horrocks, YKazakov, USattler. Modular reuse of ontologies: theory and practice. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Researchvol, 2008, 31(1): 273–318
47	BCuenca Grau, C Halaschek-Wiener, YKazakov, BSuntisrivaraporn. Incremental classification of description logics ontologies. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2010, 44(4): 337–369 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-009-9159-0
48	CDel Vescovo, D D Gessler, PKlinov, BParsia, U Sattler, TSchneider, AWinget. Decomposition and modular structure of bioportal ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Semantic Web Conference. 2011, 130–145 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25073-6_9
49	CDel Vescovo. The Modular structure of an ontology: atomic decomposition and its applications. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Manchester: The University of Manchester, 2013
50	FSimancik, Y Kazakov, IHorrocks. Consequence-based reasoning beyond horn ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2011, 1093–1098
51	FMartín-Recuerda, DWalther. Fast modularisation and atomic decomposition of ontologies using axiom dependency hypergraphs. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Semantic Web Conference. 2014, 49–64 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11915-1_4
52	PGroot, H Stuckenschmidt, HWache. Approximating description logic classification for semantic Web reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference. 2005, 318–332 https://doi.org/10.1007/11431053_22
53	YKazakov. Consequence-driven reasoning for horn SHIQ ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2009, 2040–2045
54	DLembo, V O Santarelli, DFabio Savo. A graph-based approach for classifying OWL 2 QL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Description Logics. 2013, 747–759
55	Z HLiu, Z YFeng, X WZhang, X Wang, G ZRao. RORS: enhanced rule-based OWL reasoning on Spark. In: Proceedings of the 18th Asia- Pacific Web Conference on Web Technologies and Applications. 2016, 444–448 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45817-5_43
56	Z HLiu, WGe, X WZhang, Z Y Feng. Enhancing rule-based OWL reasoning on spark. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Semantic Web Conference (Posters & Demonstrations Track). 2016
57	C LWang, Z YFeng, G ZRao, X Wang, X WZhang. From datalog reasoning to modular structure of an ontology. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Semantic Web Conference (Posters & Demonstrations Track). 2015
58	AArmas Romero, M Kaminski, BCuenca Grau, IHorrocks. Ontology module extraction via datalog reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2015, 1410–1416

[1]

Download

[1]	Tao HAN, Hailong SUN, Yangqiu SONG, Yili FANG, Xudong LIU. Find truth in the hands of the few: acquiring specific knowledge with crowdsourcing[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2021, 15(4): 154315-.
[2]	Houda AKREMI, Sami ZGHAL. DOF: a generic approach of domain ontology fuzzification[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2021, 15(3): 153322-.
[3]	Yunyun WANG, Jiao HAN, Yating SHEN, Hui XUE. Pointwise manifold regularization for semi-supervised learning[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2021, 15(1): 151303-.
[4]	Chuan SHI, Jiayu DING, Xiaohuan CAO, Linmei HU, Bin WU, Xiaoli LI. Entity set expansion in knowledge graph: a heterogeneous information network perspective[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2021, 15(1): 151307-.
[5]	Panthadeep BHATTACHARJEE, Pinaki MITRA. A survey of density based clustering algorithms[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2021, 15(1): 151308-.
[6]	Qianchen YU, Zhiwen YU, Zhu WANG, Xiaofeng WANG, Yongzhi WANG. Estimating posterior inference quality of the relational infinite latent feature model for overlapping community detection[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2020, 14(6): 146323-.
[7]	Yuxin YE, Xianji CUI, Dantong OUYANG. Extracting a justification for OWL ontologies by critical axioms[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2020, 14(4): 144305-.
[8]	Parnika PARANJAPE, Meera DHABU, Parag DESHPANDE. A novel classifier for multivariate instance using graph class signatures[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2020, 14(4): 144307-.
[9]	Muhammad Aminur RAHAMAN, Mahmood JASIM, Md. Haider ALI, Md. HASANUZZAMAN. Bangla language modeling algorithm for automatic recognition of hand-sign-spelled Bangla sign language[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2020, 14(3): 143302-.
[10]	Xibin DONG, Zhiwen YU, Wenming CAO, Yifan SHI, Qianli MA. A survey on ensemble learning[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2020, 14(2): 241-258.
[11]	Hui XUE, Haiming XU, Xiaohong CHEN, Yunyun WANG. A primal perspective for indefinite kernel SVM problem[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2020, 14(2): 349-363.
[12]	Tao XIE, Bin WU, Bingjing JIA, Bai WANG. Graph-ranking collective Chinese entity linking algorithm[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2020, 14(2): 291-303.
[13]	Rizwan Ahmed KHAN, Alexandre MEYER, Hubert KONIK, Saida BOUAKAZ. Saliency-based framework for facial expression recognition[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2019, 13(1): 183-198.
[14]	Munish SAINI, Kuljit Kaur CHAHAL. Change profile analysis of open-source software systems to understand their evolutionary behavior[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2018, 12(6): 1105-1124.
[15]	Shuaiqiang WANG, Yilong YIN. Polygene-based evolutionary algorithms with frequent pattern mining[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2018, 12(5): 950-965.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed