Skip to main content

Inferring with Inconsistent OWL DL Ontology: A Multi-valued Logic Approach

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 4254))

Abstract

Web ontology language OWL DL has two-valued model theory semantics so that ontologies expressed by it become trivial when contradictions occur. Based on classical description logic \(\mathcal{SHOIN(D)}\), we propose the four-valued description logic \(\mathcal{SHOIN(D)}{\it 4}\) which has the ability to reason with inconsistencies. By transformation technic, we convert the reasoning problems of \(\mathcal{SHOIN(D)}{\it 4}\) to the counterparts of \(\mathcal{SHOIN(D)}\). So \(\mathcal{SHOIN(D)}{\it 4}\) provides us with an approach to deal with contradictions by classical reasoning mechanism.

This work is supported by NSFC (grant number 60496322).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Patel-Schneider Peter, F., Ian, H.: OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax. In: W3C Recommendation, February 10 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Franz, B., Ian, H., Sattler, U.: Description logic as ontology languages for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Methods for Modalities 2001 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ian, H., Patel-Schneider Peter, F.: Reducing owl entailment to description logic satisfiability. J. Web Sem. 1(4), 345–357 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benferhat, S., El Baida, R., Cuppens, F.: A stratification-based approach for handling conflicts in access control. In: Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (SACMAT 2003), June 2-3 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zuoquan, L., Wei, L.: Para-consistent logic(I)— the study of traditional para-consistent logic. Computer Science 21(5) (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zuoquan, L., Wei, L.: Para-consistent logic(II)— the study of new para-consistent logic. Computer Science 21(6) (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zuoquan, L., Wei, L.: Para-consistent logic(III)— the logic base of para-consistent logic. Computer Science 22(1) (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Belnap, N.D.: A useful four-valued logic. Modern uses of multiple-valued logic, 7–73 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Belnap, N.D.: How a computer should think. In: Comtemporary Aspects of Philosophy: Proceedings of the Oxford International Symposium, pp. 30–56 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A four-valued semantics for terminological logics. Artificial Intelligence 38, 319–351 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang, Z., van Harmelen, F., ten Teije, A.: Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) IJCAI, pp. 454–459. Professional Book Center (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fitting, M.: Bilattices are nice things. In: Proceedings of Conference on Self-Reference (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Arieli, O., Avron, A.: The value of the four values. Artificial Intelligence 102, 97–141 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Arieli, O., Avron, A.: Reasoning with logical bilattices. J. Logic, Language and Information 5(1), 25–63 (1996)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Arieli, O., Denecker, M.: Modeling paraconsistent reasoning by classical logic. In: Eiter, T., Schewe, K.-D. (eds.) FoIKS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2284, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Arieli, O.: Paraconsistent preferential reasoning by signed quantified boolean formulae. In: de Mántaras, R.L., Saitta, L. (eds.) ECAI, pp. 773–777. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Yue, A., Ma, Y., Zuoquan, L.: Four-valued semantics for default logic. In: Lamontagne, L., Marchand, M. (eds.) Canadian AI 2006. LNCS, vol. 4013, pp. 195–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, conditional objects and possibility theory. Artif. Intell. 92(1-2), 259–276 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ma, Y., Lin, Z., Lin, Z. (2006). Inferring with Inconsistent OWL DL Ontology: A Multi-valued Logic Approach. In: Grust, T., et al. Current Trends in Database Technology – EDBT 2006. EDBT 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4254. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11896548_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11896548_40

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-46788-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46790-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics