Leila Bayoudhi
ABSTRACT
Domain knowledge capture has always been a major interest for both humans and computer systems. Thus, semantic formalisms, such as ontologies, become necessary to hold, share and understand that knowledge. As the world is continually changing, ontology must be updated accordingly. However, ontology changes should never affect its consistency as ontology needs to remain in a consistent state along its lifecycle. To this end, ontology consistency rules are defined and used to check not only logical inconsistencies but also syntactical invalidities and style issues. They are adopted from a posteriori approaches and adapted to enable an a priori detection/fixing of ontology inconsistencies. This paper discusses ontology inconsistency issues and describes the different consistency rules adopted from the literature. Then, it proves their useful adaptation for an a priori inconsistency detection and fixing.
- Abdul Qadir, M. and Noshairwan, W. 2007. Warnings for disjoint knowledge omission in ontologies. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services - ICIW2007 (2007), 45--49. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Copeland, M., Gonçalves, R.S., Parsia, B., Sattler, U. and Stevens, R. 2013. Finding fault: Detecting issues in a versioned ontology. The Semantic Web: ESWC 2013 Satellite Events. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 113--124.Google Scholar
- Denaux, R., Thakker, D., Dimitrova, V. and Cohn, A.G. 2012. Interactive semantic feedback for intuitive ontology authoring. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems - FOIS2012 (2012), 160--173.Google Scholar
- Djedidi, R. and Aufaure, M.A. 2010. ONTO-EVO A L an ontology evolution approach guided by pattern modeling and quality evaluation. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium - FoIKS2010 (2010), 286--305. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Flouris, G., Huang, Z., Pan, J.Z., Plexousakis, D. and Wache, H. 2006. Inconsistencies, Negations and Changes in Ontologies. Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence AAAI (2006), 1295--1300. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gueffaz, M. 2012. ScaleSem : Model Checking et Web Sémantique. PhD thesis, University of Bourgogne, France.Google Scholar
- Haase, P. 2006. Semantic Technologies for Distributed Information Systems. PhD thesis, Karlsruhe University, Germany.Google Scholar
- Haase, P., Lewen, H., Studer, R. and Tran, D. 2008. The neon ontology engineering toolkit. Www Developers Track (2008), 4--6.Google Scholar
- Haase, P. and Stojanovic, L. 2005. Consistent Evolution of OWL Ontologies. Proceedings of the Second European Semantic Web Conference - ESWC2005 (2005), 182--197. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Horridge, M. 2011. Justification based explanation in ontologies. PhD thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
- Horridge, M. and Bechhofer, S. 2011. The OWLAPI: A Java API for OWL ontologies. Semantic Web. 2, 1 (2011), 11--21. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Javed, M., Abgaz, Y.M. and Pahl, C. 2014. Layered Change Log Model: Bridging between Ontology Change Representation and Pattern Mining. International Journal of Metadata Semantics and Ontologies. 9, 3 (2014), 184--192. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jaziri, W. 2009. A methodology for ontology evolution and versioning. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing - SEMAPRO2009 (Sliema, Malta, 2009), 15--21. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jaziri, W. and Gargouri, F. 2010. Ontology theory, management and design: An overview and future directions. Ontology Theory, Management and Design: Advanced Tools and Models. F. Gargouri and W. Jaziri, eds. IGI-Global. (USA, 2010), 27--76.Google Scholar
- Jaziri, W., Sassi, N. and Gargouri, F. 2010. Approach and tool to evolve ontology and maintain its coherence. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies. 5, 2 (2010), 151--166. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ji, Q., Gao, Z. and Huang, Z. 2013. Integration of Pattern-Based Debugging Approach into RaDON. Proceedings of the 7th Chinese Semantic Web Symposium and the 2nd Chinese Web Science Conference- CSWS2013 (Shanghai, China, 2013), 243--246.Google Scholar
- Khattak, A.M., Latif, K. and Lee, S. 2013. Change management in evolving web ontologies. Knowledge-Based Systems. 37, (2013), 1--18. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Knublauch, H., Fergerson, R.W., Noy, N.F. and Musen, M. a. 2004. The Protégé OWL Plugin: An Open Development Environment for Semantic Web Applications. Proceedings of the 3rd Third International Semantic Web Conference - ISWC2004 (2004), 229--243. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kondylakis, H. and Plexousakis, D. 2013. Ontology evolution without tears. Journal of Web Semantics. 19, (2013), 42--58. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Liu, L., Zhang, P., Fan, R., Zhang, R. and Yang, H. 2014. Modeling ontology evolution with SetPi. Information Sciences. 255, (2014), 155--169. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lösch, U., Rudolph, S., Vrandečić, D. and Studer, R. 2009. Tempus fugit*Towards an ontology update language. Proceedings of the 6th European Semantic Web Conference - ESWC2009 (Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 2009), 278--292. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mahajan, A. and Kaur, P. 2015. A Review on Evolution and Versioning of Ontology Based Information Systems. IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering Ver. III. 17, 2 (2015), 2278--661.Google Scholar
- Mahfoudh, M., Forestier, G., Thiry, L. and Hassenforder, M. 2015. Algebraic graph transformations for formalizing ontology changes and evolving ontologies. Knowledge-Based Systems. 73, (2015), 212--226. Google ScholarDigital Library
- OWL 2 Web Ontology Language - Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (Second Edition): 2012. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/.Google Scholar
- OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics (Second Edition): 2012. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/.Google Scholar
- Plessers, P. and De Troyer, O. 2006. Resolving inconsistencies in evolving ontologies. Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference - ESWC2006 (2006), 200--214. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Poveda-Villalón, M., Suárez-Figueroa, M.C. and Gómez-Pérez, A. 2012. Validating ontologies with OOPS! 18th International Conference of Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management - EKAW2012 (2012), 267--281. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sassi, N., Brahmia, Z., Jaziri, W. and Bouaziz, R. 2010. From Temporal Databases to Ontology Versioning: An Approach for Ontology Evolution. Ontology Theory, Management and Design: Advanced Tools and Models. F. Gargouri and W. Jaziri, eds. IGI-Global. (USA, 2010), 225--245.Google Scholar
- Sassi, N. and Jaziri, W. 2007. Types de changements et leurs effets sur l'évolution de l'ontologie. Proceedings of JFO'2007 (Sousse, Tunisia, 2007), 75--93.Google Scholar
- Schlobach, S. and Cornet, R. 2003. Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. Proceedings of the International Joint conference on Artificial intelligence - IJCAI2003 (Aug. 2003), 355--360. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stojanovic, L. 2004. Methods and tools for ontology evolution. PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe, Germany.Google Scholar
- Studer, R. 1998. Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering. 25, 1-2 (1998), 161--197. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tahwil, M.F. 2010. An AntiPattern-Based OWL Ontology Debugging Tool. Master thesis, Politechnic university of Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
- Wang, H., Horridge, M., Rector, A., Drummond, N. and Seidenberg, J. 2005. Debugging OWL-DL Ontologies: A Heuristic Approach. Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference - ISWC2005 (2005), 745--757. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Overview and reflexion on OWL 2 DL ontology consistency rules
Recommendations
OWL 2 DL ontology inconsistencies prediction
WIMS '17: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and SemanticsWhen using ontology in dynamic environments, we should adapt it accordingly to follow the new requirements. Ontology should remain in a consistent state after changes. Otherwise, ontology inconsistency would be propagated to the dependent artifacts and ...
A Preventive Approach for Consistent OWL 2 DL Ontology Versions
Knowledge is continually changing over time. As such, semantic modelling knowledge formalisms, such as ontologies, must follow this evolution and change accordingly. However, ontology changes should never affect consistency. An ontology needs to remain ...
How to Repair Inconsistency in OWL 2 DL Ontology Versions?
AbstractSemantic modeling knowledge formalisms, such as ontologies, have to follow the continuous evolution and changes of knowledge. However, ontology changes should never affect its consistency. Ontology needs to remain in a consistent state ...
Comments