Reducing the Risk of Completeness Loss by Subgraph Reasoning in Engineering Applications
Authors: 
Xixi Zhu, Bin Liu, Zhaoyun Ding, Li Yao, Cheng Zhu, Xianqiang ZhuAuthors Info & Claims
Xixi Zhu, Bin Liu, Zhaoyun Ding, Li Yao, Cheng Zhu, Xianqiang ZhuAuthors Info & ClaimsArticle No.: 14, Pages 1 - 7
Abstract
The ontology knowledge base is divided into TBox and ABox, the former is the schema-level information of the knowledge base, which is used to describe the relationship between the recognized concepts and attributes, and the latter is a collection of instance assertions or fact statements in the domain. Using TBox, the process of reasoning more implicit assertions in ABox is called ABox materialization, which plays an important role in knowledge base applications. Some ontology reasoners for OWL DL and DL-safe SWRL, the reasoning results are considered to be correct and complete. However, in practical applications, this paper finds that in some cases, the reasoning results are not complete when reasoning about the ontology knowledge base constructed by OWL DL and DL-sale SWRL. In those application scenarios that require completeness, blindly trusting these reasoners will bring risks. In response to this problem, this paper proposes a method based on subgraph reasoning, which can identify whether the result of ontology reasoning is complete in engineering, and at the same time, when it is incomplete, new assertions that have not been found before can be inferred. The comparative experimental results on two open-source ontologies verify the method in this paper.
References
[1]
Guarino, Nicola, Daniel Oberle, and Steffen Staab. 2009. What is an ontology? Handbook on ontologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1-17.
[2]
Hacking, Ian. 2002. "Historical ontology. In the scope of logic, methodology, and philosophy of science. Springer, Dordrecht, 583-600.
[3]
Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O. 2001. The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5): 34-43.
[4]
Mehla S, Jain S. 2019. Rule languages for the semantic web. Emerging Technologies in Data Mining and Information Security. Springer, Singapore, 2019: 825-834.
[5]
Grau B C, Horrocks I, Motik B, 2008. OWL 2: The next step for OWL. Journal of Web Semantics, 6(4): 309-322.
[6]
Horrocks, Ian. 2005. Owl: A description logic-based ontology language. International conference on principles and practice of constraint programming. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[7]
Glimm B, Kazakov Y, Liebig T, 2014. Abstraction refinement for ontology materialization. International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, Cham, 2014: 180-195.
[8]
Haarslev V, Möller R, Turhan A Y. 2001. Exploiting pseudo models for TBox and ABox reasoning in expressive description logics. International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001: 61-75.
[9]
Rabbi F, MacCaull W, Faruqui R U. 2013. A scalable ontology reasoner via incremental materialization. Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems. IEEE, 2013: 221-226.
[10]
Al-Jadir L, Parent C, Spaccapietra S. 2010. Reasoning with large ontologies stored in relational databases: The OntoMinD approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 69(11): 1158-1180.
[11]
Sirin E, Parsia B, Grau B C, 2007. Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(2): 51-53.
[12]
Haarslev V, Möller R. 2000. Consistency testing: The RACE experience. International Conference on Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000: 57-61.
[13]
Horrocks I. 1998. The fact system. International Conference on Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998: 307-312.
[14]
Glimm B, Horrocks I, Motik B, 2014. HermiT: an OWL 2 reasoner. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 53(3): 245-269.
[15]
Thomas E, Pan J Z, Ren Y. 2010. TrOWL: Tractable OWL 2 reasoning infrastructure. Extended Semantic Web Conference. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010: 431-435.
[16]
Khamparia, A., Pandey, B. 2017. Comprehensive analysis of semantic web reasoners and tools: a survey. Educ Inf Technol 22, 3121–3145.
[17]
Grau B C, Motik B, Stoilos G, 2012. Completeness guarantees for incomplete ontology reasoners: Theory and practice. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 43: 419-476.
[18]
Paulheim H, Stuckenschmidt H. 2016. Fast approximate a-box consistency checking using machine learning. European Semantic Web Conference. Springer, Cham, 2016: 135-150.
[19]
Schmidt-Schauß M, Smolka G. 1991. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial intelligence, 48(1): 1-26.
[20]
Baumgartner P. 1998. Hyper tableau—the next generation. International Conference on Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998: 60-76.
[21]
Krötzsch M, Maier F, Krisnadhi A, 2011. A better uncle for OWL: Nominal schemas for integrating rules and ontologies. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. 2011: 645-654.
[22]
Donini F M, Lenzerini M, Nardi D, 1998. AL-log: Integrating datalog and description logics. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 10(3): 227-252.
[23]
Baader, Franz, Ian Horrocks, and Ulrike Sattler. 2004. Description logics. Handbook on ontologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 3-28. 10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_1.
[24]
Angles R, Gutierrez C. 2008. The expressive power of SPARQL. International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008: 114-129.
[25]
Makni B, Hendler J. 2019. Deep learning for noise-tolerant RDFS reasoning. Semantic Web, 10(5):1-40.
[26]
Guo Y, Pan Z, Heflin J. 2005. LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Journal of Web Semantics, 3(2-3): 158-182.
[27]
Golbreich C. 2004. Combining rule and ontology reasoners for the semantic web. International Workshop on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004: 6-22.
[28]
Batsakis S, Tachmazidis I, Antoniou G. 2017. Representing Time and Space for the Semantic Web[J]. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 26 (03):1750015.1-1750015.30.
[29]
Bin L, Hang C, Min L, 2021. Yizhong Tushuju Hecheng Fangfa, Zhuangzhi, Jisuanji Shebei He Cunchu Jiezhi. Hunan Province: CN112231422B, 2021-02-26 (in Chinese).
Index Terms
- Reducing the Risk of Completeness Loss by Subgraph Reasoning in Engineering Applications
Recommendations
Implementing Large-Scale ABox Materialization Using Subgraph Reasoning
Knowledge Science, Engineering and ManagementAbstractThe ontology knowledge base can be divided into two parts: TBox and ABox, where the former models schema-level knowledge within the domain, and the latter is a statement of assertions or facts about a set of instances. ABox materialization is the ...
Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF Schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary
We prove that entailment for RDF Schema (RDFS) is decidable, NP-complete, and in P if the target graph does not contain blank nodes. We show that the standard set of entailment rules for RDFS is incomplete and that this can be corrected by allowing ...
Comprehensive analysis of semantic web reasoners and tools: a survey
Ontologies are emerging as best representation techniques for knowledge based context domains. The continuing need for interoperation, collaboration and effective information retrieval has lead to the creation of semantic web with the help of tools and ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 13 December 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
- National Science Foundation (NSF) of China
Conference
CSAE 2022
CSAE 2022: The 6th International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering
October 21 - 23, 2022
Virtual Event, China
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 368 of 770 submissions, 48%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 27Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)7
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format