Base Revision for Ontology Debugging

Belief Revision deals with the problem of adding new information to a knowledge base in a consistent way. Ontology Debugging, on the other hand, aims to find the axioms in a terminological knowledge base which caused the base to become inconsistent. In this article, we propose a belief revision approach in order to find and repair inconsistencies in ontologies represented in some description logic (DL). As the usual belief revision operators cannot be directly applied to DLs, we propose new operators that can be used with more general logics and show that, in particular, they can be applied to the logics underlying OWL-DL and Lite.

A revision of Evaniscus (Hymenoptera, Evaniidae) using ontology-based semantic phenotype annotation

The Neotropical evaniid genus Evaniscus Szepligeti currently includes six species. Two new species are described, Evaniscus lansdownei Mullins, sp. n. from Colombia and Brazil and E. rafaeli Kawada, sp. n. from Brazil. Evaniscus sulcigenis Roman, syn. n., is synonymized under E. rufithorax Enderlein. An identification key to species of Evaniscus is provided. Thirty-five parsimony informative morphological characters are analyzed for six ingroup and four outgroup taxa. A topology resulting in a monophyletic Evaniscus is presented with E. tibialis and E. rafaeli as sister to the remaining Evaniscus species. The Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology and other relevant biomedical ontologies are employed to create semantic phenotype statements in Entity-Quality (EQ) format for species descriptions. This approach is an early effort to formalize species descriptions and to make descriptive data available to other domains.

Instance-driven TBox revision in DL-Lite

The development and maintenance of large and complex ontologies are often time-consuming and error-prone. Thus, automated ontology learning and revision have attracted intensive research interest. In data-centric applications where ontologies are designed or automatically learnt from the data, when new data instances are added that contradict to the ontology, it is often desirable to incrementally revise the ontology according to the added data. This problem can be intuitively formulated as the problem of revising a TBox by an ABox. In this paper we introduce a model-theoretic approach to such an ontology revision problem by using a novel alternative semantic characterisation of DL-Lite ontologies. We show some desired properties for our ontology revision. We have also developed an algorithm for reasoning with the ontology revision without computing the revision result. The algorithm is efficient as its computational complexity is in coNP in the worst case and in PTIME when the size of the new data is bounded.

semantic oriented ontology cohesion metrics for ontology-based systems

Ontologies play a core role to provide shared knowledge models to semantic-driven applications targeted by Semantic Web. Ontology metrics become an important area because they can help ontology engineers to assess ontology and better control project management and development of ontology based systems, and therefore reduce the risk of project failures. In this paper, we propose a set of ontology cohesion metrics which focuses on measuring (possibly inconsistent) ontologies in the context of dynamic and changing Web. They are: Number of Ontology Partitions (NOP), Number of Minimally Inconsistent Subsets (NMIS) and Average Value of Axiom Inconsistencies (AVAI). These ontology metrics are used to measure ontological semantics rather than ontological structure. They are theoretically validated for ensuring their theoretical soundness, and further empirically validated by a standard test set of debugging ontologies. The related algorithms to compute these ontology metrics also are discussed. These metrics proposed in this paper can be used as a very useful complementarity of existing ontology cohesion metrics.

Bridging Jeffrey's Rule, AGM Revision and Dempster Conditioning in the Theory of Evidence

Belief revision characterizes the process of revising an agent’s beliefs when receiving new evidence. In the field of artificial intelligence, revision strategies have been extensively studied in the context of logic-based formalisms and probability kinematics. However, so far there is not much literature on this topic in evidence theory. In contrast, combination rules proposed so far in the theory of evidence, especially Dempster rule, are symmetric. They rely on a basic assumption, that is, pieces of evidence being combined are considered to be on a par, i.e. play the same role. When one source of evidence is less reliable than another, it is possible to discount it and then a symmetric combination operation
is still used. In the case of revision, the idea is to let prior knowledge of an agent be altered by some input information. The change problem is thus intrinsically asymmetric. Assuming the input information is reliable, it should be retained whilst the prior information should be changed minimally to that effect. To deal with this issue, this paper defines the notion of revision for the theory of evidence in such a way as to bring together probabilistic and logical views. Several revision rules previously proposed are reviewed and we advocate one of them as better corresponding to the idea of revision. It is extended to cope with inconsistency between prior and input information. It reduces to Dempster
rule of combination, just like revision in the sense of Alchourron, Gardenfors, and Makinson (AGM) reduces to expansion, when the input is strongly consistent with the prior belief function. Properties of this revision rule are also investigated and it is shown to generalize Jeffrey’s rule of updating, Dempster rule of conditioning and a form of AGM revision.

Reasoning about Requirements Evolution Using Clustered Belief Revision

During the development of system requirements, software system specifications are often inconsistent. Inconsistencies may arise for different reasons, for example, when multiple conflicting viewpoints are embodied in the specification, or when the specification itself is at a transient stage of evolution. These inconsistencies cannot always be resolved immediately. As a result, we argue that a formal framework for the analysis of evolving specifications should be able to tolerate inconsistency by allowing reasoning in the presence of inconsistency without trivialisation, and circumvent inconsistency by enabling impact analyses of potential changes to be carried out. This paper shows how clustered belief revision can help in this process. Clustered belief revision allows for the grouping of requirements with similar functionality into clusters and the assignment of priorities between them. By analysing the result of a cluster, an engineer can either choose to rectify problems in the specification or to postpone the changes until more information becomes available.

Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through Argument Theory Change

Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs) is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework (AF) from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by handling dynamics of arguments of the AF, we might deal with the dynamics of knowledge of the underlying inconsistent KB. Dynamics of arguments has recently attracted attention and although some approaches have been proposed, a full axiomatization within the theory of belief revision was still missing. A revision arises when we want the argumentation semantics to accept an argument. Argument Theory Change (ATC) encloses the revision operators that modify the AF by analyzing dialectical trees-arguments as nodes and attacks as edges-as the adopted argumentation semantics. In this article, we present a simple approach to ATC based on propositional KBs. This allows to manage change of inconsistent KBs by relying upon classical belief revision, although contrary to it, consistency restoration of the KB is avoided. Subsequently, a set of rationality postulates adapted to argumentation is given, and finally, the proposed model of change is related to the postulates through the corresponding representation theorem. Though we focus on propositional logic, the results can be easily extended to more expressive formalisms such as first-order logic and description logics, to handle evolution of ontologies.