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.

[1]  Ljiljana Stojanovic,et al.  Consistent Evolution of OWL Ontologies , 2005, ESWC.

[2]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook , 2007 .

[3]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Laconic and Precise Justifications in OWL , 2008, SEMWEB.

[4]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Evolution of DL-Lite Knowledge Bases , 2010, SEMWEB.

[5]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  Concept learning in description logics using refinement operators , 2009, Machine Learning.

[6]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Updating TBoxes in DL-Lite , 2010, Description Logics.

[7]  Renata Wassermann,et al.  Base Revision for Ontology Debugging , 2009, J. Log. Comput..

[8]  Ken Satoh.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning by Minimal Belief Revision , 1988, FGCS.

[9]  Boris Konev,et al.  Exact Learning of TBoxes in EL and DL-Lite , 2013, Description Logics.

[10]  Guilin Qi,et al.  A Survey of Revision Approaches in Description Logics , 2008, Description Logics.

[11]  K. Spackman.  SNOMED RT and SNOMEDCT. Promise of an international clinical terminology. , 2000, M.D. computing : computers in medical practice.

[12]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Johanna Völker,et al.  A Kernel Revision Operator for Terminologies - Algorithms and Evaluation , 2008, International Semantic Web Conference.

[14]  Evgeny Kharlamov,et al.  Ontology Evolution Under Semantic Constraints , 2012, KR.

[15]  Kewen Wang,et al.  A New Approach to Knowledge Base Revision in DL-Lite , 2010, AAAI.

[16]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Interactive ontology revision , 2012, J. Web Semant..

[17]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Debugging Incoherent Terminologies , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[18]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal Change , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The DL-Lite Family and Relations , 2009, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[20]  Steffen Staab,et al.  International Handbooks on Information Systems , 2013 .

[21]  Bernhard Ganter,et al.  Completing Description Logic Knowledge Bases Using Formal Concept Analysis , 2007, IJCAI.

[22]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Tractable Reasoning and Efficient Query Answering in Description Logics: The DL-Lite Family , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[23]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Repairing Unsatisfiable Concepts in OWL Ontologies , 2006, ESWC.

[24]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Logic-based ontology comparison and module extraction, with an application to DL-Lite , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[25]  Jennifer Golbeck,et al.  Modeling a description logic vocabulary for cancer research , 2005, J. Biomed. Informatics.