A Survey of Revision Approaches in Description Logics

Revision of a Description Logic-based ontology to incorporate newly received information consistently is an important problem for the lifecycle of ontologies. Many approaches in the theory of belief revision have been applied to deal with this problem and most of them focus on the postulates or the logical properties of a revision operator in Description Logics (DLs). However, there is no coherent view on how to characterize a revision operator in DLs. In this paper, we lay bare the assumptions underlying different approaches for revision in DLs and propose some criteria to compare them. Based on the analysis, we give our definition of a revision operator in DLs and point out some open problems.

[1]  Renata Wassermann,et al.  First Steps Towards Revising Ontologies , 2006, WONTO.

[2]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[3]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems , 1990, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[4]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  On the Update of Description Logic Ontologies at the Instance Level , 2006, AAAI.

[5]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  Inconsistencies, Negations and Changes in Ontologies , 2006, AAAI.

[6]  SVEN OVE HANSSON,et al.  Reversing the Levi identity , 1993, J. Philos. Log..

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

[8]  André Fuhrmann,et al.  Theory contraction through base contraction , 1991, J. Philos. Log..

[9]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States , 2008 .

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

[11]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  New operators for theory change , 2008 .

[12]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  A Framework for Handling Inconsistency in Changing Ontologies , 2005, SEMWEB.

[13]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web" in Scientific American , 2001 .

[14]  Olga De Troyer,et al.  Resolving Inconsistencies in Evolving Ontologies , 2006, ESWC.

[15]  Sven Ove Hansson.  Kernel Contraction , 1994, J. Symb. Log..

[16]  Grigoris Antoniou,et al.  On Applying the AGM Theory to DLs and OWL , 2005, SEMWEB.

[17]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Handbook of Knowledge Representation , 2008, Handbook of Knowledge Representation.

[18]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A textbook of belief dynamics - theory change and database updating , 1999, Applied logic series.

[19]  Richard Booth,et al.  Knowledge Integration for Description Logics , 2005, AAAI.

[20]  P G rdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states , 1988 .

[21]  Yarden Katz,et al.  Belief Base Revision for Expressive Description Logics , 2006, OWLED.

[22]  Ljiljana Stojanovic,et al.  Methods and tools for ontology evolution , 2004 .

[23]  Grigoris Antoniou,et al.  Generalizing the AGM postulates: preliminary results and applications , 2004, NMR.

[24]  M. M. Ribeiro,et al.  Base Revision in Description Logics-Preliminary Results , 2007 .

[25]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

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

[27]  Guilin Qi,et al.  Knowledge Base Revision in Description Logics , 2006, JELIA.

[28]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Semi-Revision (invited paper) , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[29]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Updating Description Logic ABoxes , 2006, KR.