Dynamic, Automatic, First-Order Ontology repair by Diagnosis of Failed Plan Execution

We describe ORS, an ontology repair system. In contrast to most ontology matching systems, ORS is designed to repair an ontology that does not accurately model its domain. ORS’s ontology repairs include belief revisions, but more often makes signature repairs. It does not require full access to the ontologies of other agents and works entirely automatically and dynamically. ORS is the first example of a new breed of dynamic, automatic ontology-repair mechanisms, which we believe will be essential to realise the vision of autonomous, interacting agents, such as envisaged in the emantic Web. Full access to another (potentially rival) agent’s ontology is unrealistic; static and interactive matching mechanisms are unrealistic in the context of huge, dynamic populations of agents and full ontological agreement is pragmatically unrealistic. We present encouraging experimental results, plus an analysis of current limitations to be addressed in future work.

[1]  F. Hayes-Roth Using Proofs and Refutations to Learn from Experience , 1983 .

[2]  Ehud Shapiro,et al.  Algorithmic Program Debugging , 1983 .

[3]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  The use of abstraction in automatic inference , 1990 .

[4]  M. R. Genesereth,et al.  Knowledge Interchange Format Version 3.0 Reference Manual , 1992, LICS 1992.

[5]  Robert M. Hyatt,et al.  Construction of a fault-tolerant distributed tuple-space , 1993, SAC '93.

[6]  Stuart C. Shapiro,et al.  Algorithms for Ontological Mediation , 1998, WordNet@ACL/COLING.

[7]  Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang,et al.  Mind your vocabulary: query mapping across heterogeneous information sources , 1999, SIGMOD '99.

[8]  Michel Klein,et al.  Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions , 2001, OIS@IJCAI.

[9]  Nico Roos,et al.  Automatic ontology mapping for agent communication , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[10]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Semantic Matching: Algorithms and Implementation , 2007, J. Data Semant..

[11]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Learning to match ontologies on the Semantic Web , 2003, The VLDB Journal.

[12]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Plan Execution Failure Analysis Using Plan Deconstruction , 2003 .

[13]  Maria Fox,et al.  PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  Sergio Greco,et al.  A Logical Framework for Querying and Repairing Inconsistent Databases , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[15]  Yannis Kalfoglou,et al.  Centre for Intelligent Systems and Their Applications , 2006 .

[16]  Jef Wijsen,et al.  Condensed Representation of Database Repairs for Consistent Query Answering , 2003, ICDT.

[17]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  S-Match: an Algorithm and an Implementation of Semantic Matching , 2004, ESWS.

[18]  Andrea Calì,et al.  Data integration under integrity constraints , 2004, Inf. Syst..

[19]  Alan Bundy,et al.  An Automatic Translator from KIF to PDDL , 2004 .

[20]  Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang,et al.  Light-weight Domain-based Form Assistant: Querying Web Databases On the Fly , 2005, VLDB.

[21]  Mathijs de Weerdt,et al.  Coordination Through Plan Repair , 2005, MICAI.

[22]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Representation as a Fluent: An AI Challenge for the Next Half Century , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[23]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Structure Preserving Semantic Matching , 2007, OM.

[24]  San Murugesan,et al.  Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications , 2009 .