Inconsistency-tolerant reasoning with OWL DL

The Web Ontology Language (OWL) is a family of description logic based ontology languages for the Semantic Web and gives well defined meaning to web accessible information and services. The study of inconsistency-tolerant reasoning with description logic knowledge bases is especially important for the Semantic Web since knowledge is not always perfect within it. An important challenge is strengthening the inference power of inconsistency-tolerant reasoning because it is normally impossible for paraconsistent logics to obey all important properties of inference together. This paper presents a non-classical DL called quasi-classical description logic (QCDL) to tolerate inconsistency in OWL DL which is a most important sublanguage of OWL supporting those users who want the maximum expressiveness while retaining computational completeness (i.e., all conclusions are guaranteed to be computable) and decidability (i.e., all computations terminate in finite time). Instead of blocking those inference rules, we validate them conditionally and partially, under which more useful information can still be inferred when inconsistency occurs. This new non-classical DL possesses several important properties as well as its paraconsistency in DL, but it does not bring any extra complexity in worst case. Finally, a transformation-based algorithm is proposed to reduce reasoning problems in QCDL to those in DL so that existing OWL DL reasoners can be used to implement inconsistency-tolerant reasoning. Based on this algorithm, a prototype OWL DL paraconsistent reasoner called PROSE is implemented. Preliminary experiments show that PROSE produces more intuitive results for inconsistent knowledge bases than other systems in general.

[1]  Vito F. Sinisi,et al.  Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity , 1996 .

[2]  Boris Motik,et al.  HermiT: A Highly-Efficient OWL Reasoner , 2008, OWLED.

[3]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  FaCT++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Description , 2006, IJCAR.

[4]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  A Sequent Calculus for Reasoning in Four-Valued Description Logics , 1997, TABLEAUX.

[5]  Andrzej Szalas,et al.  Three-Valued Paraconsistent Reasoning for Semantic Web Agents , 2010, KES-AMSTA.

[6]  Boris Motik,et al.  KAON2 - Scalable Reasoning over Ontologies with Large Data Sets , 2008, ERCIM News.

[7]  Guilin Qi,et al.  A revision-based approach to handling inconsistency in description logics , 2006, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[8]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Debugging OWL ontologies , 2005, WWW '05.

[9]  Sean Bechhofer,et al.  The OWL API: A Java API for OWL ontologies , 2011, Semantic Web.

[10]  Yarden Katz,et al.  Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner , 2007, J. Web Semant..

[11]  Maciej Cytowski,et al.  Model-Driven Development of Embedded Real-Time Systems. , 2008 .

[12]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  Paraconsistent OWL and related logics , 2013, Semantic Web.

[13]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  On the relationship between description logic and predicate logic queries , 1994, CIKM '94.

[14]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  Generalized fuzzy rough description logics , 2012, Inf. Sci..

[15]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Explaining Inconsistencies in OWL Ontologies , 2009, SUM.

[16]  Nuel D. Belnap,et al.  A Useful Four-Valued Logic , 1977 .

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

[18]  Huajun Chen,et al.  The Semantic Web , 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  Heinrich Wansing,et al.  Inconsistency-tolerant description logic. Part II: A tableau algorithm for CACLC , 2008, J. Appl. Log..

[20]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  REASONING WITH INCONSISTENT ONTOLOGIES THROUGH ARGUMENTATION , 2010, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[21]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  Fuzzy Ontology Representation using OWL 2 , 2010, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[22]  Stefan Schlobach,et al.  Non-Standard Reasoning Services for the Debugging of Description Logic Terminologies , 2003, IJCAI.

[23]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  Description Logics over Lattices , 2006, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst..

[24]  Christian Lang,et al.  FOUR-VALUED LOGICS FOR PARACONSISTENT REASONING , 2006 .

[25]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  Inconsistency Tolerance [result from a Dagstuhl seminar] , 2005 .

[26]  BechhoferSean,et al.  The OWL API: A Java API for OWL ontologies , 2011 .

[27]  Weiru Liu,et al.  A Syntax-based approach to measuring the degree of inconsistency for belief bases , 2011, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[28]  Xiaowang Zhang,et al.  An argumentation framework for description logic ontology reasoning and management , 2012, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

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

[30]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  Reasoning with the finitely many-valued Lukasiewicz fuzzy Description Logic SROIQ , 2011, Inf. Sci..

[31]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  Reasoning within Fuzzy Description Logics , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[32]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  Algorithms for Paraconsistent Reasoning with OWL , 2007, ESWC.

[33]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Reasoning with contradictory information using quasi-classical logic , 2000, J. Log. Comput..

[34]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Ontology Reasoning in the SHOQ(D) Description Logic , 2001, IJCAI.

[35]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  On the (un)decidability of fuzzy description logics under Łukasiewicz t-norm , 2013, Inf. Sci..

[36]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies , 2005, IJCAI.

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

[38]  Xiaowang Zhang,et al.  Quasi-Classical Description Logic , 2012, J. Multiple Valued Log. Soft Comput..

[39]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  OWL Web ontology language overview , 2004 .

[40]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Query Rewriting for Inconsistent DL-Lite Ontologies , 2011, RR.

[41]  Norihiro Kamide Paraconsistent Description Logics Revisited , 2010, Description Logics.

[42]  N. Belnap,et al.  Entailment. The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Volume I , 1978 .

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

[44]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  Computational Aspects of Quasi-Classical Entailment , 2001, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[45]  Jinzhao Wu,et al.  Quasi-classical Semantics and Tableau Calculus of Description Logics for Paraconsistent Reasoning in the Semantic Web , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering.

[46]  Kewen Wang,et al.  Towards a Paradoxical Description Logic for the Semantic Web , 2010, FoIKS.

[47]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  Inconsistency Tolerance , 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[48]  Jun Fang,et al.  Contrastive Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies , 2011, 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.