DL-Lite Ontology Revision Based on An Alternative Semantic Characterization

Ontology engineering and maintenance require (semi-)automated ontology change operations. Intensive research has been conducted on TBox and ABox changes in description logics (DLs), and various change operators have been proposed in the literature. Existing operators largely fall into two categories: syntax-based and model-based. While each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, an important topic that has rarely been explored is how to achieve a balance between syntax-based and model-based approaches. Also, most existing operators are specially designed for either TBox change or ABox change, and cannot handle the general ontology revision task—given a DL knowledge base (KB, a pair consisting of a TBox and an ABox), how to revise it by a set of TBox and ABox axioms (i.e., a new DL KB). In this article, we introduce an alternative structure for DL-Lite, called a featured interpretation, and show that featured models provide a finite and tight characterization to the classical semantics of DL-Lite. A key issue for defining a change operator is the so-called expressibility, that is, whether a set of models (or featured models here) is axiomatizable in DLs. It is indeed much easier to obtain expressibility results for featured models than for classical DL models. As a result, the new semantics determined by featured models provides a method for defining and studying various changes of DL-Lite KBs that involve both TBoxes and ABoxes. To demonstrate the usefulness of the new semantic characterization in ontology change, we define two revision operators for DL-Lite KBs using featured models and study their properties. In particular, we show that our two operators both satisfy AGM postulates. We show that the complexity of our revisions is ΠP2-complete, that is, on the same level as major revision operators in propositional logic, which further justifies the feasibility of our revision approach for DL-Lite. Also, we develop algorithms for these DL-Lite revisions.

[1]  Grigoris Antoniou,et al.  Ontology change: classification and survey , 2008, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

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

[3]  Kewen Wang,et al.  Extending AGM Contraction to Arbitrary Logics , 2015, IJCAI.

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

[5]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Foundations of instance level updates in expressive description logics , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  The size of a revised knowledge base , 1995, PODS '95.

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

[10]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  Tractable Approximations of Consistent Query Answering for Robust Ontology-based Data Access , 2013, IJCAI.

[11]  James A. Hendler,et al.  Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies , 2005, J. Web Semant..

[12]  Kewen Wang,et al.  OntoRevision: A Plug-in System for Ontology Revision in Protégé , 2011, JIST.

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

[14]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Handbook on Ontologies , 2004, Künstliche Intell..

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

[16]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Ontological Engineering: With Examples from the Areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web , 2004, Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing.

[17]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  Forgetting for knowledge bases in DL-Lite , 2010, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

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

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

[20]  Guilin Qi,et al.  Approximating Model-Based ABox Revision in DL-Lite: Theory and Practice , 2015, AAAI.

[21]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[23]  Boris Konev,et al.  Conjunctive Query Inseparability of OWL 2 QL TBoxes , 2011, AAAI.

[24]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Capturing model-based ontology evolution at the instance level: The case of DL-Lite , 2013, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[25]  Thomas Lukasiewicz,et al.  Inconsistency Handling in Datalog+/- Ontologies , 2012, ECAI.

[26]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Can You Tell the Difference Between DL-Lite Ontologies? , 2008, KR.

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

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

[29]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  On Instance-level Update and Erasure in Description Logic Ontologies , 2009, J. Log. Comput..

[30]  Mukesh Dalal,et al.  Investigations into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision , 1988, AAAI.

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

[32]  Guilin Qi,et al.  Contraction and Revision over DL-Lite TBoxes , 2014, AAAI.

[33]  Franz Baader,et al.  Integrating Description Logics and Action Formalisms: First Results , 2005, Description Logics.

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

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

[36]  Grigoris Antoniou,et al.  Minimal change: Relevance and recovery revisited , 2013, Artif. Intell..

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

[38]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Did I Damage My Ontology? A Case for Conservative Extensions in Description Logics , 2006, KR.

[39]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Foundations for Uniform Interpolation and Forgetting in Expressive Description Logics , 2011, IJCAI.

[40]  Kewen Wang,et al.  Revising General Knowledge Bases in Description Logics , 2010, KR.

[41]  Guilin Qi,et al.  Instance-Driven Ontology Evolution in DL-Lite , 2015, AAAI.

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

[43]  Franz Baader,et al.  Using Causal Relationships to Deal with the Ramification Problem in Action Formalisms Based on Description Logics , 2010, LPAR.

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

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

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

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

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

[49]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  Evaluation of Techniques for Inconsistency Handling in OWL 2 QL Ontologies , 2012, International Semantic Web Conference.

[50]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  On the Approximation of Instance Level Update and Erasure in Description Logics , 2007, AAAI.

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

[52]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  On the Evolution of the Instance Level of DL-Lite Knowledge Bases , 2011, Description Logics.

[53]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Belief revision within fragments of propositional logic , 2012, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[54]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Data Complexity of Query Answering in Description Logics , 2006, Description Logics.

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