Higher-order Representation and Reasoning for Automated Ontology Evolution

The GALILEO system aims at realising automated ontology evolution. This is necessary to enable intelligent agents to manipulate their own knowledge autonomously and thus reason and communicate effectively in open, dynamic digital environments characterised by the heterogeneity of data and of representation languages. Our approach is based on patterns of diagnosis of faults detected across multiple ontologies. Such patterns allow to identify the type of repair required when conflicting ontologies yield erroneous inferences. We assume that each ontology is locally consistent, i.e. inconsistency arises only across ontologies when they are merged together. Local consistency avoids the derivation of uninteresting theorems, so the formula for diagnosis can essentially be seen as an open theorem over the ontologies. The system’s application domain is physics; we have adopted a modular formalisation of physics, structured by means of locales in Isabelle, to perform modular higher-order reasoning, and visualised by means of development graphs.

[1]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising It , 1991, KR.

[2]  J. McCarthy,et al.  Formalizing Context (Expanded Notes) , 1994 .

[3]  Lawrence Charles Paulson,et al.  Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover , 1994 .

[4]  Dieter Hutter,et al.  Towards an Evolutionary Formal Software-Development Using CASL , 1999, WADT.

[5]  Boris Motik,et al.  User-Driven Ontology Evolution Management , 2002, EKAW.

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

[7]  Yannis Kalfoglou,et al.  Ontology mapping: the state of the art , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[8]  Clemens Ballarin.  Locales and Locale Expressions in Isabelle/Isar , 2003, TYPES.

[9]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Ontology Matching: A Machine Learning Approach , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

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

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

[12]  Kai-Uwe Kühnberger,et al.  Automatic Ontology Extension: Resolving Inconsistencies , 2007, LDV Forum.

[13]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Dynamic, Automatic, First-Order Ontology repair by Diagnosis of Failed Plan Execution , 2007, Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst..

[14]  S. Wölfl,et al.  The Heterogeneous Tool Set , 2007 .

[15]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  A Fine-Grained Approach to Resolving Unsatisfiable Ontologies , 2008, J. Data Semant..

[16]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Inconstancy: An Ontology Repair Plan for Adding Hidden Variables , 2008, AAAI Fall Symposium: Automated Scientific Discovery.

[17]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Towards Ontology Evolution in Physics , 2008, WoLLIC.

[18]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Notes of the ECAI-10 Workshop on Automated Reasoning about Context and Ontology Evolution , 2010 .

[19]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Automated Reasoning about Context and Ontology Evolution , 2011 .