Distributed Resolution for Expressive Ontology Networks

The Semantic Web is commonly perceived as a web of partially interlinked machine readable data. This data is inherently distributed and resembles the structure of the web in terms of resources being provided by different parties at different physical locations. A number of infrastructures for storing and querying distributed semantic web data, primarily encoded in RDF have been developed but almost all the work on description logic reasoning as a basis for implementing inference in the Web Ontology Language OWL still assumes a centralized approach where the complete terminology has to be present on a single system and all inference steps are carried out on this system. We propose a distributed reasoning method that preserves soundness and completeness of reasoning under the original OWL import semantics. The method is based on resolution methods for $\mathcal{ALCHIQ}$ ontologies that we modify to work in a distributed setting. Results show a promising runtime decrease compared to centralized reasoning and indicate that benefits from parallel computation trade off the overhead caused by communication between the local reasoners.

[1]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Peer-to-Peer Reasoning for Interlinked Ontologies , 2010, Int. J. Semantic Comput..

[2]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  A Flexible Partitioning Tool for Large Ontologies , 2008, 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.

[3]  Tanel Tammet Resolution methods for decision problems and finite-model building , 1992 .

[4]  Maria Paola Bonacina The Clause-Diffusion Theorem Prover Peers-mcd (System Description) , 1997, CADE.

[5]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  Applying KAoS Services to Ensure Policy Compliance for Semantic Web Services Workflow Composition and Enactment , 2004, SEMWEB.

[6]  Albert Rubio,et al.  Theorem Proving with Ordering and Equality Constrained Clauses , 1995, J. Symb. Comput..

[7]  Christoph Weidenbach,et al.  Combining Superposition, Sorts and Splitting , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[8]  Boris Motik,et al.  Reasoning in description logics using resolution and deductive databases , 2006 .

[9]  Luciano Serafini,et al.  Distributed Description Logics: Assimilating Information from Peer Sources , 2003, J. Data Semant..

[10]  B. Parsia,et al.  Combining OWL Ontologies Using E-Connections , 2005 .

[11]  Robert G. Raskin,et al.  Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET) , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[12]  William McCune,et al.  Automated Deduction—CADE-14 , 1997, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[13]  Boris Motik,et al.  Reasoning in Description Logics by a Reduction to Disjunctive Datalog , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[14]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Conservative Extensions in Expressive Description Logics , 2007, IJCAI.

[15]  Andrei Voronkov,et al.  Automated Deduction—CADE-18 , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[16]  Robert A. Meyer,et al.  DARES: A Distributed Automated REasoning System , 1990, AAAI.

[17]  Maria Paola Bonacina,et al.  Parallelization of deduction strategies: An analytical study , 1994, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[18]  Christoph Weidenbach,et al.  SPASS version 2.0 , 2002 .

[19]  Maria Paola Bonacina,et al.  A taxonomy of parallel strategies for deduction , 2001, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[20]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  Reasoning in description logics , 1997 .

[21]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Using Vampire to Reason with OWL , 2004, SEMWEB.

[22]  Wayne Snyder,et al.  Basic Paramodulation , 1995, Inf. Comput..