Evaluation of Ontologies and DL Reasoners

Ontology driven architecture has revolutionized the inference system by allowing interoperability and efficient reasoning between heterogeneous multi-vendors systems. Sound reasoning support is highly important for sound semantic web ontologies which can only be possible if state-of-the-art Description Logic Reasoners were capable enough to identify inconsistency and classify taxonomy in ontologies. We have discussed existing ontological errors and design anomalies, and provided a case study incorporating these errors. We have evaluated consistency, subsumption, and satisfiability of DL reasoners on the case study. Experiment with DL reasoners opens up number of issues that were not incorporated within their followed algorithms. Especially circulatory errors and various types of semantic inconsistency errors that may cause serious side effects need to be detected by DL reasoners for sound reasoning from ontologies. The evaluation of DL reasoners on Automobile ontology helps in updating the subsumption, satisfiability and consistency checking algorithms for OWL ontologies, especially the new constructs of OWL 1.1.

[1]  Muhammad Abdul Qadir,et al.  Incompleteness Errors in Ontology , 2007 .

[2]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Pellet: An OWL DL Reasoner , 2004, Description Logics.

[3]  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.

[4]  R. Porzel,et al.  A Task-based Approach for Ontology Evaluation , 2022 .

[5]  Muhammad Abdul Qadir,et al.  DKP-OM : A Semantic Based Ontology Merger , 2008 .

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

[7]  Muhammad Abdul Qadir,et al.  Warnings for Disjoint Knowledge Omission in Ontologies , 2007, Second International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services (ICIW'07).

[8]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  Data Driven Ontology Evaluation , 2004, LREC.

[9]  Muhammad Abdul Qadir,et al.  Semantic Inconsistency Errors in Ontology , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing (GRC 2007).

[10]  Ian Horrocks.  The FaCT System , 1998, TABLEAUX.

[11]  Zhengxiang Pan.  Benchmarking DL Reasoners Using Realistic Ontologies , 2005, OWLED.

[12]  Muhammad Abdul Qadir,et al.  Sufficient Knowledge Omission Error and Redundant Disjoint Relation in Ontology , 2007, AWIC.

[13]  Stéphane Marchand-Maillet,et al.  OWL-based reasoning with retractable inference , 2004, RIAO.

[14]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Ontology Evaluation , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

[15]  Huasheng Zhu,et al.  The Granulations Based on Meaning of Rough Logical Formulas and its Lock Resolution , 2007 .

[16]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  A semantic web primer , 2004 .

[17]  A. Gomez-Perez,et al.  Some ideas and examples to evaluate ontologies , 1995, Proceedings the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications.

[18]  Muhammad Abdul Qadir,et al.  Ontological Errors - Inconsistency, Incompleteness and Redundancy , 2008, ICEIS.

[19]  Kaustubh Supekar,et al.  A Peer-review Approach for Ontology Evaluation , 2005 .

[20]  Volker Haarslev,et al.  RACER System Description , 2001, IJCAR.

[21]  Xiaofeng Liao,et al.  The Research for Hopf Bifurcation in a Single Inertial Neuron Model with External Forcing , 2007 .

[22]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The description logic handbook: theory , 2003 .

[23]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Measuring Similarity between Ontologies , 2002, EKAW.

[24]  Muhammad Abdul Qadir,et al.  A Framework for Ontology Evaluation , 2008, ICCS Supplement.

[25]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A Tableaux Decision Procedure for SHOIQ , 2005, IJCAI.