Interactive ontology debugging: Two query strategies for efficient fault localization☆

Effective debugging of ontologies is an important prerequisite for their broad application, especially in areas that rely on everyday users to create and maintain knowledge bases, such as the Semantic Web. In such systems ontologies capture formalized vocabularies of terms shared by its users. However in many cases users have different local views of the domain, i.e. of the context in which a given term is used. Inappropriate usage of terms together with natural complications when formulating and understanding logical descriptions may result in faulty ontologies. Recent ontology debugging approaches use diagnosis methods to identify causes of the faults. In most debugging scenarios these methods return many alternative diagnoses, thus placing the burden of fault localization on the user. This paper demonstrates how the target diagnosis can be identified by performing a sequence of observations, that is, by querying an oracle about entailments of the target ontology. To identify the best query we propose two query selection strategies: a simple “split-in-half” strategy and an entropy-based strategy. The latter allows knowledge about typical user errors to be exploited to minimize the number of queries. Our evaluation showed that the entropy-based method significantly reduces the number of required queries compared to the “split-in-half” approach. We experimented with different probability distributions of user errors and different qualities of the a priori probabilities. Our measurements demonstrated the superiority of entropy-based query selection even in cases where all fault probabilities are equal, i.e. where no information about typical user errors is available.

[1]  Don Steinberg,et al.  Deductive reasoning , 1989 .

[2]  J. Ceraso,et al.  Sources of error in syllogistic reasoning , 1971 .

[3]  Franz Baader Appendix: description logic terminology , 2003 .

[4]  Kostyantyn Shchekotykhin,et al.  Query Strategy for Sequential Ontology Debugging , 2010, International Semantic Web Conference.

[5]  Robert Stevens,et al.  OWL Pizzas: Practical Experience of Teaching OWL-DL: Common Errors & Common Patterns , 2004, EKAW.

[6]  Óscar Corcho,et al.  A catalogue of OWL ontology antipatterns , 2009, K-CAP '09.

[7]  Markus Stumptner,et al.  Model-Based Diagnosis of Hardware Designs , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  On the Relative Expressiveness of Description Logics and Predicate Logics , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Boris Motik,et al.  OWL 2: The next step for OWL , 2008, J. Web Semant..

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

[11]  Phil Johnson-Laird Deductive reasoning. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

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

[13]  Tia B. Walton,et al.  Engineering knowledge , 2004, ACM-SE 42.

[14]  Stephen Muggleton,et al.  Machine Invention of First Order Predicates by Inverting Resolution , 1988, ML.

[15]  Gerhard Friedrich,et al.  A General Diagnosis Method for Ontologies , 2005, SEMWEB.

[16]  G. S. Lueker,et al.  Probabilistic analysis of optimum partitioning , 1986, Journal of Applied Probability.

[17]  Ehud Shapiro,et al.  Algorithmic Program Debugging , 1983 .

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

[19]  Daniele Theseider Dupré,et al.  Model-Based Diagnosis Meets Error Diagnosis in Logic Programs , 1993, IJCAI.

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

[21]  Brian C. Williams,et al.  Diagnosing Multiple Faults , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Ulrike Sattler,et al.  7th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning , 2014 .

[23]  Markus Stumptner,et al.  Consistency-based diagnosis of configuration knowledge bases , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Daniele Theseider Dupré,et al.  Model-Based Diagnosis Meets Error Diagnosis in Logic Programs (Extended Abstract) , 1993, AADEBUG.

[25]  Raymond Reiter A theory of diagnosis from first principles , 1986 .

[26]  Stephen Muggleton,et al.  Inverse entailment and progol , 1995, New Generation Computing.

[27]  Richard E. Korf,et al.  A Complete Anytime Algorithm for Number Partitioning , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[28]  Robert Stevens,et al.  Owl pizzas: Common errors & common patterns from practical experience of teaching owl-dl , 2004 .

[29]  Boris Motik,et al.  Hypertableau Reasoning for Description Logics , 2009, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[30]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Theory of Diagnosis from First Principles , 1986, Artif. Intell..

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

[32]  Ulrich Junker,et al.  QUICKXPLAIN: Preferred Explanations and Relaxations for Over-Constrained Problems , 2004, AAAI.

[33]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Finding All Justifications of OWL DL Entailments , 2007, ISWC/ASWC.

[34]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Laconic and Precise Justifications in OWL , 2008, SEMWEB.

[35]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[36]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Induction of Decision Trees , 1986, Machine Learning.