Toward Multi-viewpoint Reasoning with OWL Ontologies

Despite of their advertisement as task independent representations, the reuse of ontologies in different contexts is difficult. An explanation for this is that when developing an ontology, a choice is made with respect to what aspects of the world are relevant. In this paper we deal with the problem of reusing ontologies in a context where only parts of the originally encoded aspects are relevant. We propose the notion of a viewpoint on an ontology in terms of a subset of the complete representation vocabulary that is relevant in a certain context. We present an approach of implementing different viewpoints in terms of an approximate subsumption operator that only cares about a subset of the vocabulary. We discuss the formal properties of subsumption with respect to a subset of the vocabulary and show how these properties can be used to efficiently compute different viewpoints on the basis of maximal sub-vocabularies that support subsumption between concept pairs.

[1]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Contextualizing ontologies , 2004, J. Web Semant..

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

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

[4]  Marco Schaerf,et al.  Approximation in Concept Description Languages , 1992, KR.

[5]  Marco Schaerf,et al.  Tractable Reasoning via Approximation , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Catriel Beeri,et al.  Rewriting queries using views in description logics , 1997, PODS '97.

[7]  Vassilis Christophides,et al.  Viewing the Semantic Web through RVL Lenses , 2003, SEMWEB.

[8]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  Specifying Ontology Views by Traversal , 2004, International Semantic Web Conference.

[9]  Djamal Benslimane,et al.  Towards Formal Ontologies Requirements with Multiple Perspectives , 2004, FQAS.

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

[11]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Local Models Semantics, or Contextual Reasoning = Locality + Compatibility , 1998, KR.

[12]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Views for light-weight Web ontologies , 2003, SAC '03.

[13]  Aïcha-Nabila Benharkat,et al.  MurO: A Multi-representation Ontology as a Foundation of Enterprise Information Systems , 2004, CIT.

[14]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Viewpoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development , 1992, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[15]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  C-OWL: Contextualizing Ontologies , 2003, SEMWEB.

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

[17]  Robert M. MacGregor,et al.  Building and (re)using an ontology of air campaign planning , 1999, IEEE Intell. Syst..