RaDON - Repair and Diagnosis in Ontology Networks

One of the major challenges in managing networked and dynamic ontologies is to handle inconsistencies in single ontologies, and inconsistencies introduced by integrating multiple distributed ontologies. Our RaDON system provides functionalities to repair and diagnose ontology networks by extending the capabilities of existing reasoners. The system integrates several new debugging and repairing algorithms, such as a relevance-directed algorithm to meet the various needs of the users

Completing and Debugging Ontologies: state of the art and challenges

As semantically-enabled applications require high-quality ontologies, developing and maintaining ontologies that are as correct and complete as possible is an important although difficult task in ontology engineering. A key step is ontology debugging and completion. In general, there are two steps: detecting defects and repairing defects. In this paper we discuss the state of the art regarding the repairing step. We do this by formalizing the repairing step as an abduction problem and situating the state of the art with respect to this framework. We show that there are still many open research problems and show opportunities for further work and advancing the field.Comment: 56 page

Reasoning-Supported Quality Assurance for Knowledge Bases

The increasing application of ontology reuse and automated knowledge acquisition tools in ontology engineering brings about a shift of development efforts from knowledge modeling towards quality assurance. Despite the high practical importance, there has been a substantial lack of support for ensuring semantic accuracy and conciseness. In this thesis, we make a significant step forward in ontology engineering by developing a support for two such essential quality assurance activities

Integration of Large Scale Knowledge Bases using Probabilistic Graphical Models

Over the recent past, information extraction (IE) systems such as Nell and ReVerb have attained much success in creating large knowledge resources with minimal supervision. But, these resources in general, lack schema information and contain facts with high degree of ambiguity which are often difficult to interpret. Whereas, Wikipedia-based IE projects like DBpedia and Yago are structured, have disambiguated facts with unique identifiers and maintain a well-defined schema. In this work, we propose a probabilistic method to integrate these two types of IE projects where the structured knowledge bases benefit from the wide coverage of the semi-supervised IE projects and the latter benefits from the schema information of the former

Knowledge base ontological debugging guided by linguistic evidence

Le résumé en français n'a pas été communiqué par l'auteur.When they grow in size, knowledge bases (KBs) tend to include sets of axioms which are intuitively absurd but nonetheless logically consistent. This is particularly true of data expressed in OWL, as part of the Semantic Web framework, which favors the aggregation of set of statements from multiple sources of knowledge, with overlapping signatures.Identifying nonsense is essential if one wants to avoid undesired inferences, but the sparse usage of negation within these datasets generally prevents the detection of such cases on a strict logical basis. And even if the KB is inconsistent, identifying the axioms responsible for the nonsense remains a non trivial task. This thesis investigates the usage of automatically gathered linguistic evidence in order to detect and repair violations of common sense within such datasets. The main intuition consists in exploiting distributional similarity between named individuals of an input KB, in order to identify consequences which are unlikely to hold if the rest of the KB does. Then the repair phase consists in selecting axioms to be preferably discarded (or at least amended) in order to get rid of the nonsense. A second strategy is also presented, which consists in strengthening the input KB with a foundational ontology, in order to obtain an inconsistency, before performing a form of knowledge base debugging/revision which incorporates this linguistic input. This last step may also be applied directly to an inconsistent input KB. These propositions are evaluated with different sets of statements issued from the Linked Open Data cloud, as well as datasets of a higher quality, but which were automatically degraded for the evaluation. The results seem to indicate that distributional evidence may actually constitute a relevant common ground for deciding between conflicting axioms

Knowledge base ontological debugging guided by linguistic evidence

Le résumé en français n'a pas été communiqué par l'auteur.When they grow in size, knowledge bases (KBs) tend to include sets of axioms which are intuitively absurd but nonetheless logically consistent. This is particularly true of data expressed in OWL, as part of the Semantic Web framework, which favors the aggregation of set of statements from multiple sources of knowledge, with overlapping signatures.Identifying nonsense is essential if one wants to avoid undesired inferences, but the sparse usage of negation within these datasets generally prevents the detection of such cases on a strict logical basis. And even if the KB is inconsistent, identifying the axioms responsible for the nonsense remains a non trivial task. This thesis investigates the usage of automatically gathered linguistic evidence in order to detect and repair violations of common sense within such datasets. The main intuition consists in exploiting distributional similarity between named individuals of an input KB, in order to identify consequences which are unlikely to hold if the rest of the KB does. Then the repair phase consists in selecting axioms to be preferably discarded (or at least amended) in order to get rid of the nonsense. A second strategy is also presented, which consists in strengthening the input KB with a foundational ontology, in order to obtain an inconsistency, before performing a form of knowledge base debugging/revision which incorporates this linguistic input. This last step may also be applied directly to an inconsistent input KB. These propositions are evaluated with different sets of statements issued from the Linked Open Data cloud, as well as datasets of a higher quality, but which were automatically degraded for the evaluation. The results seem to indicate that distributional evidence may actually constitute a relevant common ground for deciding between conflicting axioms

Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2009

euzenat2009cInternational audienceOntology matching consists of finding correspondences between on- tology entities. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. Test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from expressive OWL ontologies to simple directories) and use different modal- ities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, consensus. OAEI-2009 builds over previous campaigns by having 5 tracks with 11 test cases followed by 16 partici- pants. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2009 campaign