Towards automated knowledge-based mapping between individual conceptualisations to empower personalisation of Geospatial Semantic Web

Geospatial domain is characterised by vagueness, especially in the semantic disambiguation of the concepts in the domain, which makes defining universally accepted geo- ontology an onerous task. This is compounded by the lack of appropriate methods and techniques where the individual semantic conceptualisations can be captured and compared to each other. With multiple user conceptualisations, efforts towards a reliable Geospatial Semantic Web, therefore, require personalisation where user diversity can be incorporated. The work presented in this paper is part of our ongoing research on applying commonsense reasoning to elicit and maintain models that represent users' conceptualisations. Such user models will enable taking into account the users' perspective of the real world and will empower personalisation algorithms for the Semantic Web. Intelligent information processing over the Semantic Web can be achieved if different conceptualisations can be integrated in a semantic environment and mismatches between different conceptualisations can be outlined. In this paper, a formal approach for detecting mismatches between a user's and an expert's conceptual model is outlined. The formalisation is used as the basis to develop algorithms to compare models defined in OWL. The algorithms are illustrated in a geographical domain using concepts from the SPACE ontology developed as part of the SWEET suite of ontologies for the Semantic Web by NASA, and are evaluated by comparing test cases of possible user misconceptions

Automating the multidimensional design of data warehouses

Les experiències prèvies en l'àmbit dels magatzems de dades (o data warehouse), mostren que l'esquema multidimensional del data warehouse ha de ser fruit d'un enfocament híbrid; això és, una proposta que consideri tant els requeriments d'usuari com les fonts de dades durant el procés de disseny.Com a qualsevol altre sistema, els requeriments són necessaris per garantir que el sistema desenvolupat satisfà les necessitats de l'usuari. A més, essent aquest un procés de reenginyeria, les fonts de dades s'han de tenir en compte per: (i) garantir que el magatzem de dades resultant pot ésser poblat amb dades de l'organització, i, a més, (ii) descobrir capacitats d'anàlisis no evidents o no conegudes per l'usuari.Actualment, a la literatura s'han presentat diversos mètodes per donar suport al procés de modelatge del magatzem de dades. No obstant això, les propostes basades en un anàlisi dels requeriments assumeixen que aquestos són exhaustius, i no consideren que pot haver-hi informació rellevant amagada a les fonts de dades. Contràriament, les propostes basades en un anàlisi exhaustiu de les fonts de dades maximitzen aquest enfocament, i proposen tot el coneixement multidimensional que es pot derivar des de les fonts de dades i, conseqüentment, generen massa resultats. En aquest escenari, l'automatització del disseny del magatzem de dades és essencial per evitar que tot el pes de la tasca recaigui en el dissenyador (d'aquesta forma, no hem de confiar únicament en la seva habilitat i coneixement per aplicar el mètode de disseny elegit). A més, l'automatització de la tasca allibera al dissenyador del sempre complex i costós anàlisi de les fonts de dades (que pot arribar a ser inviable per grans fonts de dades).Avui dia, els mètodes automatitzables analitzen en detall les fonts de dades i passen per alt els requeriments. En canvi, els mètodes basats en l'anàlisi dels requeriments no consideren l'automatització del procés, ja que treballen amb requeriments expressats en llenguatges d'alt nivell que un ordenador no pot manegar. Aquesta mateixa situació es dona en els mètodes híbrids actual, que proposen un enfocament seqüencial, on l'anàlisi de les dades es complementa amb l'anàlisi dels requeriments, ja que totes dues tasques pateixen els mateixos problemes que els enfocament purs.En aquesta tesi proposem dos mètodes per donar suport a la tasca de modelatge del magatzem de dades: MDBE (Multidimensional Design Based on Examples) and AMDO (Automating the Multidimensional Design from Ontologies). Totes dues consideren els requeriments i les fonts de dades per portar a terme la tasca de modelatge i a més, van ser pensades per superar les limitacions dels enfocaments actuals.1. MDBE segueix un enfocament clàssic, en el que els requeriments d'usuari són coneguts d'avantmà. Aquest mètode es beneficia del coneixement capturat a les fonts de dades, però guia el procés des dels requeriments i, conseqüentment, és capaç de treballar sobre fonts de dades semànticament pobres. És a dir, explotant el fet que amb uns requeriments de qualitat, podem superar els inconvenients de disposar de fonts de dades que no capturen apropiadament el nostre domini de treball.2. A diferència d'MDBE, AMDO assumeix un escenari on es disposa de fonts de dades semànticament riques. Per aquest motiu, dirigeix el procés de modelatge des de les fonts de dades, i empra els requeriments per donar forma i adaptar els resultats generats a les necessitats de l'usuari. En aquest context, a diferència de l'anterior, unes fonts de dades semànticament riques esmorteeixen el fet de no tenir clars els requeriments d'usuari d'avantmà.Cal notar que els nostres mètodes estableixen un marc de treball combinat que es pot emprar per decidir, donat un escenari concret, quin enfocament és més adient. Per exemple, no es pot seguir el mateix enfocament en un escenari on els requeriments són ben coneguts d'avantmà i en un escenari on aquestos encara no estan clars (un cas recorrent d'aquesta situació és quan l'usuari no té clares les capacitats d'anàlisi del seu propi sistema). De fet, disposar d'uns bons requeriments d'avantmà esmorteeix la necessitat de disposar de fonts de dades semànticament riques, mentre que a l'inversa, si disposem de fonts de dades que capturen adequadament el nostre domini de treball, els requeriments no són necessaris d'avantmà. Per aquests motius, en aquesta tesi aportem un marc de treball combinat que cobreix tots els possibles escenaris que podem trobar durant la tasca de modelatge del magatzem de dades.Previous experiences in the data warehouse field have shown that the data warehouse multidimensional conceptual schema must be derived from a hybrid approach: i.e., by considering both the end-user requirements and the data sources, as first-class citizens. Like in any other system, requirements guarantee that the system devised meets the end-user necessities. In addition, since the data warehouse design task is a reengineering process, it must consider the underlying data sources of the organization: (i) to guarantee that the data warehouse must be populated from data available within the organization, and (ii) to allow the end-user discover unknown additional analysis capabilities.Currently, several methods for supporting the data warehouse modeling task have been provided. However, they suffer from some significant drawbacks. In short, requirement-driven approaches assume that requirements are exhaustive (and therefore, do not consider the data sources to contain alternative interesting evidences of analysis), whereas data-driven approaches (i.e., those leading the design task from a thorough analysis of the data sources) rely on discovering as much multidimensional knowledge as possible from the data sources. As a consequence, data-driven approaches generate too many results, which mislead the user. Furthermore, the design task automation is essential in this scenario, as it removes the dependency on an expert's ability to properly apply the method chosen, and the need to analyze the data sources, which is a tedious and timeconsuming task (which can be unfeasible when working with large databases). In this sense, current automatable methods follow a data-driven approach, whereas current requirement-driven approaches overlook the process automation, since they tend to work with requirements at a high level of abstraction. Indeed, this scenario is repeated regarding data-driven and requirement-driven stages within current hybrid approaches, which suffer from the same drawbacks than pure data-driven or requirement-driven approaches.In this thesis we introduce two different approaches for automating the multidimensional design of the data warehouse: MDBE (Multidimensional Design Based on Examples) and AMDO (Automating the Multidimensional Design from Ontologies). Both approaches were devised to overcome the limitations from which current approaches suffer. Importantly, our approaches consider opposite initial assumptions, but both consider the end-user requirements and the data sources as first-class citizens.1. MDBE follows a classical approach, in which the end-user requirements are well-known beforehand. This approach benefits from the knowledge captured in the data sources, but guides the design task according to requirements and consequently, it is able to work and handle semantically poorer data sources. In other words, providing high-quality end-user requirements, we can guide the process from the knowledge they contain, and overcome the fact of disposing of bad quality (from a semantical point of view) data sources.2. AMDO, as counterpart, assumes a scenario in which the data sources available are semantically richer. Thus, the approach proposed is guided by a thorough analysis of the data sources, which is properly adapted to shape the output result according to the end-user requirements. In this context, disposing of high-quality data sources, we can overcome the fact of lacking of expressive end-user requirements.Importantly, our methods establish a combined and comprehensive framework that can be used to decide, according to the inputs provided in each scenario, which is the best approach to follow. For example, we cannot follow the same approach in a scenario where the end-user requirements are clear and well-known, and in a scenario in which the end-user requirements are not evident or cannot be easily elicited (e.g., this may happen when the users are not aware of the analysis capabilities of their own sources). Interestingly, the need to dispose of requirements beforehand is smoothed by the fact of having semantically rich data sources. In lack of that, requirements gain relevance to extract the multidimensional knowledge from the sources.So that, we claim to provide two approaches whose combination turns up to be exhaustive with regard to the scenarios discussed in the literaturePostprint (published version

Fusing Automatically Extracted Annotations for the Semantic Web

This research focuses on the problem of semantic data fusion. Although various solutions have been developed in the research communities focusing on databases and formal logic, the choice of an appropriate algorithm is non-trivial because the performance of each algorithm and its optimal configuration parameters depend on the type of data, to which the algorithm is applied. In order to be reusable, the fusion system must be able to select appropriate techniques and use them in combination. Moreover, because of the varying reliability of data sources and algorithms performing fusion subtasks, uncertainty is an inherent feature of semantically annotated data and has to be taken into account by the fusion system. Finally, the issue of schema heterogeneity can have a negative impact on the fusion performance. To address these issues, we propose KnoFuss: an architecture for Semantic Web data integration based on the principles of problem-solving methods. Algorithms dealing with different fusion subtasks are represented as components of a modular architecture, and their capabilities are described formally. This allows the architecture to select appropriate methods and configure them depending on the processed data. In order to handle uncertainty, we propose a novel algorithm based on the Dempster-Shafer belief propagation. KnoFuss employs this algorithm to reason about uncertain data and method results in order to refine the fused knowledge base. Tests show that these solutions lead to improved fusion performance. Finally, we addressed the problem of data fusion in the presence of schema heterogeneity. We extended the KnoFuss framework to exploit results of automatic schema alignment tools and proposed our own schema matching algorithm aimed at facilitating data fusion in the Linked Data environment. We conducted experiments with this approach and obtained a substantial improvement in performance in comparison with public data repositories

Closed Terminologies and Temporal Reasoning in Description Logic for Concept and Plan Recognition

Description logics are knowledge representation formalisms in the tradition of frames and semantic networks, but with an emphasis on formal semantics. A terminology contains descriptions of concepts, such as UNIVERSITY, which are automatically classified ina taxonomy via subsumption inferences. Individuals such as COLUMBIA are described in terms of those concepts. This thesis enhances the scope and utility of description logics by exploiting new completeness assumptions during problem solving and by extending the expressiveness of descriptions. First, we introduce a predictive concept recognition methodology based on a new closed terminology assumption (CTA). The terminology is dynamically partitioned by modalities (necessary, optional, and impossible) with respect to individuals as they are specified. In our interactive configuration application, a user incrementally specifies an individual computer system and its components in collaboration with a configuration engine. Choices can be made in any order and at any level of abstraction. We distinguish between abstract and concrete concepts to formally define when an individual's description may be considered finished. We also exploit CTA, together with the terminology's subsumption-based organization, to efficiently track the types of systems and components consistent with current choices, infer additional constraints on current choices, and appropriately restrict future choices. Thus, we can help focus the efforts of both user and configuration engine. This work is implemented in the K-REP system. Second, we show that a new class of complex descriptions can be formed via constraint networks over standard descriptions. For example, we model plans as constraint networks whose nodes represent actions.Arcs represent qualitative and metric temporal constraints, plusco-reference constraints, between actions. By combining terminological reasoning with constraint satisfaction techniques, subsumption is extended to constraint networks, allowing automatic classification of a plan library. This work is implemented in the T-REX system, which integrates and builds upon an existing description logic system (K-REP or CLASSIC) and temporal reasoner (MATS). Finally, we combine the preceding, orthogonal results to conduct predictive recognition of constraint network concepts. As an example,this synthesis enables a new approach to deductive plan recognition,illustrated with travel plans. This work is also realized in T-REX

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini\u27s opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom\u27s incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

Debugging and repair of description logic ontologies.

Thesis (M.Sc.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, 2010.In logic-based Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR), ontologies are used to represent knowledge about a particular domain of interest in a precise way. The building blocks of ontologies include concepts, relations and objects. Those can be combined to form logical sentences which explicitly describe the domain. With this explicit knowledge one can perform reasoning to derive knowledge that is implicit in the ontology. Description Logics (DLs) are a group of knowledge representation languages with such capabilities that are suitable to represent ontologies. The process of building ontologies has been greatly simpli ed with the advent of graphical ontology editors such as SWOOP, Prote ge and OntoStudio. The result of this is that there are a growing number of ontology engineers attempting to build and develop ontologies. It is frequently the case that errors are introduced while constructing the ontology resulting in undesirable pieces of implicit knowledge that follows from the ontology. As such there is a need to extend current ontology editors with tool support to aid these ontology engineers in correctly designing and debugging their ontologies. Errors such as unsatis able concepts and inconsistent ontologies frequently occur during ontology construction. Ontology Debugging and Repair is concerned with helping the ontology developer to eliminate these errors from the ontology. Much emphasis, in current tools, has been placed on giving explanations as to why these errors occur in the ontology. Less emphasis has been placed on using this information to suggest e cient ways to eliminate the errors. Furthermore, these tools focus mainly on the errors of unsatis able concepts and inconsistent ontologies. In this dissertation we ll an important gap in the area by contributing an alternative approach to ontology debugging and repair for the more general error of a list of unwanted sentences. Errors such as unsatis able concepts and inconsistent ontologies can be represented as unwanted sentences in the ontology. Our approach not only considers the explanation of the unwanted sentences but also the identi cation of repair strategies to eliminate these unwanted sentences from the ontology