Prioritized base Debugging in Description Logics

International audienceThe problem investigated is the identification within an input knowledge base of axioms which should be preferably discarded (or amended) in order to restore consistency, coherence, or get rid of undesired consequences. Most existing strategies for this task in Description Logics rely on conflicts, either computing all minimal conflicts beforehand, or generating conflicts on demand, using diagnosis. The article studies how prioritized base revision can be effectively applied in the former case. The first main contribution is the observation that for each axiom appearing in a minimal conflict, two bases can be obtained for a negligible cost, representing what part of the input knowledge must be preserved if this axiom is discarded or retained respectively, and which may serve as a basis to obtain a semantically motivated preference relation over these axioms. The second main contributions is an algorithm which, assuming this preference relation is known, selects some of the maximal consistent/coherent subsets of the input knowledge base accordingly, without the need to compute all of of them

Prioritized base debugging in Description Logics

Abstract The problem investigated is the identification within an input knowledge base of axioms which should be preferably discarded (or amended) in order to restore consistency, coherence, or get rid of undesired consequences. Most existing strategies for this task in Description Logics rely on conflicts, either computing all minimal conflicts beforehand, or generating conflicts on demand, using diagnosis. The article studies how prioritized base revision can be effectively applied in the former case. The first main contribution is the observation that for each axiom appearing in a minimal conflict, two bases can be obtained for a negligible cost, representing what part of the input knowledge must be preserved if this axiom is discarded or retained respectively, and which may serve as a basis to obtain a semantically motivated preference relation over these axioms. The second main contributions is an algorithm which, assuming this preference relation is known, selects some of the maximal consistent/coherent subsets of the input knowledge base accordingly, without the need to compute all of of them

Datalog± Ontology Consolidation

Knowledge bases in the form of ontologies are receiving increasing attention as they allow to clearly represent both the available knowledge, which includes the knowledge in itself and the constraints imposed to it by the domain or the users. In particular, Datalog ± ontologies are attractive because of their property of decidability and the possibility of dealing with the massive amounts of data in real world environments; however, as it is the case with many other ontological languages, their application in collaborative environments often lead to inconsistency related issues. In this paper we introduce the notion of incoherence regarding Datalog± ontologies, in terms of satisfiability of sets of constraints, and show how under specific conditions incoherence leads to inconsistent Datalog ± ontologies. The main contribution of this work is a novel approach to restore both consistency and coherence in Datalog± ontologies. The proposed approach is based on kernel contraction and restoration is performed by the application of incision functions that select formulas to delete. Nevertheless, instead of working over minimal incoherent/inconsistent sets encountered in the ontologies, our operators produce incisions over non-minimal structures called clusters. We present a construction for consolidation operators, along with the properties expected to be satisfied by them. Finally, we establish the relation between the construction and the properties by means of a representation theorem. Although this proposal is presented for Datalog± ontologies consolidation, these operators can be applied to other types of ontological languages, such as Description Logics, making them apt to be used in collaborative environments like the Semantic Web.Fil: Deagustini, Cristhian Ariel David. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Martinez, Maria Vanina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

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

Handling inconsistency on ontologies through a generalized dynamic argumentation framework

In this article we present a generalized dynamic argumentation framework that handles arguments expressed in an abstract language assumed to be some first order logic fragment. Once the formalism is presented, we propose a reification to the description logic ALC with the intention to handle ontology debugging. In this sense, since argumentation frameworks reason over graphs that relate arguments through attack, our methodology is proposed to bridge ontological inconsistency sources to attack relations in argumentation. Finally, an argumentation semantics is proposed as a consistency restoration tool to cope with the ontology debugging.Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Reasoning in inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases: an argumentative approach

A study of query answering in prioritized ontological knowledge bases (KBs) has received attention in recent years. While several semantics of query answering have been proposed and their complexity is rather well-understood, the problem of explaining inconsistency-tolerant query answers has paid less attention. Explaining query answers permits users to understand not only what is entailed or not entailed by an inconsistent DL-LiteR KBs in the presence of priority, but also why. We, therefore, concern with the use of argumentation frameworks to allow users to better understand explanation techniques of querying answers over inconsistent DL-LiteR KBs in the presence of priority. More specifically, we propose a new variant of Dung’s argumentation frameworks, which corresponds to a given inconsistent DL-LiteR KB. We clarify a close relation between preferred subtheories adopted in such prioritized DL-LiteR setting and acceptable semantics of the corresponding argumentation framework. The significant result paves the way for applying algorithms and proof theories to establish preferred subtheories inferences in prioritized DL-LiteR KBs

Distributional semantics for ontology verification

International audienceAs they grow in size, OWL ontologies tend to comprise intuitively incompatible statements,even when they remain logically consistent. This is true in particular of lightweight ontologies, especially the ones which aggregate knowledge from different sources. The article investigates how distributional semantics can help detect and repair violation of common sense in consistent ontologies, based on the identification of consequences which are unlikely to hold if the rest of the ontology does. A score evaluating the plausibility for a consequence to hold with regard to distributional evidence is defined, as well as several methods in order to decide which statements should be preferably amended or discarded. A conclusive evaluation is also provided, which consists in extending an input ontology with randomly generated statements, before trying to discard them automatically