Belief Revision in Expressive Knowledge Representation Formalisms

We live in an era of data and information, where an immeasurable amount of discoveries, findings, events, news, and transactions are generated every second. Governments, companies, or individuals have to employ and process all that data for knowledge-based decision-making (i.e. a decision-making process that uses predetermined criteria to measure and ensure the optimal outcome for a specific topic), which then prompt them to view the knowledge as valuable resource. In this knowledge-based view, the capability to create and utilize knowledge is the key source of an organization or individual’s competitive advantage. This dynamic nature of knowledge leads us to the study of belief revision (or belief change), an area which emerged from work in philosophy and then impacted further developments in computer science and artificial intelligence. In belief revision area, the AGM postulates by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors, and Makinson continue to represent a cornerstone in research related to belief change. Katsuno and Mendelzon (K&M) adopted the AGM postulates for changing belief bases and characterized AGM belief base revision in propositional logic over finite signatures. In this thesis, two research directions are considered. In the first, by considering the semantic point of view, we generalize K&M’s approach to the setting of (multiple) base revision in arbitrary Tarskian logics, covering all logics with a classical model-theoretic semantics and hence a wide variety of logics used in knowledge representation and beyond. Our generic formulation applies to various notions of “base”, such as belief sets, arbitrary or finite sets of sentences, or single sentences. The core result is a representation theorem showing a two-way correspondence between AGM base revision operators and certain “assignments”: functions mapping belief bases to total — yet not transitive — “preference” relations between interpretations. Alongside, we present a companion result for the case when the AGM postulate of syntax-independence is abandoned. We also provide a characterization of all logics for which our result can be strengthened to assignments producing transitive preference relations (as in K&M’s original work), giving rise to two more representation theorems for such logics, according to syntax dependence vs. independence. The second research direction in this thesis explores two approaches for revising description logic knowledge bases under fixed-domain semantics, namely model-based approach and individual-based approach. In this logical setting, models of the knowledge bases can be enumerated and can be computed to produce the revision result, semantically. We show a characterization of the AGM revision operator for this logic and present a concrete model-based revision approach via distance between interpretations. In addition, by weakening the KB based on certain domain elements, a novel individual-based revision operator is provided as an alternative approach

Dealing with Inconsistencies and Updates in Description Logic Knowledge Bases

The main purpose of an "Ontology-based Information System" (OIS) is to provide an explicit description of the domain of interest, called ontology, and let all the functions of the system be based on such representation, thus freeing the users from the knowledge about the physical repositories where the real data reside. The functionalities that an OIS should provide to the user include both query answering, whose goal is to extract information from the system, and update, whose goal is to modify the information content of the system in order to reflect changes in the domain of interest. The "ontology" is a formal, high quality intentional representation of the domain, designed in such a way to avoid inconsistencies in the modeling of concepts and relationships. On the contrary, the extensional level of the system, constituted by a set of autonomous, heterogeneous data sources, is built independently from the conceptualization represented by the ontology, and therefore may contain information that is incoherent with the ontology itself. This dissertation presents a detailed study on the problem of dealing with inconsistencies in OISs, both in query answering, and in performing updates. We concentrate on the case where the knowledge base in the OISs is expressed in Description Logics, especially the logics of the DL-lite family. As for query answering, we propose both semantical frameworks that are inconsistency-tolerant, and techniques for answering unions of conjunctive queries posed to OISs under such inconsistency-tolerant semantics. As for updates, we present an approach to compute the result of updating a possibly inconsistent OIS with both insertion and deletion of extensional knowledge

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

Understanding Inexpressibility of Model−Based ABox Evolution in DL−Lite

International audienceEvolution of Knowledge Bases (KBs) expressed in Description Logics (DLs) proved its importance. Recent studies of evolution in DLs mostly focussed on model-based approaches. They showed that evolution of KBs in tractable DLs, such as DL-Lite, suffers from inexpressibility, i.e., the result of evolution cannot be captured in DL-Lite. What is missing in these studies is understanding: in which DL-Lite fragments evolution can be captured, what causes the inexpressibility, which logics is sufficient to express evolution, and whether one can approximate it in DL-Lite. This paper provides some understanding of these issues for both update and revision. We found what DL-Lite formulas make evolution inexpressible and how to capture evolution in their absence. We introduce the notion of prototypes that gives an understanding of how to capture evolution for a rich DL-Lite fragment in FO[2]. Decidability of FO[2] gives possibility for approximations

Flexible Views for View-based Model-driven Development

Modern software development faces the problem of fragmentation of information across heterogeneous artefacts in different modelling and programming languages. In this dissertation, the Vitruvius approach for view-based engineering is presented. Flexible views offer a compact definition of user-specific views on software systems, and can be defined the novel ModelJoin language. The process is supported by a change metamodel for metamodel evolution and change impact analysis