Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1007/978-3-030-77385-4_3guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesConference Proceedingsacm-pubtype
Article

Analysing Large Inconsistent Knowledge Graphs Using Anti-patterns

Published: 06 June 2021 Publication History

Abstract

A number of Knowledge Graphs (KGs) on the Web of Data contain contradicting statements, and therefore are logically inconsistent. This makes reasoning limited and the knowledge formally useless. Understanding how these contradictions are formed, how often they occur, and how they vary between different KGs is essential for fixing such contradictions, or developing better tools that handle inconsistent KGs. Methods exist to explain a single contradiction, by finding the minimal set of axioms sufficient to produce it, a process known as justification retrieval. In large KGs, these justifications can be frequent and might redundantly refer to the same type of modelling mistake. Furthermore, these justifications are –by definition– domain dependent, and hence difficult to interpret or compare. This paper uses the notion of anti-pattern for generalising these justifications, and presents an approach for detecting almost all anti-patterns from any inconsistent KG. Experiments on KGs of over 28 billion triples show the scalability of this approach, and the benefits of anti-patterns for analysing and comparing logical errors between different KGs.

References

[1]
Auer S, Bizer C, Kobilarov G, Lehmann J, Cyganiak R, Ives Z, et al. Aberer K et al. DBpedia: a nucleus for a web of open data The Semantic Web 2007 Heidelberg Springer 722-735
[2]
Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Patel-Schneider P, Nardi D, et al. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications 2003 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
[3]
Bail, S.: The justificatory structure of OWL ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Manchester (United Kingdom) (2013)
[4]
Beek W, Raad J, Wielemaker J, van Harmelen F, et al. Gangemi A et al. sameAs.cc: the closure of 500M owl: sameAs statements The Semantic Web 2018 Cham Springer 65-80
[5]
Bonte, P., et al.: Evaluation and optimized usage of owl 2 reasoners in an event-based ehealth context. In: 4e OWL Reasoner Evaluation (ORE) Workshop, pp. 1–7 (2015)
[6]
Cordella LP, Foggia P, Sansone C, and Vento M A (sub) graph isomorphism algorithm for matching large graphs IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2004 26 10 1367-1372
[7]
Debattista J, Lange C, Auer S, and Cortis D Evaluating the quality of the lod cloud: an empirical investigation Semant. Web (Preprint) 2018 9 1-43
[8]
Färber M, Bartscherer F, Menne C, and Rettinger A Linked data quality of dbpedia, freebase, opencyc, wikidata, and yago Semant. Web 2018 9 1 77-129
[9]
Fernández JD, Beek W, Martínez-Prieto MA, Arias M, et al. Gangemi C et al. LOD-a-lot The Semantic Web – ISWC 2017 2017 Cham Springer 75-83
[10]
Hitzler P, Krotzsch M, and Rudolph S Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies 2009 Boca Raton CRC Press
[11]
Horridge, M., Parsia, B.: From justifications towards proofs for ontology engineering. In: Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (2010)
[12]
Horridge M, Parsia B, and Sattler U Sheth A, Staab S, Dean M, Paolucci M, Maynard D, Finin T, and Thirunarayan K Laconic and precise justifications in OWL The Semantic Web - ISWC 2008 2008 Heidelberg Springer 323-338
[13]
Huang Z, Van Harmelen F, and Ten Teije A Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies IJCAI 2005 5 254-259
[14]
Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C.: Beyond asserted axioms: fine-grain justifications for owl-dl entailments. In: International Workshop on Description Logics DL, vol. 6 (2006)
[15]
Kalyanpur A, Parsia B, Sirin E, and Hendler J Debugging unsatisfiable classes in owl ontologies J. Web Semant. 2005 3 4 268-293
[16]
Nguyen, T.A.T., Power, R., Piwek, P., Williams, S.: Justification patterns for owl dl ontologies (2011)
[17]
Nguyen, T.A.T., Power, R., Piwek, P., Williams, S.: Measuring the understandability of deduction rules for owl. In: International Workshop on Debugging Ontologies and Ontology Mappings-WoDOOM12, Galway, Ireland, 8 Oct 2012, no. 079 pp. 1–12. Linköping University Electronic Press (2012)
[18]
Noori A and Moradi F Simulation and comparison of efficency in pathfinding algorithms in games Ciência e Natura 2015 37 6–2 230-238
[19]
Paulheim H, Gangemi A, et al. Arenas M et al. Serving DBpedia with DOLCE – more than just adding a cherry on top The Semantic Web - ISWC 2015 2015 Cham Springer 180-196
[20]
Plessers P and De Troyer O Sure Y and Domingue J Resolving inconsistencies in evolving ontologies The Semantic Web: Research and Applications 2006 Heidelberg Springer 200-214
[21]
Roussey, C., Corcho, O., Vilches-Blázquez, L.M.: A catalogue of owl ontology antipatterns. In: International Conference on Knowledge Capture, pp. 205–206 (2009)
[22]
Schlobach S, Cornet R, et al. Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies IJCAI 2003 3 355-362
[23]
Suchanek, F.M., Kasneci, G., Weikum, G.: Yago: a core of semantic knowledge. In: International conference on World Wide Web, pp. 697–706. ACM (2007)
[24]
Toulmin SE The Uses of Argument 2003 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
[25]
Vandenbussche PY, Atemezing GA, Poveda-Villalón M, and Vatant B Linked open vocabularies (lov): a gateway to reusable semantic vocabularies on the web Semant. Web 2017 8 3 437-452
[26]
Wu, G., Qi, G., Du, J.: Finding all justifications of owl entailments using tms and mapreduce. In: International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1425–1434 (2011)

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Detecting and Fixing Inconsistency of Large Knowledge GraphsProceedings of the 13th Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.1145/3688671.3688766(1-8)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2024

Index Terms

  1. Analysing Large Inconsistent Knowledge Graphs Using Anti-patterns
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Information & Contributors

          Information

          Published In

          cover image Guide Proceedings
          The Semantic Web: 18th International Conference, ESWC 2021, Virtual Event, June 6–10, 2021, Proceedings
          Jun 2021
          742 pages
          ISBN:978-3-030-77384-7
          DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-77385-4

          Publisher

          Springer-Verlag

          Berlin, Heidelberg

          Publication History

          Published: 06 June 2021

          Author Tags

          1. Linked open data
          2. Reasoning
          3. Inconsistency

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Contributors

          Other Metrics

          Bibliometrics & Citations

          Bibliometrics

          Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
          Reflects downloads up to 09 Feb 2025

          Other Metrics

          Citations

          Cited By

          View all
          • (2024)Detecting and Fixing Inconsistency of Large Knowledge GraphsProceedings of the 13th Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.1145/3688671.3688766(1-8)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2024

          View Options

          View options

          Figures

          Tables

          Media

          Share

          Share

          Share this Publication link

          Share on social media