Article

How to Agree to Disagree: Managing Ontological Perspectives using Standpoint Logic

Authors:

Lucía Gómez Álvarez,

Sebastian Rudolph,

Hannes StrassAuthors Info & Claims

The Semantic Web – ISWC 2022: 21st International Semantic Web Conference, Virtual Event, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings

Pages 125 - 141

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19433-7_8

Published: 23 October 2022 Publication History

Abstract

The importance of taking individual, potentially conflicting perspectives into account when dealing with knowledge has been widely recognised. Many existing ontology management approaches fully merge knowledge perspectives, which may require weakening in order to maintain consistency; others represent the distinct views in an entirely detached way.

As an alternative, we propose Standpoint Logic, a simple, yet versatile multi-modal logic “add-on” for existing KR languages intended for the integrated representation of domain knowledge relative to diverse, possibly conflicting standpoints, which can be hierarchically organised, combined, and put in relation with each other.

Starting from the generic framework of First-Order Standpoint Logic (FOSL), we subsequently focus our attention on the fragment of sentential formulas, for which we provide a polytime translation into the standpoint-free version. This result yields decidability and favourable complexities for a variety of highly expressive decidable fragments of first-order logic. Using some elaborate encoding tricks, we then establish a similar translation for the very expressive description logic

SROIQ b_{s}

underlying the OWL 2 DL ontology language. By virtue of this result, existing highly optimised OWL reasoners can be used to provide practical reasoning support for ontology languages extended by standpoint modelling.

References

[1]

Arp, R., Smith, B., Spear, A.D.: Building ontologies with basic formal ontology. MIT Press (2015)

[2]

Bárány V, Benedikt M, and ten Cate B Some model theory of guarded negation Journal of Symbolic Logic 2018 83 4 1307-1344

[3]

Bárány, V., ten Cate, B., Segoufin, L.: Guarded negation. Journal of the ACM 62(3) (2015)

[4]

Benslimane, D., Arara, A., Falquet, G., Maamar, Z., Thiran, P., Gargouri, F.: Contextual ontologies. Motivations, challenges, and solutions. In: Procs. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Advances in Information Systems. pp. 168–176. Springer (2006)

[5]

Borgida A and Serafini L Distributed Description Logics: Assimilating information from peer sources Journal on Data Semantics 2003 2800 153-184

[6]

Euzenat, J., Mocan, A., Scharffe, F.: Ontology alignments. In: Hepp, M., Leenheer, P.D., Moor, A.D., Sure, Y. (eds.) Ontology Management. Computing for Human Experience, vol. 7, pp. 177–206. Springer (2008)

[7]

Fine K Vagueness, truth and logic Synthese 1975 30 3–4 265-300

[8]

Gómez Álvarez, L., Rudolph, S.: Standpoint logic: Multi-perspective knowledge representation. In: Neuhaus, F., Brodaric, B. (eds.) Procs. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Formal Ontology in Information Systems. FAIA, vol. 344, pp. 3–17. IOS Press (2021)

[9]

Gorshkov, S., Kralin, S., Miroshnichenko, M.: Multi-viewpoint ontologies for decision-making support. In: Ngonga Ngomo, A.C., Křemen, P. (eds.) Knowledge Engineering and Semantic Web. pp. 3–17. Springer (2016)

[10]

Grädel, E., Otto, M., Rosen, E.: Two-variable logic with counting is decidable. In: Procs. of the 12th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. pp. 306–317. IEEE (1997)

[11]

Hemam M An extension of the ontology web language with multi-viewpoints and probabilistic reasoning Int. Journal of Advanced Intelligence Paradigms 2018 10 3 247-265

[12]

Hemam M and Boufaïda Z MVP-OWL: A multi-viewpoints ontology language for the Semantic Web Int. Journal of Reasoning-based Intelligent Systems 2011 3 3–4 147-155

[13]

Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible SROIQ. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) Procs. 10th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. pp. 57–67. AAAI Press (2006)

[14]

Kieronski, E., Rudolph, S.: Finite model theory of the triguarded fragment and related logics. In: Procs. of the 36th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. pp. 1–13. IEEE (2021)

[15]

Klarman S and Gutiérrez-Basulto V Description logics of context Journal of Logic and Computation 2013 26 3 817-854

[16]

Kurucz A, Wolter F, Zakharyaschev M, and Gabbay DM Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications 2003 1 Elsevier Studies in Logics and the Foundations of Mathematics

[17]

Kutz, O., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: E-connections of description logics. Description Logics Workshop 81 (2003)

[18]

Kutz O, Lutz C, Wolter F, and Zakharyaschev M E-connections of abstract description systems Artificial intelligence 2004 156 1 1-73

[19]

McCarthy J and Buvac S Formalizing context (expanded notes) CSLI Lecture Notes 1998 81 13-50

[20]

Osman I, Ben Yahia S, and Diallo G Ontology Integration: Approaches and Challenging Issues Information Fusion 2021 71 38-63

[21]

Otero-Cerdeira, L., Rodríguez-Martínez, F.J., Gómez-Rodríguez, A.: Ontology matching: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications 42(2) (2015)

[22]

Pesquita, C., Faria, D., Santos, E., Couto, F.M.: To repair or not to repair: Reconciling correctness and coherence in ontology reference alignments. In: Procs. of the 8th Int. Conf. on Ontology Matching. vol. 1111, pp. 13–24. CEUR (2013)

[23]

Pietruszczak A Simplified Kripke style semantics for modal logics K45, KB4 and KD45 Bulletin of the Section of Logic 2009 38 3/4 163-171

[24]

Pratt-Hartmann I Complexity of the two-variable fragment with counting quantifiers Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 2005 14 3 369-395

[25]

Ribière, M., Dieng-Kuntz, R.: A viewpoint model for cooperative building of an Ontology. In: Procs. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Conceptual Structures. pp. 220–234. Springer (2002)

[26]

Rudolph, S., Krötzsch, M., Hitzler, P.: Cheap Boolean role constructors for description logics. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) Procs. of the 11th European Conf. on Logics in Artificial Intelligence. vol. 5293, pp. 362–374. Springer (2008)

[27]

Rudolph, S., Simkus, M.: The triguarded fragment of first-order logic. In: Barthe, G., Sutcliffe, G., Veanes, M. (eds.) Procs. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 57, pp. 604–619 (2018)

[28]

Solimando, A., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Guerrini, G.: Minimizing conservativity violations in ontology alignments. Knowledge and Information Systems 51(3) (2017)

[29]

Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: On the decidability of description logics with modal operators. In: Cohn, A.G., Schubert, L.K., Shapiro, S.C. (eds.) Procs. of the Sixth Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. pp. 512–523. Morgan Kaufmann (1998)

[30]

Álvarez, L.G., Rudolph, S., Strass, H.: How to Agree to Disagree: Managing Ontological Perspectives using Standpoint Logic. Tech. rep., https://arXiv.org/abs/2206.06793 (2022)

Cited By

Álvarez LRudolph SStrass HElkind E(2023)Tractable diversityProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2023/363(3258-3267)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/ijcai.2023/363
Plötzky FBritz KBalke W(2023)Shards of Knowledge – Modeling Attributions for Event-Centric Knowledge GraphsConceptual Modeling10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_14(259-276)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_14

Index Terms

How to Agree to Disagree: Managing Ontological Perspectives using Standpoint Logic
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
  2. Machine learning
    1. Machine learning approaches
      1. Rule learning
2. Theory of computation
  1. Logic
    1. Constraint and logic programming

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Multilingual Mapping Reconciliation between English-French Biomedical Ontologies
WIMS '16: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics

Even if multilingual ontologies are now more common, for historical reasons, in the biomedical domain, many ontologies or terminologies have been translated from one natural language to another resulting in two potentially aligned ontologies but with ...
Semantic reconciliation across design and manufacturing knowledge models: A logic-based approach

Ontology-based models of product design and manufacture are becoming increasingly important in the effort towards achieving interoperability among various stakeholders within and across product lifecycle systems. However, in the eventuality of having to ...
Semantic reconciliation across design and manufacturing knowledge models: a logic-based approach

Ontology-based models of product design and manufacture are becoming increasingly important in the effort towards achieving interoperability among various stakeholders within and across product lifecycle systems. However, in the eventuality of having to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

The Semantic Web – ISWC 2022: 21st International Semantic Web Conference, Virtual Event, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings

Oct 2022

898 pages

ISBN:978-3-031-19432-0

DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-19433-7

Editors:
Ulrike Sattler
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
,
Aidan Hogan
University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
Maria Keet
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
,
Valentina Presutti
University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
,
João Paulo A. Almeida
Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil
,
Hideaki Takeda
National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan
,
Pierre Monnin
Orange, Belfort, France
,
Giuseppe Pirrò
Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Claudia d’Amato
University of Bari, Bari, Italy

© The Author(s) 2022.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 23 October 2022

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 12 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Álvarez LRudolph SStrass HElkind E(2023)Tractable diversityProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2023/363(3258-3267)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/ijcai.2023/363
Plötzky FBritz KBalke W(2023)Shards of Knowledge – Modeling Attributions for Event-Centric Knowledge GraphsConceptual Modeling10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_14(259-276)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_14

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents