Abstract
The quality of ontologies in terms of their correctness and completeness is crucial for developing high-quality ontology-based applications. Traditional debugging techniques repair ontologies by removing unwanted axioms, but may thereby remove consequences that are correct in the domain of the ontology. In this paper we propose an interactive approach to mitigate this for \(\mathcal{{EL}}\) ontologies by axiom weakening and completing. We present the first approach for repairing that takes into account removing, weakening and completing. We show different combination strategies, discuss the influence on the final ontologies and show experimental results. We show that previous work has only considered special cases and that there is a trade-off, and how to deal with it, involving the amount of validation work for a domain expert and the quality of the ontology in terms of correctness and completeness. We also present new algorithms for weakening and completing.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This term has been used with different meanings. In this paper we refer to completing as the dual task of weakening. The term has been used with other meanings in, e.g., [4, 31]. Related terms are, e.g., ontology extension [21], ontology learning [6], ontology enrichment [11], and ontology revision [24].
- 2.
As we do not deal with individuals in this paper, we do not use individuals in the later sections.
- 3.
We do not take up consistency of TBoxes, i.e., whether a model exists or not, in this paper as every \(\mathcal{{EL}}\) TBox is consistent.
- 4.
We note that in this paper we deal with removing and not the full debugging problem, i.e., we assume that the axioms to be removed are already found. Removing can be seen as a simple kind of debugging, or as the second step of the debugging process.
- 5.
Weaker limitations are possible, but the weaker the restriction, the larger the solution search space and the higher the probability of a less usable practical system.
References
Arif, M.F., Mencía, C., Ignatiev, A., Manthey, N., Peñaloza, R., Marques-Silva, J.: BEACON: an efficient SAT-based tool for debugging \({\cal{EL}}{^+}\) ontologies. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 521–530. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_32
Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \({\cal{E} L}\) envelope. In: IJCAI 2005: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 364–369 (2005)
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Baader, F., Ganter, B., Sertkaya, B., Sattler, U.: Completing description logic knowledge bases using formal concept analysis. In: IJCAI 2007: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 230–235 (2007)
Baader, F., Kriegel, F., Nuradiansyah, A., Peñaloza, R.: Making repairs in description logics more gentle. In: KR 2018: 16th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 319–328 (2018)
Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Magnini, B.: Ontology Learning from Text: Methods, Evaluation and Applications. IOS Press (2005)
Confalonieri, R., Galliani, P., Kutz, O., Porello, D., Righetti, G., Troquard, N.: Towards even more irresistible axiom weakening. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Workshop on Description Logics. CEUR, vol. 2663 (2020)
Dragisic, Z., Ivanova, V., Li, H., Lambrix, P.: Experiences from the anatomy track in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative. J. Biomed. Semant. 8(1), 56:1–56:28 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-017-0166-5
Du, J., Qi, G., Fu, X.: A practical fine-grained approach to resolving incoherent OWL 2 DL terminologies. In: CIKM 2014: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 919–928 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2661829.2662046
Du, J., Wan, H., Ma, H.: Practical TBox abduction based on justification patterns. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2017), pp. 1100–1106 (2017)
Ferré, S., Rudolph, S.: Advocatus Diaboli – exploratory enrichment of ontologies with negative constraints. In: ten Teije, A., et al. (eds.) EKAW 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7603, pp. 42–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33876-2_7
Fleischhacker, D., Meilicke, C., Völker, J., Niepert, M.: Computing incoherence explanations for learned ontologies. In: Faber, W., Lembo, D. (eds.) RR 2013. LNCS, vol. 7994, pp. 80–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39666-3_7
Ji, Q., Gao, Z., Huang, Z., Zhu, M.: An efficient approach to debugging ontologies based on patterns. In: Pan, J.Z., et al. (eds.) JIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 7185, pp. 425–433. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29923-0_33
Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Horridge, M., Sirin, E.: Finding all justifications of OWL DL entailments. In: Aberer, K., et al. (eds.) ASWC/ISWC -2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 267–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_20
Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca-Grau, B.: Repairing unsatisfiable concepts in OWL ontologies. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11762256_15
Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J.: Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies. J. Web Semant. 3(4), 268–293 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2005.09.005
Lam, J.S.C., Sleeman, D.H., Pan, J.Z., Vasconcelos, W.W.: A fine-grained approach to resolving unsatisfiable ontologies. J. Data Semant. 10, 62–95 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77688-8_3
Lambrix, P., Dragisic, Z., Ivanova, V.: Get my pizza right: repairing missing is-a relations in ALC ontologies. In: Takeda, H., Qu, Y., Mizoguchi, R., Kitamura, Y. (eds.) JIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7774, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37996-3_2
Lambrix, P., Wei-Kleiner, F., Dragisic, Z.: Completing the is-a structure in light-weight ontologies. J. Biomed. Semant. 6 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-015-0002-8
Lehmann, J., Bühmann, L.: ORE - a tool for repairing and enriching knowledge bases. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6497, pp. 177–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17749-1_12
Li, H., Armiento, R., Lambrix, P.: A method for extending ontologies with application to the materials science domain. Data Sci. J. 18(1) (2019). https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-050
Meyer, T., Lee, K., Booth, R., Pan, J.: Finding maximally satisfiable terminologies for the description logic ALC. In: Proceedings, The Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eighteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI 2006), pp. 269–274 (2006)
Moodley, K., Meyer, T., Varzinczak, I.J.: Root justifications for ontology repair. In: Rudolph, S., Gutierrez, C. (eds.) RR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6902, pp. 275–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23580-1_24
Nikitina, N., Rudolph, S., Glimm, B.: Interactive ontology revision. J. Web Semant. 12–13, 118–130 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2011.12.002
Pesquita, C., Faria, D., Santos, E., Couto, F.M.: To repair or not to repair: reconciling correctness and coherence in ontology reference alignments. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Ontology Matching. CEUR, vol. 1111, pp. 13–24 (2013)
Rodler, P., Schmid, W.: On the impact and proper use of heuristics in test-driven ontology debugging. In: Benzmüller, C., Ricca, F., Parent, X., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML+RR 2018. LNCS, vol. 11092, pp. 164–184. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99906-7_11
Schekotihin, K., Rodler, P., Schmid, W.: OntoDebug: interactive ontology debugging plug-in for Protégé. In: Ferrarotti, F., Woltran, S. (eds.) FoIKS 2018. LNCS, vol. 10833, pp. 340–359. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90050-6_19
Schlobach, S.: Debugging and semantic clarification by pinpointing. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 226–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11431053_16
Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: IJCAI, pp. 355–360 (2003)
Schlobach, S., Huang, Z., Cornet, R., van Harmelen, F.: Debugging incoherent terminologies. J. Autom. Reason. 39(3), 317–349 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-007-9076-z
Sertkaya, B.: OntoComP: a Protégé plugin for completing OWL ontologies. In: Aroyo, L., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 898–902. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02121-3_78
Shchekotykhin, K.M., Friedrich, G., Fleiss, P., Rodler, P.: Interactive ontology debugging: two query strategies for efficient fault localization. J. Web Semant. 12, 88–103 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2011.12.006
Troquard, N., Confalonieri, R., Galliani, P., Peñaloza, R., Porello, D., Kutz, O.: Repairing ontologies via axiom weakening. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2018), pp. 1981–1988 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11567
Wang, K., Wang, Z., Topor, R., Pan, J.Z., Antoniou, G.: Concept and role forgetting in \({\cal{ALC}}\) ontologies. In: Bernstein, A., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5823, pp. 666–681. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04930-9_42
Wei-Kleiner, F., Dragisic, Z., Lambrix, P.: Abduction framework for repairing incomplete \(\cal{EL} \) ontologies: complexity results and algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2014), pp. 1120–1127 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8858
Acknowledgement
We thank Olaf Hartig for discussions leading to the Hasse diagrams. This work is financially supported by the Swedish e-Science Research Centre (SeRC) and the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, dnr 2018-04147).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
1 Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Li, Y., Lambrix, P. (2023). Repairing \(\mathcal{{EL}}\) Ontologies Using Weakening and Completing. In: Pesquita, C., et al. The Semantic Web. ESWC 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13870. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33455-9_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33455-9_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-33454-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-33455-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)