Abstract
Given an ontology that does not meet required properties such as consistency or the (non-)entailment of certain axioms, Ontology Debugging aims at identifying a set of axioms, called diagnosis, that must be properly modified or deleted in order to resolve the ontology’s faults. As there are, in general, large numbers of competing diagnoses and the choice of each diagnosis leads to a repaired ontology with different semantics, Test-Driven Ontology Debugging (TOD) aims at narrowing the space of diagnoses until a single (highly probable) one is left. To this end, TOD techniques automatically generate a sequence of queries to an interacting oracle (domain expert) about (non-)entailments of the correct ontology. Diagnoses not consistent with the answers are discarded. To minimize debugging cost (oracle effort), various heuristics for selecting the best next query have been proposed. We report preliminary results of extensive ongoing experiments with a set of such heuristics on real-world debugging cases. In particular, we try to answer questions such as “Is some heuristic always superior to all others?”, “On which factors does the (relative) performance of the particular heuristics depend?” or “Under which circumstances should I use which heuristic?”.
This work is supported by Carinthian Science Fund (KWF), contract KWF-3520/26767/38701.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
See, e.g., OBO project (http://obo.sourceforge.net) or NCI-Thesaurus (http://ncit.nci.nih.gov).
- 2.
- 3.
Note, due to the comprehensiveness (large number of factor combinations tested) of our evaluations, experiments are very time-consuming (up to several weeks for one ontology).
- 4.
To reproduce the experiments or access logs see http://isbi.aau.at/ontodebug/evaluation.
- 5.
References
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)
De Kleer, J., Raiman, O.: Trading off the costs of inference vs. probing in diagnosis. In: IJCAI 1995, pp. 1736–1741 (1995)
Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Jannach, D., Stumptner, M.: Consistency-based diagnosis of configuration knowledge bases. Artif. Intell. 152(2), 213–234 (2004)
Felfernig, A., Mairitsch, M., Mandl, M., Schubert, M., Teppan, E.: Utility-based repair of inconsistent requirements. In: Chien, B.-C., Hong, T.-P., Chen, S.-M., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5579, pp. 162–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02568-6_17
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
Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: The next step for OWL. JWS 6(4), 309–322 (2008)
Hyafil, L., Rivest, R.L.: Constructing optimal binary decision trees is NP-complete. Inf. Process. Lett. 5(1), 15–17 (1976)
Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging and repair of OWL ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park (2006)
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
de Kleer, J., Raiman, O., Shirley, M.: One step lookahead is pretty good. In: Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis, pp. 138–142 (1992)
de Kleer, J., Williams, B.C.: Diagnosing multiple faults. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 97–130 (1987)
Moret, B.M.: Decision trees and diagrams. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 14(4), 593–623 (1982)
Nikitina, N., Rudolph, S., Glimm, B.: Reasoning-supported interactive revision of knowledge bases. In: IJCAI 2011, pp. 1027–1032 (2011)
Rector, A., et al.: OWL pizzas: practical experience of teaching OWL-DL: common errors & common patterns. In: Motta, E., Shadbolt, N.R., Stutt, A., Gibbins, N. (eds.) Engineering Knowledge in the Age of the Semantic Web, EKAW 2004. LNCS, vol. 3257, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30202-5_5
Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 57–95 (1987)
Rodler, P.: Interactive debugging of knowledge bases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Klagenfurt (2015). http://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.05950v1.pdf
Rodler, P.: Towards better response times and higher-quality queries in interactive knowledge base debugging. Technical report, University of Klagenfurt (2016). http://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.02584v2.pdf
Rodler, P.: On active learning strategies for sequential diagnosis. In: International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX 2017), pp. 264–283 (2018)
Rodler, P., Schekotihin, K.: Reducing model-based diagnosis to knowledge base debugging. In: International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX 2017), pp. 284–296 (2018)
Rodler, P., Schmid, W., Schekotihin, K.: A generally applicable, highly scalable measurement computation and optimization approach to sequential model-based diagnosis (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05508
Rodler, P., Schmid, W., Schekotihin, K.: Inexpensive cost-optimized measurement proposal for sequential model-based diagnosis. In: International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX 2017), pp. 200–218 (2018)
Rodler, P., Shchekotykhin, K., Fleiss, P., Friedrich, G.: RIO: minimizing user interaction in ontology debugging. In: Faber, W., Lembo, D. (eds.) RR 2013. LNCS, vol. 7994, pp. 153–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39666-3_12
Roussey, C., Corcho, O., Vilches-Blázquez, L.M.: A catalogue of OWL ontology antipatterns. In: K-CAP 2009, pp. 205–206 (2009)
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., Huang, Z., Cornet, R., Harmelen, F.: Debugging incoherent terminologies. J. Autom. Reason. 39(3), 317–349 (2007)
Settles, B.: Active Learning. Morgan and Claypool Publishers (2012)
Shchekotykhin, K., Friedrich, G., Fleiss, P., Rodler, P.: Interactive ontology debugging: two query strategies for efficient fault localization. JWS 12–13, 88–103 (2012)
Shchekotykhin, K., Friedrich, G., Rodler, P., Fleiss, P.: Sequential diagnosis of high cardinality faults in knowledge-bases by direct diagnosis generation. In: ECAI 2014, pp. 813–818 (2014)
Stuckenschmidt, H.: Debugging OWL ontologies - a reality check. In: EON 2008, pp. 1–12 (2008)
Troquard, N., Confalonieri, R., Galliani, P., Penaloza, R., Porello, D., Kutz, O.: Repairing ontologies via axiom weakening (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03430
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rodler, P., Schmid, W. (2018). On the Impact and Proper Use of Heuristics in Test-Driven Ontology Debugging. In: Benzmüller, C., Ricca, F., Parent, X., Roman, D. (eds) Rules and Reasoning. RuleML+RR 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11092. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99906-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99906-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99905-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99906-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)