• Corpus ID: 40876678

D1.2.4 Inconsistency-tolerant Reasoning with Networked Ontologies

@inproceedings{Qi2009D124IR,
  title={D1.2.4 Inconsistency-tolerant Reasoning with Networked Ontologies},
  author={Guilin Qi and Peter Haase and Simon Schenk and Steffen Stadtm{\"u}ller and Pascal Hitzler},
  year={2009}
}
In this deliverable, we discuss the problem of reasoning with inconsistent networked ontologies. We first extend the semantics of description logic ALC with a four-valued semantics. This will allow us to reasoning with inconsistent ontologies non-trivially. We implement an algorithm for reasoning with the four-valued semantics and provide a prototype. We then propose a bilatticebased semantics to generalize the four-valued semantics. We extend OWL2 to bilattice. The bilattice-based semantics can… 
1 Citations

Semantic-based knowledge and content systems ” D 4 . 4 . 3 Presentation of prototypes for access control in the NeOn infrastructure

TLDR
This deliverable operationalizes the motivation and the functionality of the approach proposed in the previous deliverables in the context of granting access rights in the area of networked ontologies in the form of an ontology customization plugin and a meta knowledge reasoner.

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 34 REFERENCES

D1.2.1 Consistency Models for Networked Ontologies

TLDR
This work proposes a novel general approach for resolving inconsistency and incoherence in ontologies, which classified logical inconsistency into three categories and handle different kinds of inconsistency using different revision strategies.

DRAGO: Distributed Reasoning Architecture for the Semantic Web

TLDR
The paper describes the design and implementation principles of a distributed reasoning system, called DRAGO (Distributed Reasoning Architecture for a Galaxy of Ontologies), that implements such distributed decision procedure.

Inconsistencies, Negations and Changes in Ontologies

TLDR
This paper proposes a general framework accounting for inconsistency, negation and change in ontologies, and demonstrates how this framework can provide a foundation for reasoning with and management of dynamic ontologies.

Reasoning with a Network of Aligned Ontologies

TLDR
This work devise a correct and complete algorithm which shows that consistency of a IDDL system is decidable whenever consistency of the local logics isdecidable.

A mapping system for the integration of OWL-DL ontologies

TLDR
This paper defines a mapping system for OWL-DL ontologies, where mappings are expressed as correspondences between conjunctive queries over ontology, and identifies a decidable fragment of the mapping system, which corresponds to OWl-DL extended with DL-safe rules.

A Framework for Handling Inconsistency in Changing Ontologies

TLDR
This paper surveys four different approaches to handling inconsistency in DL-based ontologies: consistent ontology evolution, repairing inconsistencies, reasoning in the presence of inconsistencies and multi-version reasoning.

Forgetting Concepts in DL-Lite

TLDR
This work presents a semantic definition of forgetting for description logics in general, which generalizes the standard definition for classical logic, and introduces algorithms that implement forgetting in both DL-Lite TBoxes and ABoxes, and in DL- lite knowledge bases.

Applying Logical Constraints to Ontology Matching

TLDR
A method for optimizing precision and recall of existing matching systems based on the idea that it is possible to infer logical constraints by comparing subsumption relations between concepts of the ontologies to be matched and shows that this strategy actually improves the quality of the generated mappings.

Inferring with Inconsistent OWL DL Ontology: A Multi-valued Logic Approach

TLDR
Web ontology language OWL DL has two-valued model theory semantics so that ontologies expressed by it become trivial when contradictions occur, but the four-valued description logic proposed has the ability to reason with inconsistencies.