Skip Navigation



Logic Journal of IGPL Advance Access published online on August 12, 2009

Logic Journal of IGPL, doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzp039
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eschenbach, C.
Right arrow Articles by Özçep, O. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Ontology-revision operators based on reinterpretation

Carola Eschenbach and Özgür L. Özçep

Department for Informatics (AB WSV), MIN Faculty, University of Hamburg, Vogt-Kölln-Str. 30, D-22527 Hamburg, Germany.
E-mail: eschenbach{at}informatik.uni-hamburg.de, oezcep{at}informatik.uni-hamburg.de


   Abstract

Communication between natural or artificial agents relies on the use of a common vocabulary. Since sharing terms does not necessarily imply that the terms have exactly the same meanings for all agents, integrating (trigger) statements into a formal ontology requires mechanisms for resolving conflicts that are caused by the ambiguity of terms specified in different but similar ontologies.

We define and analyze a family of ontology-revision operators that resolve conflicts by disambiguating concept symbols occurring in both the ontology and the trigger statements. The operators yield bridging axioms relating the different readings of the terms and, by including representations for both readings, preserve the initial ontology as well as the trigger statements. The operators differ regarding which reading of the ambiguous term is assigned to further uses of the common term and regarding the semantic relation assumed between the two readings. The ontology-revision operators are analyzed regarding their adaptability to consistent sequences of trigger statements. One group of operators (type 1) preserves all conflicts with the trigger sequence. Operators from the other group (type 2) can resolve the conflicts, which is demonstrated by showing under which conditions weak type-2 operators yield stabilizing sequences of ontologies. Stronger type-2 operators can result in closer approximations of the terminology underlying the sequence of trigger statements but can also yield non-stabilizing sequences of ontologies.

Key Words: Ontology merging • Ontology revision • Belief revision • Reinterpretation • Stability


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.