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 Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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

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



References

    [1]  Alchourrón Carlos E, Gärdenfors Peter, Makinson David. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic (1985) 50:510-a–530.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    [2]  Baader Franz. Description logic terminology. In: The Description Logic Handbook (2002) Cambridge University Press. 495–505.

    [3]  Dalal Mukesh. Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. (1988) August. Minnesota: St. Paul, AAAI Press. 475–479. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-88).

    [4]  Delgrande James P, Dubois Didier, Lang Jérôme. Iterated revision as prioritized merging. (2006) AAAI Press. 210–220. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2006).

    [5]  Delgrande James P, Schaub Torsten. A consistency-based approach for belief change. Artificial Intelligence (2003) 151(1–2):1–41.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    [6]  Flouris Giorgos, Manakanatas Dimitris, Kondylakis Haridimos, Plexousakis Dimitris, Antoniou Grigoris. Ontology change: classification and survey. The Knowledge Engineering Review (2008) 23(2):117–152.

    [7]  Gärdenfors Peter. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States (1988) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.

    [8]  Gärdenfors Peter. Belief revision: A vade-mecum. (1992) Springer. 1–10. Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Meta-Programming in Logic (META-92), volume 649 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

    [9]  Goeb Moritz, Reiss Peter, Schiemann Bernhard, Schreiber Ulf. Dynamic T-boxhandling in agent-agent-communication. (2007) September. Fernuniversität in Hagen. 100–117. Dynamics of Knowledge and Belief. Proceedings of the Workshop at the 30th Annual German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI-2007).

    [10]  Grove Adam. Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic (1988) 17:157–170.[Web of Science]

    [11]  Hansson Sven Ove. A Textbook of Belief Dynamics (1999) Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    [12]  Katsuno Hirofumi, Mendelzon Alberto. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. (1991) California: San Mateo. 387–394. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-1991).

    [13]  Kelly Kevin T. Iterated belief revision, reliability, and inductive amnesia. Erkenntnis (1998) 50:11–58.

    [14]  Kelly Kevin T. The learning power of belief revision. (1998) Morgan Kaufmann. 111–124. Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-98).

    [15]  Küsters Ralf, Molitor Ralf. Computing most specific concepts in description logics with existential restrictions. (2000) Germany: RWTH Aachen. LTCS-Report 00-05, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science.

    [16]  Martin Eric, Osherson Daniel. Scientific discovery based on belief revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic (1997) 62:1352–1370.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    [17]  Meyer Thomas, Lee Kevin, Booth Richard. Knowledge integration for description logics. (2005) AAAI Press/The MIT Press. 645–650. Proceedings of the Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2005).

    [18]  Monk Donald J. Mathematical Logic (1976) Springer.

    [19]  Noy Natalya Fridman. Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches. SIGMOD Record (2004) 33(4):65–70.

    [20]  Özçep Özgür L. Ontology revision through concept contraction. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Rationality and Knowledge, 18th European Summerschool in Logic, Language, and Information, Universidad de Malaga (2006) 79–90.

    [21]  Özçep Özgür L. Towards principles for ontology integration. (2008) 137–150. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2008).

    [22]  Qi Guilin, Liu Weiru, Bell David A. A revision-based approach to handling inconsistency in description logics. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR06) (2006) 124–132.

    [23]  Wassermann Renata, Fermé Eduardo. A note on prototype revision. In: Spinning Ideas. (Electronic Essays dedicated to Peter Gärdenfors on his 50th Birthday) (1999) http://www.lucs.lu.se/spinning/.

    [24]  Zhang Dongmo, Foo Norman Y. Convergency of learning process. (2002) Springer. 547–556. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2667 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science.


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



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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?