1 / 30

Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies 非协调本体的推理

Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies 非协调本体的推理. Zhisheng Huang, Frank van Harmelen, and Annette ten Teije Vrije University Amsterdam ( IJCAI2005 paper ). Outline of This Talk. Inconsistency in the Semantic Web General Framework Strategies and Algorithms Implementation

mandana
Download Presentation

Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies 非协调本体的推理

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies非协调本体的推理 Zhisheng Huang, Frank van Harmelen, and Annette ten Teije Vrije University Amsterdam (IJCAI2005 paper) http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  2. Outline of This Talk • Inconsistency in the Semantic Web • General Framework • Strategies and Algorithms • Implementation • Tests and Evaluation • Future work and Conclusion http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  3. Inconsistency and the Semantic Web • The Semantic Web is characterized by • scalability, • distribution, and • multi-authorship • All these may introduce inconsistencies. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  4. Ontologies will be inconsistent • Because of: • mistreatment of defaults • polysemy • migration from another formalism • integration of multiple sources • … • (“Semantic Web as a wake-up call for KR”) http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  5. Example: Inconsistency by mistreatment of default rules MadCow Ontology • Cow  Vegetarian • MadCow  Cow • MadCow  Eat.BrainofSheep • Sheep  Animal • Vegetarian  Eat.  (Animal PartofAnimal) • Brain  PartofAnimal • ...... • theMadCow MadCow • ... http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  6. Example: Inconsistency through imigration from other formalism DICE Ontology • Brain  CentralNervousSystem • Brain  BodyPart • CentralNervousSystem  NervousSystem • BodyPart  NervousSystem http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  7. Inconsistency and Explosion • The classical entailment is explosive: P, ¬ P |= Q Any formula is a logical  consequence of a contradiction. • The conclusions derived from an inconsistent ontology using the standard reasoning may be completely meaningless http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  8. Why DL reasoning cannot escape the explosion • The derivation checking is usually achieved by the satisfiability checking. •  |=   {¬} is not satisfiable. • Tableau algorithms are approaches based on the satisfiability checking •  is inconsistent =>  is not satisfiable =>  {¬} is not satisfiable. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  9. Two main approaches to deal with inconsistency • Inconsistency Diagnosis and Repair • Ontology Diagnosis(Schlobach and Cornet 2003) • Reasoning with Inconsistency • Paraconsistent logics • Limited inference (Levesque 1989) • Approximate reasoning(Schaerf and Cadoli 1995) • Resource-bounded inferences(Marquis et al.2003) • Belief revision on relevance (Chopra et al. 2000) http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  10. What an inconsistency reasoner is expected • Given an inconsistent ontology, return meaningful answers to queries. • General solution: Use non-standard reasoningto deal with inconsistency •  |= : the standard inference relations  | : nonstandard inference relations http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  11. Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies: Main Idea Starting from the query, • select consistent sub-theory by using a relevance-based selection function. • apply standard reasoning on the selected sub-theory to find meaningful answers. • If it cannot give a satisfying answer, the selection function would relax the relevance degree to extend consistent sub-theory for further reasoning. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  12. New formal notions are needed • New notions: • Accepted: • Rejected: • Overdetermined: • Undetermined: • Soundness: (only classically justified results) • Meaningfulness: (sound & never overdetermined)soundness + http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  13. Some Formal Definitions • Soundness:  | =>` (` consistent and `|=). • Meaningfulness: sound and consistent ( | =>  ¬). • Local Completeness w.r.t a consistent ` : (`|= =>  |). • Maximality: locally complete w.r.t a maximal consistent set `. • Local Soundness w.r.t.a consistent set `:  | => `|=). http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  14. Selection Functions Given an ontology T and a query , a selection function s(T,,k)returns a subset of the ontology at each step k>0. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  15. General framework • Use selection function s(T,,k),with s(T,,k)  s(T,,k+1) • Start with k=0: s(T,,0) |= or s(T,,0) |=  ? • Increase k, untils(T,,k) |= or s(T,,k) |=  • Abort when • undetermined at maximal k • overdetermined at some k http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  16. Inconsistency Reasoning Processing: Linear Extension http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  17. Proposition: Linear Extension • Never over-determined • May undetermined • Always sound • Always meaningful • Always locally complete • May not maximal • Always locally sound http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  18. Direct Relevance and K Relevance • Direct relevance(0-relevance). • there is a common name in two formulas: C()  C()  R()  R()I() I(). • K-relevance: there exist formulas 0, 1,…, k such that  and 0, 0 and 1 , …, k and are directly relevant. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  19. Relevance-based Selection Functions • s(T,,0)= • s(T,,1)= { T:  is directly relevant to }. • s(T,,k)= { T:  is directly relevant to s(T,,k-1)}. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  20. PION Prototype PION: Processing Inconsistent ONtologies http://wasp.cs.vu.nl/sekt/pion http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  21. An Extended DIG Description Logic Interface for Prolog (XDIG) • A logic programming infrastructure for the Semantic Web • Similar to SOAP • Application independent, platform independent • Support for DIG clients and DIG servers. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  22. XDIG • As a DIG client, the Prolog programs can call any external DL reasoner which supports the DIG DL interface. • As a DIG server, the Prolog programs can serve as a DL reasoner, which can be used to support additional reasoning processing, like inconsistency reasoning multi-version reasoning, and inconsistency diagnosis and repair. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  23. XDIG package • The XDIG package and the source code are now available for public download at the website: http://wasp.cs.vu.nl/sekt/dig/ • In the package, we offer five examples how XDIG can be used to develop extended DL reasoners. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  24. PION Testbed http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  25. Answer Evaluation • Intended Answer (IA):PION answer = Intuitive Answer • Cautious Answer (CA):PION answer is ‘undetermined’, but intuitive answer is ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’. • Reckless Answer (RA):PION answer is ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’, but intuitive answer is ‘undetermined’. • Counter Intuitive Answer (CIA):PION answer is ‘accepted’ but intuitive answer is ‘rejected’, or vice verse. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  26. Preliminary Tests with Syntactic-relevance Selection Function http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  27. Observation • Intended answers include many undetermined answers. • Some counter-intuitive answers • Reasonably good performance http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  28. Intensive Tests on PION • Evaluation and test on PION with several realistic ontologies: • Communication Ontology • Transportation Ontology • MadCow Ontology • Each ontology has been tested by thousands of queries with different selection functions. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  29. Conclusions • we proposed a general framework for reasoning with inconsistent ontologies • based on selecting ever increasing consistent subsets • choice of selection function is crucial • query-based selection functions are flexible to find intended answers • simple syntactic selection works surprisingly well http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

  30. Future Work • understand better why simple selection functions work so well • consider other selection functions(e.g. exploit more the structure of the ontology) • Variants of strategies • More tests on realistic ontologies • Integrating with the diagnosis approach http://sekt.semanticweb.org/

More Related