HIGHER-ORDER REPRESENTATION AND REASONING FOR AUTOMATED ONTOLOGY EVOLUTION

Michael Chan, Jos Lehmann, Alan Bundy

Abstract

The GALILEO system aims at realising automated ontology evolution. This is necessary to enable intelligent agents to manipulate their own knowledge autonomously and thus reason and communicate effectively in open, dynamic digital environments characterised by the heterogeneity of data and of representation languages. Our approach is based on patterns of diagnosis of faults detected across multiple ontologies. Such patterns allow to identify the type of repair required when conflicting ontologies yield erroneous inferences. We assume that each ontology is locally consistent, i.e. inconsistency arises only across ontologies when they are merged together. Local consistency avoids the derivation of uninteresting theorems, so the formula for diagnosis can essentially be seen as an open theorem over the ontologies. The system's application domain is physics; we have adopted a modular formalisation of physics, structured by means of locales in Isabelle, to perform modular higher-order reasoning, and visualised by means of development graphs.

References

  1. Autexier, S., Hutter, D., Mantel, H., and Schairer, A. (1999). Towards an Evolutionary Formal SoftwareDevelopment Using CASL. Lecture Notes In Computer Science; Vol. 1827, pages 73-88.
  2. Ballarin, C. (2004). Isabelle/Isar. 3085:34-50. Locales and locale expressions in Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
  3. Bundy, A. and Chan, M. (2008). Towards ontology evolution in physics. In Hodges, W., editor, Procs. Wollic 2008. LNCS, Springer-Verlag.
  4. Bundy, A., J., L., Qi, G., and Varzinczak, I. (2009). Notes of the ijcai-09 workshop on automated reasoning about context and ontology evolution. AAAI Press.
  5. Chan, M. and Bundy, A. (2008). Inconstancy: An ontology repair plan for adding hidden variables. In Bringsjord, S. and Shilliday, A., editors, Symposium on Automated Scientific Discovery, number FS-08-03 in Technical Report, pages 10-17. AAAI Press. ISBN 978-1-57735-395-9.
  6. diSessa, A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In Stevens, A. and Gentner, D., editors, Mental Models, pages 15-33. Erlbaum.
  7. Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Domingos, P., and Halevy, A. (2004). Ontology matching: A machine learning approach. Handbook on Ontologies in Information Systems, pages 397-416.
  8. Ghilardi, S., Lutz, C., and Wolter, F. (2006). Did I damage my ontology? A case for conservative extensions in description logic. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2006), pages 187-197.
  9. Giunchiglia, F. and Shvaiko, P. (2004). Semantic matching. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(03):265- 280.
  10. Kalfoglou, Y. and Schorlemmer, M. (2003). Ontology Mapping: The State of the Art. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(1):1-31.
  11. Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., and Grau, B. (2006). Repairing unsatisfiable concepts in OWL ontologies. In ESWC, pages 170-184. Springer.
  12. Lam, J., Sleeman, D., Pan, J., and Vasconcelos, W. (2008). A fine-grained approach to resolving unsatisfiable ontologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4900:62.
  13. McCarthy, J. and Buvac, S. (1998). Formalizing context (expanded notes). Computing natural language, 81:13-50.
  14. McNeill, F. and Bundy, A. (2007). Dynamic, automatic, first-order ontology repair by diagnosis of failed plan execution. International Journal On Semantic Web and Information Systems, 3(3):1-35. Special issue on ontology matching.
  15. Mossakowski, T., Maeder, C., and L ├╝ttich, K. (2007). The Heterogeneous Tool Set. In Grumberg, O. and Huth, M., editors, TACAS 2007, volume 4424 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 519-522. SpringerVerlag Heidelberg.
  16. Ovchinnikova, E. and K├╝hnberger, K. (2007). Automatic Ontology Extension: Resolving Inconsistencies. OTT'06, 1:93.
  17. Paulson, L. C. (1994). Isabelle: A generic theorem prover. Springer-Verlag.
  18. Stojanovic, L., Maedche, A., Motik, B., and Stojanovic, N. (2002). User-Driven Ontology Evolution Management. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web, pages 285-300. Springer-Verlag London, UK.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Chan M., Lehmann J. and Bundy A. (2010). HIGHER-ORDER REPRESENTATION AND REASONING FOR AUTOMATED ONTOLOGY EVOLUTION . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development - Volume 1: KEOD, (IC3K 2010) ISBN 978-989-8425-29-4, pages 84-93. DOI: 10.5220/0003097800840093


in Bibtex Style

@conference{keod10,
author={Michael Chan and Jos Lehmann and Alan Bundy},
title={HIGHER-ORDER REPRESENTATION AND REASONING FOR AUTOMATED ONTOLOGY EVOLUTION},
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development - Volume 1: KEOD, (IC3K 2010)},
year={2010},
pages={84-93},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003097800840093},
isbn={978-989-8425-29-4},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development - Volume 1: KEOD, (IC3K 2010)
TI - HIGHER-ORDER REPRESENTATION AND REASONING FOR AUTOMATED ONTOLOGY EVOLUTION
SN - 978-989-8425-29-4
AU - Chan M.
AU - Lehmann J.
AU - Bundy A.
PY - 2010
SP - 84
EP - 93
DO - 10.5220/0003097800840093