Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies.pptVIP

Outline of This Talk Inconsistency in the Semantic Web General Framework Strategies and Algorithms Implementation Tests and Evaluation Future work and Conclusion Inconsistency and the Semantic Web The Semantic Web is characterized by scalability, distribution, and multi-authorship All these may introduce inconsistencies. 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) 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. Selection Functions Given an ontology T and a query ?, a selection function s(T,?,k)returns a subset of the ontology at each step k0. 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. 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)}. PION Prototype Preliminary Tests with Syntactic-relevance Selection Function Observation Intended answers include many undetermined answers. Some counter-intuitive answers Reasonably good performance Conclusions we proposed a general framework for reasoning with inconsistent ontologies based on selecting ever increasing consistent subsets choice of sel