DOCSLIB.ORG

A Language for Inconsistency-Tolerant Ontology Mapping

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Wright State University CORE Scholar Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2015 A Language for Inconsistency-Tolerant Ontology Mapping Kunal Sengupta Wright State University Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all Part of the Computer Engineering Commons, and the Computer Sciences Commons Repository Citation Sengupta, Kunal, "A Language for Inconsistency-Tolerant Ontology Mapping" (2015). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 1412. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/1412 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Language for Inconsistency-Tolerant Ontology Mapping A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Kunal Sengupta B.Tech, DA-IICT, 2006 2015 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL August 13, 2015 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE DISSERTATION PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Kunal Sengupta ENTITLED A Language for Inconsistency-Tolerant Ontology Mapping BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRE- MENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy. Pascal Hitzler, Ph.D. Dissertation Director Arthur Goshtasby, Ph.D. Director, Computer Science and Engi- neering Ph.D. Program Robert E.W. Fyffe, Ph.D. Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School Committee on Final Examination Pascal Hitzler, Ph.D. Krzysztof Janowicz, Ph.D. Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, Ph.D. Prabhaker Mateti, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Sengupta, Kunal. Ph.D., Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Wright State University, 2015. A Language for Inconsistency-Tolerant Ontology Mapping. Ontology alignment plays a key role in enabling interoperability among various data sources present in the web. The nature of the world is such, that the same concepts differ in meaning, often so slightly, which makes it difficult to relate these concepts. It is the omni-present heterogeneity that is at the core of the web. The research work presented in this dissertation, is driven by the goal of providing a robust ontology alignment language for the semantic web, as we show that description logics based alignment languages are not suitable for aligning ontologies. The adoption of the semantic web technologies has been consistently on the rise over the past decade, and it continues to show promise. The core component of the semantic web is the set of knowledge representation languages – mainly the W3C 1 standards Web On- tology Language (OWL), Resource Description Framework (RDF), and Rule Interchange Format (RIF). While these languages have been designed in order to be suitable for the openness and extensibility of the web, they lack certain features which we try to address in this dissertation. One such missing component is the lack of non-monotonic features, in the knowledge representation languages, that enable us to perform common sense reasoning. For example, OWL supports the open world assumption (OWA), which means that knowledge about everything is assumed to be possibly incomplete at any point of time. However, experience has shown that there are situations that require us to assume that 1World Wide Web Consortium - http://w3c.org ii certain parts of the knowledge base are complete. Employing the Closed World Assumption (CWA) helps us achieve this. Circumscription is a very well-known approach towards CWA, which provides closed world semantics by employing the idea of minimal models with respect to certain predicates which are closed. We provide the formal semantics of the notion of Grounded Circumscription, which is an extension of circumscription with desirable properties like decidability. We also provide a tableaux calculus to reason over knowledge bases under the notion of grounded circumscription. Another form of common sense logic, is default logic. Default logic provides a way to specify rules that, by default, hold in most cases but not necessarily in all cases. The classic example of such a rule is: If something is a bird then it flies. The power of defaults comes from the ability of the logic to handle exceptions to the default rules. For example, a bird will be assumed to fly by default unless it is an exception, i.e. it belongs to a class of birds that do not fly, like penguins. Interestingly, this property of defaults can be utilized to create mappings between concepts of different ontologies (knowledge bases). We provide a new semantics for the integration of defaults in description logics and show that it improves upon previously known results in literature. In this study, we give various examples to show the utility and the advantages of using a default logic based ontology alignment language. We provide the semantics and decid- ability results of a default based mapping language for tractable fragments of description logics (or OWL). Furthermore, we provide a proof of concept system and present a qualita- tive analysis of the results obtained from the system, and compare it to the results obtained by applying ontology mapping repair techniques. iii Contents 1 Introduction1 1.1 Problem Statement..............................2 1.2 Approach...................................3 1.2.1 Exploring Non-monotonic Extensions of Description Logics....3 1.2.2 Mapping Language for Tractable Description Logics........5 1.3 Structure....................................6 2 Background and Preliminaries7 2.1 Semantic Web and Ontologies........................7 2.2 Description Logics.............................. 10 2.2.1 Building Blocks (Syntax)....................... 11 2.2.2 Semantics............................... 12 2.3 Ontology Alignment............................. 16 2.4 Non-monotonic Logics............................ 18 2.4.1 Default Logic............................. 18 2.4.2 Integration with Description Logics................. 21 2.4.3 Circumscription........................... 21 3 Grounded Circumscription 26 3.1 Introduction.................................. 26 3.2 Local Closed World Reasoning with Grounded Circumscription...... 28 3.2.1 Grounded Circumscription...................... 28 3.3 Decidability of Grounded Circumscription.................. 32 3.4 Algorithms for Grounded Circumscriptive Reasoning............ 34 3.4.1 Decision Procedure for GC-Satisfiability in ALC .......... 35 3.4.2 Inference Problems beyond GC-Satisfiability............ 40 3.5 Conclusion.................................. 44 4 Free Defaults 47 4.1 Introduction and Motivation......................... 47 4.2 Semantics of Free Defaults.......................... 50 4.3 Decidability.................................. 53 4.4 Default Role Inclusion Axioms........................ 57 4.5 Application of Defaults in Ontology Alignment............... 60 4.6 Conclusion.................................. 64 iv 5 Default Logic Based Ontology Alignment for Tractable DLs 66 5.1 Introduction.................................. 66 5.2 The Description Logic ER?;O ........................ 69 5.3 Mapping Ontologies with ER?;O-Defaults.................. 77 5.3.1 Semantics and Decidability...................... 79 5.3.2 Applying Defeasible Mappings to Unknowns............ 82 5.4 Relationship with Answer sets........................ 86 5.5 Conclusion.................................. 92 6 Implementation and Evaluation 94 6.1 Implementation................................ 94 6.2 Experiments.................................. 98 6.2.1 Mapping Marriage Ontologies.................... 98 6.2.2 Mapping Biomedical Ontologies................... 103 7 Related Work 109 7.1 Non-monotonic Description Logics..................... 109 7.2 Ontology Alignment Repair......................... 111 8 Conclusion 113 8.1 Summary................................... 113 8.1.1 Grounded Circumscription (GC)................... 113 8.1.2 Free Defaults............................. 114 8.1.3 Mapping Language For ER?;O ................... 115 8.2 Future Work.................................. 116 Bibliography 120 A Appendix 136 v List of Figures 2.1 The semantic web layer cake diagram.....................8 2.2 An interpretation I of a knowledge base KB ................. 14 2.3 Interpretations I and J of the knowledge base from Example5...... 24 4.1 Running example with selected axioms.................... 48 4.2 Fragments of two ontologies, (4.17)-(4.21), respectively (4.22)-(4.24), to be aligned.................................... 61 5.1 Example mapping with selected axioms.................... 68 5.2 ER?;O completion rules. New axioms resulting from the rules are added to the existing axioms in KB. Symbols of the form A¯ can be either a class name or a nominal class. We initialize comp(KB) with KB and C v C, ? v C, ? v ? for all named classes C 2 NC ................ 71 5.3 Example mapping............................... 88 6.1 Proteg´ e´ explanation window for the inconsistency in the merged ontology.. 100 6.2 Proteg´ e´ explanation window with explanations # 1, 2 for biomedical on- tologies..................................... 104 6.3 Proteg´ e´ explanation window with explanations # 3, 4 for biomedical on- tologies..................................... 105 6.4 Proteg´ e´ explanation window with explanations # 5, 6 for biomedical on- tologies..................................... 106 vi List of Tables 2.1 Semantics of
Recommended publications
  • Answer Set Programming: a Primer?

    Answer Set Programming: a Primer?

    Answer Set Programming: A Primer? Thomas Eiter1, Giovambattista Ianni2, and Thomas Krennwallner1 1 Institut fur¨ Informationssysteme, Technische Universitat¨ Wien Favoritenstraße 9-11, A-1040 Vienna, Austria feiter,[email protected] 2 Dipartimento di Matematica, Universita´ della Calabria, I-87036 Rende (CS), Italy [email protected] Abstract. Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a declarative problem solving para- digm, rooted in Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, which has been gaining increasing attention during the last years. This article is a gentle introduction to the subject; it starts with motivation and follows the historical development of the challenge of defining a semantics for logic programs with negation. It looks into positive programs over stratified programs to arbitrary programs, and then proceeds to extensions with two kinds of negation (named weak and strong negation), and disjunction in rule heads. The second part then considers the ASP paradigm itself, and describes the basic idea. It shows some programming techniques and briefly overviews Answer Set solvers. The third part is devoted to ASP in the context of the Semantic Web, presenting some formalisms and mentioning some applications in this area. The article concludes with issues of current and future ASP research. 1 Introduction Over the the last years, Answer Set Programming (ASP) [1–5] has emerged as a declar- ative problem solving paradigm that has its roots in Logic Programming and Non- monotonic Reasoning. This particular way of programming, in a language which is sometimes called AnsProlog (or simply A-Prolog) [6, 7], is well-suited for modeling and (automatically) solving problems which involve common sense reasoning: it has been fruitfully applied to a range of applications (for more details, see Section 6).
  • Internship Report — Mpri M2 Advances in Holistic Ontology Alignment

    Internship Report — Mpri M2 Advances in Holistic Ontology Alignment

    Internship Report | Mpri M2 Advances in Holistic Ontology Alignment Internship Report | Mpri M2 Advances in Holistic Ontology Alignment Antoine Amarilli, supervised by Pierre Senellart, T´el´ecomParisTech General Context The development of the semantic Web has given birth to a large number of data sources (ontologies) with independent data and schemas. These ontologies are usually generated from existing relational databases or extracted from semi-structured data. Ontology alignment is a technique to automatically integrate them by discovering overlap in their instances and similarities in their schemas. Such integration makes it possible to access the combined information of all these data sources simultaneously rather than separately. Ontology alignment must deal with numerous challenges: the schemas are heterogeneous, the volume of data is huge, and the information can be partially incomplete or inconsistent. Problem Studied My internship focuses on the Paris (Probabilistic Alignment of Relations, Instances, and Schema) ontology alignment system [SAS11] developed by Fabian Suchanek, Pierre Senellart, and Serge Abiteboul at Inria Saclay's Webdam team. Paris is a generic system which aligns data and schema simultaneously (hence the adjective \holistic") and uses each of these alignments to cross-fertilize the other. The alignments produced are annotated with a confidence score and have a probabilistic interpretation. Paris was able to align large real-world datasets from the semantic Web. The aim of my internship is to propose improvements to Paris on some problems (both theoretical and practical) that were left open by the original system: achieving a better understanding of the behavior of Paris's equations, aligning heterogeneous schemas, being tolerant to differences in the strings of both ontologies, and improving the overall performance of the system.
  • Wiktionary Matcher

    Wiktionary Matcher

    Wiktionary Matcher Jan Portisch1;2[0000−0001−5420−0663], Michael Hladik2[0000−0002−2204−3138], and Heiko Paulheim1[0000−0003−4386−8195] 1 Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim, Germany fjan, [email protected] 2 SAP SE Product Engineering Financial Services, Walldorf, Germany fjan.portisch, [email protected] Abstract. In this paper, we introduce Wiktionary Matcher, an ontology matching tool that exploits Wiktionary as external background knowl- edge source. Wiktionary is a large lexical knowledge resource that is collaboratively built online. Multiple current language versions of Wik- tionary are merged and used for monolingual ontology matching by ex- ploiting synonymy relations and for multilingual matching by exploiting the translations given in the resource. We show that Wiktionary can be used as external background knowledge source for the task of ontology matching with reasonable matching and runtime performance.3 Keywords: Ontology Matching · Ontology Alignment · External Re- sources · Background Knowledge · Wiktionary 1 Presentation of the System 1.1 State, Purpose, General Statement The Wiktionary Matcher is an element-level, label-based matcher which uses an online lexical resource, namely Wiktionary. The latter is "[a] collaborative project run by the Wikimedia Foundation to produce a free and complete dic- tionary in every language"4. The dictionary is organized similarly to Wikipedia: Everybody can contribute to the project and the content is reviewed in a com- munity process. Compared to WordNet [4], Wiktionary is significantly larger and also available in other languages than English. This matcher uses DBnary [15], an RDF version of Wiktionary that is publicly available5. The DBnary data set makes use of an extended LEMON model [11] to describe the data.
  • Answer Set Programming with Default Logic

    Answer Set Programming with Default Logic

    Answer Set Programming with Default Logic Victor W. Marek Jeffrey B. Remmel Department of Computer Science Department of Mathematics University of Kentucky University of California Lexington, KY 40506, USA, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract to be equivalent to Autoepistemic Logic of Moore (Moore 1985). See (Marek and Truszczynski´ 1993) for details. The We develop an Answer Set Programming formalism based basic complexity result for Default Logic was established by on Default Logic. We show that computing generating sets of Gottlob (Gottlob 1992) (see also Stillman (Stillman 1992). extensions in this formalism captures all ΣP search problems. 2 Gottlob found that the decision problems associated with the Default Logic are complete for the second level of polyno- I. Introduction mial hierarchy. Specifically, the existence problem for ex- P The main motivation for this paper comes from recent de- tensions is Σ2 complete, the membership problem for exten- sions (membership in some, membership in all) are com- velopments in knowledge representation theory. In partic- P P ular, a new generation of general solvers have been de- plete, respectively, for Σ2 and Π2 . veloped, (Niemela¨ and Simons 1996; Eiter et. al. 1998; A search problem ((Garey and Johnson 1979)) S has two Cholewinski´ et.al. 1999; Syrjanen 2001; Simons et. al. components. First, S specifies a set of finite instances 2002), based on the so-called Answer Set Programming (Garey and Johnson 1979). For example, the search prob- (ASP) paradigm (Niemela¨ 1998; Marek and Truszczynski´ lem may be to find Hamiltonian paths in a graph so that the 1999; Lifschitz 1999).
  • Term-Based Ontology Alignment

    Term-Based Ontology Alignment

    Term-Based Ontology Alignment Virach Sornlertlamvanich, Canasai Kruengkrai, Shisanu Tongchim, Prapass Srichaivattana, and Hitoshi Isahara Thai Computational Linguistics Laboratory National Institute of Information and Communications Technology 112 Paholyothin Road, Klong 1, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand {virach,canasai,shisanu,prapass}@tcllab.org, [email protected] Abstract. This paper presents an efficient approach to automatically align concepts between two ontologies. We propose an iterative algorithm that performs finding the most appropriate target concept for a given source concept based on the similarity of shared terms. Experimental results on two lexical ontologies, the MMT semantic hierarchy and the EDR concept dictionary, are given to show the feasibility of the proposed algorithm. 1 Introduction In this paper, we propose an efficient approach for finding alignments between two different ontologies. Specifically, we derive the source and the target on- tologies from available language resources, i.e. the machine readable dictionaries (MDRs). In our context, we consider the ontological concepts as the groups of lexical entries having similar or related meanings organized on a semantic hier- archy. The resulting ontology alignment can be used as a semantic knowledge for constructing multilingual dictionaries. Typically, bilingual dictionaries provide the relationship between their native language and English. One can extend these bilingual dictionaries to multilingual dictionaries by exploiting English as an intermediate source and associations between two concepts as semantic constraints. Aligningconceptsbetweentwoontologiesisoftendonebyhumans,whichis an expensive and time-consuming process. This motivates us to find an auto- matic method to perform such task. However, the hierarchical structures of two ontologies are quite different. The structural inconsistency is a common problem [1].
  • Wiktionary Matcher Results for OAEI 2020

    Wiktionary Matcher Results for OAEI 2020

    Wiktionary Matcher Results for OAEI 2020 Jan Portisch1;2[0000−0001−5420−0663] and Heiko Paulheim1[0000−0003−4386−8195] 1 Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim, Germany fjan, [email protected] 2 SAP SE Product Engineering Financial Services, Walldorf, Germany [email protected] Abstract. This paper presents the results of the Wiktionary Matcher in the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) 2020. Wiktionary Matcher is an ontology matching tool that exploits Wiktionary as exter- nal background knowledge source. Wiktionary is a large lexical knowl- edge resource that is collaboratively built online. Multiple current lan- guage versions of Wiktionary are merged and used for monolingual on- tology matching by exploiting synonymy relations and for multilingual matching by exploiting the translations given in the resource. This is the second OAEI participation of the matching system. Wiktionary Matcher has been improved and is the best performing system on the knowledge graph track this year.3 Keywords: Ontology Matching · Ontology Alignment · External Re- sources · Background Knowledge · Wiktionary 1 Presentation of the System 1.1 State, Purpose, General Statement The Wiktionary Matcher is an element-level, label-based matcher which uses an online lexical resource, namely Wiktionary. The latter is "[a] collaborative project run by the Wikimedia Foundation to produce a free and complete dic- tionary in every language"4. The dictionary is organized similarly to Wikipedia: Everybody can contribute to the project and the content is reviewed in a com- munity process. Compared to WordNet [2], Wiktionary is significantly larger and also available in other languages than English. This matcher uses DBnary [13], an RDF version of Wiktionary that is publicly available5.
  • Stable Models Stable Models (‘Answer Sets’) for a Normal Logic Program, a Stable Model Is a Set of Atoms

    Stable Models Stable Models (‘Answer Sets’) for a Normal Logic Program, a Stable Model Is a Set of Atoms

    491 Knowledge Representation Stable models Stable models (‘Answer sets’) For a normal logic program, a stable model is a set of atoms. Let P be a ground normal logic program, i.e., one without variables. If P is not ground Marek Sergot (contains variables) then replace it by all the ground instances of its clauses. (The resulting Department of Computing set of clauses may not be finite.) Imperial College, London Notation When r is a (ground) clause of the form: February 2006 v1.2, November 2016 v1.2c A B ,...,B , not C ,..., not C ← 1 m 1 n + head(r) = A, body (r) = B1,...,Bm , body−(r) = C1,...,Cn . When P is a set of A normal logic program (sometimes a ‘general logic program’) is a set of clauses of the clauses, heads(P ) = head({r) r P .} { } form: { | ∈ } Suppose we have a set X of atoms from the language of P . The idea is that we use X to A L ,...,L (n 0) ← 1 n ≥ simplify P by ‘partially evaluating’ all clauses with nbf-literals against X, and then we see whether the simplified program P X we are left with (the ‘reduct’) has a least Herbrand where A is an atom and each Li is either an atom or a nbf-literal of the form not A where A is an atom. not denotes negation by failure. model that coincides with X. A model of a normal logic program P is a set of atoms X such that T (X) X, or P ⊆ equivalently, such that X is an (ordinary, classical) model of the clauses P ¬ obtained by Definition replacing every occurrence of not in P by ordinary, truth-functional negation .
  • An Ontology-Based Approach to Manage Conflicts in Collaborative Design Moisés Lima Dutra

    An Ontology-Based Approach to Manage Conflicts in Collaborative Design Moisés Lima Dutra

    An ontology-based approach to manage conflicts in collaborative design Moisés Lima Dutra To cite this version: Moisés Lima Dutra. An ontology-based approach to manage conflicts in collaborative design. Other [cs.OH]. Université Claude Bernard - Lyon I, 2009. English. NNT : 2009LYO10241. tel-00692473 HAL Id: tel-00692473 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00692473 Submitted on 30 Apr 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THESE PRESENTEE DEVANT L’UNIVERSITE CLAUDE BERNARD LYON 1 POUR L’OBTENTION DU DIPLOME DE DOCTORAT EN INFORMATIQUE (ARRETE DU 7 AOUT 2006) PRESENTEE ET SOUTENUE PUBLIQUEMENT LE 27 NOVEMBRE 2009 PAR M. MOISÉS LIMA DUTRA AN ONTOLOGY-BASED APPROACH TO MANAGE CONFLICTS IN COLLABORATIVE DESIGN (Une approche basée sur les ontologies pour la gestion de conflits dans un environnement collaboratif) DIRECTEURS DE THESE : PARISA GHODOUS (UNIVERSITE CLAUDE BERNARD LYON 1) RICARDO GONÇALVES (“ORIENTADOR PELA FCT/UNL”, UNIVERSITE NOUVELLE DE LISBONNE) JURY : ARIS OUKSEL (RAPPORTEUR,PROFESSEUR DES UNIVERSITES, UNIVERSITE D’ILLINOIS,
  • Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2020⋆

    Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2020⋆

    Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2020? Mina Abd Nikooie Pour1, Alsayed Algergawy2, Reihaneh Amini3, Daniel Faria4, Irini Fundulaki5, Ian Harrow6, Sven Hertling7, Ernesto Jimenez-Ruiz´ 8;9, Clement Jonquet10, Naouel Karam11, Abderrahmane Khiat12, Amir Laadhar10, Patrick Lambrix1, Huanyu Li1, Ying Li1, Pascal Hitzler3, Heiko Paulheim7, Catia Pesquita13, Tzanina Saveta5, Pavel Shvaiko14, Andrea Splendiani6, Elodie Thieblin´ 15,Cassia´ Trojahn16, Jana Vatasˇcinovˇ a´17, Beyza Yaman18, Ondrejˇ Zamazal17, and Lu Zhou3 1 Linkoping¨ University & Swedish e-Science Research Center, Linkoping,¨ Sweden fmina.abd.nikooie.pour,patrick.lambrix,huanyu.li,[email protected] 2 Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany [email protected] 3 Data Semantics (DaSe) Laboratory, Kansas State University, USA fluzhou,reihanea,[email protected] 4 BioData.pt, INESC-ID, Lisbon, Portugal [email protected] 5 Institute of Computer Science-FORTH, Heraklion, Greece fjsaveta,[email protected] 6 Pistoia Alliance Inc., USA fian.harrow,[email protected] 7 University of Mannheim, Germany fsven,[email protected] 8 City, University of London, UK [email protected] 9 Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway [email protected] 10 LIRMM, University of Montpellier & CNRS, France fjonquet,[email protected] 11 Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, Germany [email protected] 12 Fraunhofer IAIS, Sankt Augustin, Germany [email protected] 13 LASIGE, Faculdade de Ciencias,ˆ Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal [email protected] 14 TasLab, Trentino Digitale SpA, Trento, Italy [email protected] 15 Logilab, France [email protected] 16 IRIT & Universite´ Toulouse II, Toulouse, France [email protected] 17 University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic fjana.vatascinova,[email protected] 18 ADAPT Centre, Dublin City University, Ireland beyza.yamanadaptcentre.ie Abstract.
  • Arxiv:1905.04725V1

    Arxiv:1905.04725V1

    Sequent-Type Proof Systems for Three-Valued Default Logic⋆ Sopo Pkhakadze Institute of Logic and Computation, Knowledge-Based Systems Group E192-03, Technische Universität Wien, Favoritenstraße 9-11, 1040 Vienna, Austria ORCID ID: 0000-0003-2247-8147 [email protected] Abstract. Sequent-type proof systems constitute an important and widely-used class of calculi well-suited for analysing proof search. In my master’s thesis, I in- troduce sequent-type calculi for a variant of default logic employing Łukasiewicz’s three-valued logic as the underlying base logic. This version of default logic has been introduced by Radzikowska addressing some representational shortcomings of standard default logic. More specifically, the calculi discussed in my thesis axiomatise brave and skeptical reasoning for this version of default logic, respec- tively following the sequent method first introduced in the context of nonmono- tonic reasoning by Bonatti and Olivetti, which employ a complementary calculus for axiomatising invalid formulas, taking care of expressing the consistency con- dition of defaults. 1 Background Nonmonotonicreasoning is a well-established area in knowledge representation and rea- soning dealing with formalisations of rational arguments whose characteristic feature is that their conclusions may have to be retracted in the light of new, more specific infor- mation. Thus, the inference mechanism underlying rational arguments is nonmonotonic in the sense that an increased set of premisses does not necessarily entail an increased set of conclusions. This is in contradistinction to valid arguments whose underlying in- arXiv:1905.04725v1 [cs.LO] 12 May 2019 ference process is monotonic. Many different nonmonotonic formalisms have been in- troduced in the literature, most prominent among them are default logic [39], autoepis- temic logic [34], circumscription [32], and logic programming under the answer-set semantics [20,21].
  • What Is Answer Set Programming?

    What Is Answer Set Programming?

    What Is Answer Set Programming? Vladimir Lifschitz Department of Computer Sciences University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station C0500 Austin, TX 78712 [email protected] Abstract Their approach is based on the relationship between plans and stable models described in (Subrahmanian & Zaniolo Answer set programming (ASP) is a form of declarative pro- 1995). Soininen & Niemel¨a(1998) applied what is now gramming oriented towards difficult search problems. As an outgrowth of research on the use of nonmonotonic reason- known as answer set programming to the problem of prod- ing in knowledge representation, it is particularly useful in uct configuration. The use of answer set solvers for search knowledge-intensive applications. ASP programs consist of was identified as a new programming paradigm in (Marek rules that look like Prolog rules, but the computational mech- & Truszczy´nski 1999) (the term “answer set programming” anisms used in ASP are different: they are based on the ideas was used for the first time as the title of a part of the collec- that have led to the creation of fast satisfiability solvers for tion where that paper appeared) and in (Niemel¨a1999). propositional logic. An answer set programming language Introduction System LPARSE was originally created as a front-end for the 3 Answer set programming (ASP) is a form of declarative answer set solver SMODELS, and it is now used in the same 4 programming oriented towards difficult, primarily NP-hard, way in most other answer set solvers. search problems. As an outgrowth of research on the use Some rules found in LPARSE programs are traditional of nonmonotonic reasoning in knowledge representation, it “Prolog-style” rules, such as is particularly useful in knowledge-intensive applications.
  • User Validation in Ontology Alignment

    User Validation in Ontology Alignment

    User validation in ontology alignment Zlatan Dragisic, Valentina Ivanova, Patrick Lambrix, Daniel Faria, Ernesto Jimenez-Ruiz and Catia Pesquita Book Chapter N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original article. Part of: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2016 : 15th International Semantic Web Conference, Kobe, Japan, October 17–21, 2016, Proceedings, Part I, Paul Groth, Elena Simperl, Alasdair Gray, Marta Sabou, Markus Krötzsch, Freddy Lecue, Fabian Flöck and Yolanda Gil (Eds), 2016, pp. 200-217. ISBN: 978-3-319-46522-7 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 0302-9743 (print), 1611-3349 (online), No. 9981 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46523-4_13 Copyright: Springer Publishing Company Available at: Linköping University Electronic Press http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-131806 User validation in ontology alignment Zlatan Dragisic1, Valentina Ivanova1, Patrick Lambrix1, Daniel Faria2, Ernesto Jimenez-Ruiz´ 3, and Catia Pesquita4 1 Linkoping¨ University and the Swedish e-Science Research Centre, Sweden 2 Gulbenkian Science Institute, Portugal 3 University of Oxford, UK 4 LaSIGE, Faculdade de Ciencias,ˆ Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal Abstract. User validation is one of the challenges facing the ontology alignment community, as there are limits to the quality of automated alignment algorithms. In this paper we present a broad study on user validation of ontology alignments that encompasses three distinct but interrelated aspects: the profile of the user, the services of the alignment system, and its user interface. We discuss key issues pertaining to the alignment validation process under each of these aspects, and provide an overview of how current systems address them.