DOCSLIB.ORG

Semantic Similarity in Owl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Semantic Similarity in Owl SEMANTIC SIMILARITY IN OWL THIRD YEAR PROJECT REPORT May 2016 Project Supervisor Professor Uli Sattler By Olumide Mosinmileoluwa Adenmosun BSc.(Hons) Computer Science with Industrial Experience University of Manchester Contents Abstract v Declaration vi Acknowledgements vii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Semantic Similarity . .1 1.1.1 Existing approaches . .1 1.2 Why is this tool needed? . .2 1.3 Project goals . .2 1.4 Report structure . .2 2 Background 4 2.1 The Semantic Web . .4 2.2 What is an ontology? . .4 2.3 Description Logics . .5 2.4 OWL . .6 2.4.1 Overview . .6 2.4.2 The OWL API . .7 2.4.3 OWL Reasoners . .7 2.5 Protégé . .8 2.6 The Similarity Measures . .9 2.6.1 Atomic Similarity (AtomicSim)............. 10 2.6.2 Subconcept Similarity (SubSim)............. 10 2.6.3 Grammar Similarity (GrammarSim).......... 10 i CONTENTS ii 3 Design 12 3.1 Design approach . 12 3.2 Project Requirements . 13 3.2.1 Functional requirements . 13 3.2.2 Non-functional requirements . 13 3.3 Project Architecture . 14 3.4 Development Decisions . 14 3.4.1 Protégé 4(P4) . 15 3.4.2 OWL API . 15 3.5 Plugin Architecture . 16 3.6 UI Designs . 17 3.6.1 Plugin interface design . 17 3.6.2 Debuggr! . 18 3.7 Summary . 18 4 Implementation 19 4.1 Implementing the Similarity Measures . 19 4.1.1 Atomic Similarity . 19 4.1.2 Subconcept Similarity . 21 4.2 Debuggr! . 23 4.3 Developing the Plugin UI . 24 4.4 Developing the manager class . 25 4.5 Challenges . 26 5 Results 27 5.1 Walkthrough and Functional Requirements . 27 5.2 Non-functional requirements . 30 6 Testing and Evaluation 31 6.1 Manual Testing . 31 6.2 Unit Testing . 31 6.3 Evaluating the Similarity Measures . 32 6.3.1 Results . 33 7 Conclusions 36 7.1 Summary . 36 7.2 Achievements . 36 7.2.1 Things I would have like to do . 37 7.3 Future work . 37 7.4 Final remarks . 37 A NCI Atomic Sim Output 40 List of Figures 2.1 Protégé user interface . .8 3.1 Component interactions . 14 3.2 Initial Plugin Architecture . 16 3.3 The plugin design . 17 3.4 The Debuggr! design . 18 4.1 The finished Debuggr! design . 23 5.1 Plugin tab view . 27 5.2 Reasoner not initialised . 28 5.3 Selecting classes using the class selection panel . 28 5.4 Classes not correctly selected . 28 5.5 Selecting a similarity measure . 29 5.6 Results of the similarity calculation . 29 6.1 Results from the NCI group . 34 6.2 Results from the SNOMED group . 35 List of Listings 4.1 Pseudo-code for getting subsuming classes . 20 4.2 Pseudo-code for AtomicSim calculations . 20 4.3 Approach 1 - Pseudo-code for collecting subsuming class ex- pressions . 21 4.4 Approach 1 - Pseudo-code for SubSim calculations . 22 iii 4.5 Approach 2 - Pseudo-code for adding subsuming class to the ontology . 22 4.6 Pseudo-code for selection listener . 24 4.7 Pseudo-code for update selection method . 25 4.8 Pseudo-code to parse class expression . 25 4.9 Example class expression in functional OWL syntax . 25 List of Tables 6.1 Table of Results . 33 6.2 Pearson coefficient between Expert values and similarity mea- sures . 33 iv Abstract Different disciplines have taken varying views of the concept of similarity. With the increase in data, extension of the principles of the world wide web to the retrieval of data is the intention of the semantic web. There are many possible applications of semantic similarity that make a standard framework for calculation of semantic similarity measurements im- portant. This report details the design and implementation of the aforementioned similarity measurements in a plugin for Protégé as a tool for calculating the aforementioned similarity in OWL ontologies. This tool is built as a plugin in ontology editor, Protégé. An evaluation of the similarity measures is also carried out. Project Title: Semantic Similarity in OWL. Author: Olumide Mosinmileoluwa Adenmosun. Degree: BSc(Hons) in Computer Science with Industrial Experience. Supervisor: Uli Sattler. v Declaration No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. vi Acknowledgements Thank you Uli for the encouragement, help and for explaining the tricky stuff. I would also like to give huge thanks to Nico for answering my questions and giving advice on implementing said tricky stuff. This has been an interesting academic year. I am so thankful for the help and support I have received from so many these last few months. Thanks to my project mates who made the project sessions fun and enjoyable, offering advice on everything from test cases to LATEXtemplates. Last and definitely not least I would like to say a huge thanks to Tiny, Beaw and M. Your love, support and encouragement got me through the year. P.S. I finished!!! vii Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Semantic Similarity Semantic Similarity between two terms or sets of documents is defined as the degree of "sameness" between the terms as measured by comparing the information describing their properties. 1.1.1 Existing approaches Existing semantic similarity measures are classified into two categories[MPL+14]: Path-based measures based on consideration of the shortest path be- tween the terms in a taxonomy, i.e., a tree or a possibly acyclic directed graph[Als15, MPL+14]. • Rada et al.[RMBB89] is a measure that traverses the shortest path be- tween two concepts. The length is calculated by counting the number of edges between the two concepts through their least common sub- sumer(LCS), 1 + sim(c1,c2) = minpath(c1,c2) [MPL 14]. The LCS is the closest common ancestor with the the minimum number of IS-A links with concepts c1 and c2), [Sli13]. • Wu and Palmer extends this considering the depth of the LCS in the calculation[MPL+14]. 2∗depthT oRoot(LCS) sim(c1,c2) = depthT oLCS(c1)+depthT oLCS(c2)+2∗depthT oRoot(LCS) [Sli13]. 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2 Information content-based measures based on measurement of proba- bility of a concept occurring concept in a hierarchy. The supposition being the more frequent a concept appears the less specific it is. Therefore, a con- cept with a high IC value is more specific to a topic than a low IC value. IC is defined as ICc = −logPc, where the Pc is the probability of encountering an instance of it.[Als15, MPL+14] In [Als15], Alsubait identifies the shortcomings of these similarity measures. Path-based approaches are imprecise as they only consider atomic subsump- tion ignoring any complex subsumers. The other measures impose require- ments on the ontology such as low expressivity. A new family of measures is required to precisely measure the semantic simi- larity of terms in ontologies. These individual measures vary in their accuracy and computational cost based on what features they consider[APS15]. 1.2 Why is this tool needed? 1.3 Project goals The goals of the project are to: • Implement similarity tool as a Protégé plugin. The objective was to build a protégé plug in that would allow any users to calculate the semantic similarity between classes in an OWL ontology • A second objective was to test and evaluate the correctness of the results of the similarity measures implemented. 1.4 Report structure This section gives an overview of the structure of this document and a sum- mary of information in the following chapters of the report Chapter 2 provides relevant background information on tools and technolo- gies used. I also further explain the similarity measures to be implemented as defined in [Als15] CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3 Chapter 3 gives information about design decisions, requirements(functional and non-functional), and the architecture of the deliverable. Chapter 4 gives details about the technical aspects behind the component development and implementation. Chapter 5 details the achievements of the project. I give a walkthrough of the finished product and compare it against the functional and non-functional requirements defined. Chapter 6 details the testing and evaluation of the finished product. Chapter 7 concludes the report giving my final view on the achievements of the project, possible future work and things I would have done differently. Chapter 2 Background This chapter provides a high level explanation of the tools and technology used in the development of the Semantic Similarity deliverable to achieve the objectives outlined in Chapter 1. Terms used in the report are defined and explained here. 2.1 The Semantic Web The intention of the Semantic Web1 is to the extend the principles of the World Wide Web[FH09] and make data easily accessible using general Web technology. The Semantic Web provides a common framework for data to be "shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community bound- aries"[FH09]. 2.2 What is an ontology? In the context of the Semantic Web, an ontology is a "machine-processable en- cyclopaedia"[Sat15]. It allows electronic agents to infer possible relationships between data and to resolve domain-specific user queries. Researchers and experts have developed specialised ontologies to annotate and share domain- specific information within communities[NM00, SRH10]. An example is the 1https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ 4 CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND 5 National Cancer Institute Thesaurus(NCIt)2, a public ontology that contains over 100, 000 textual definitions of terms and over 400, 000 links between concepts. 2.3 Description Logics Description Logics(DLs)[KSH12] are "a family of knowledge representation languages that present the knowledge of an application domain in a struc- tured and formally well-understood way"[BHS08].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Logical Framework for Modularity of Ontologies∗
    A Logical Framework for Modularity of Ontologies∗ Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Yevgeny Kazakov and Ulrike Sattler The University of Manchester School of Computer Science Manchester, M13 9PL, UK {bcg, horrocks, ykazakov, sattler }@cs.man.ac.uk Abstract ontology itself by possibly reusing the meaning of external symbols. Hence by merging an ontology with external on- Modularity is a key requirement for collaborative tologies we import the meaning of its external symbols to de- ontology engineering and for distributed ontology fine the meaning of its local symbols. reuse on the Web. Modern ontology languages, To make this idea work, we need to impose certain con- such as OWL, are logic-based, and thus a useful straints on the usage of the external signature: in particular, notion of modularity needs to take the semantics of merging ontologies should be “safe” in the sense that they ontologies and their implications into account. We do not produce unexpected results such as new inconsisten- propose a logic-based notion of modularity that al- cies or subsumptions between imported symbols. To achieve lows the modeler to specify the external signature this kind of safety, we use the notion of conservative exten- of their ontology, whose symbols are assumed to sions to define modularity of ontologies, and then prove that be defined in some other ontology. We define two a property of some ontologies, called locality, can be used restrictions on the usage of the external signature, to achieve modularity. More precisely, we define two no- a syntactic and a slightly less restrictive, seman- tions of locality for SHIQ TBoxes: (i) a tractable syntac- tic one, each of which is decidable and guarantees tic one which can be used to provide guidance in ontology a certain kind of “black-box” behavior, which en- editing tools, and (ii) a more general semantic one which can ables the controlled merging of ontologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Deciding Semantic Matching of Stateless Services∗
    Deciding Semantic Matching of Stateless Services∗ Duncan Hull†, Evgeny Zolin†, Andrey Bovykin‡, Ian Horrocks†, Ulrike Sattler†, and Robert Stevens† School of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, † ‡ University of Manchester, UK University of Liverpool, UK Abstract specifying automated reasoning algorithms for such stateful service descriptions is basically impossible in the presence We present a novel approach to describe and reason about stateless information processing services. It can of any expressive ontology (Baader et al. 2005). Stateless- be seen as an extension of standard descriptions which ness implies that we do not need to formulate pre- and post- makes explicit the relationship between inputs and out- conditions since our services do not change the world. puts and takes into account OWL ontologies to fix the The question we are interested in here is how to help the meaning of the terms used in a service description. This biologist to find a service he or she is looking for, i.e., a allows us to define a notion of matching between ser- service that works with inputs and outputs the biologist can vices which yields high precision and recall for service provide/accept, and that provides the required functionality. location. We explain why matching is decidable, and The growing number of publicly available biomedical web provide biomedical example services to illustrate the utility of our approach. services, 3000 as of February 2006, required better match- ing techniques to locate services. Thus, we are concerned with the question of how to describe a service request Q Introduction and service advertisements Si such that the notion of a ser- Understanding the data generated from genome sequenc- vice S matching the request Q can be defined in a “useful” ing projects like the Human Genome Project is recognised way.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology-Based Methods for Analyzing Life Science Data
    Habilitation a` Diriger des Recherches pr´esent´ee par Olivier Dameron Ontology-based methods for analyzing life science data Soutenue publiquement le 11 janvier 2016 devant le jury compos´ede Anita Burgun Professeur, Universit´eRen´eDescartes Paris Examinatrice Marie-Dominique Devignes Charg´eede recherches CNRS, LORIA Nancy Examinatrice Michel Dumontier Associate professor, Stanford University USA Rapporteur Christine Froidevaux Professeur, Universit´eParis Sud Rapporteure Fabien Gandon Directeur de recherches, Inria Sophia-Antipolis Rapporteur Anne Siegel Directrice de recherches CNRS, IRISA Rennes Examinatrice Alexandre Termier Professeur, Universit´ede Rennes 1 Examinateur 2 Contents 1 Introduction 9 1.1 Context ......................................... 10 1.2 Challenges . 11 1.3 Summary of the contributions . 14 1.4 Organization of the manuscript . 18 2 Reasoning based on hierarchies 21 2.1 Principle......................................... 21 2.1.1 RDF for describing data . 21 2.1.2 RDFS for describing types . 24 2.1.3 RDFS entailments . 26 2.1.4 Typical uses of RDFS entailments in life science . 26 2.1.5 Synthesis . 30 2.2 Case study: integrating diseases and pathways . 31 2.2.1 Context . 31 2.2.2 Objective . 32 2.2.3 Linking pathways and diseases using GO, KO and SNOMED-CT . 32 2.2.4 Querying associated diseases and pathways . 33 2.3 Methodology: Web services composition . 39 2.3.1 Context . 39 2.3.2 Objective . 40 2.3.3 Semantic compatibility of services parameters . 40 2.3.4 Algorithm for pairing services parameters . 40 2.4 Application: ontology-based query expansion with GO2PUB . 43 2.4.1 Context . 43 2.4.2 Objective .
    [Show full text]
  • Description Logics
    Description Logics Franz Baader1, Ian Horrocks2, and Ulrike Sattler2 1 Institut f¨urTheoretische Informatik, TU Dresden, Germany [email protected] 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK {horrocks,sattler}@cs.man.ac.uk Summary. In this chapter, we explain what description logics are and why they make good ontology languages. In particular, we introduce the description logic SHIQ, which has formed the basis of several well-known ontology languages, in- cluding OWL. We argue that, without the last decade of basic research in description logics, this family of knowledge representation languages could not have played such an important rˆolein this context. Description logic reasoning can be used both during the design phase, in order to improve the quality of ontologies, and in the deployment phase, in order to exploit the rich structure of ontologies and ontology based information. We discuss the extensions to SHIQ that are required for languages such as OWL and, finally, we sketch how novel reasoning services can support building DL knowledge bases. 1 Introduction The aim of this section is to give a brief introduction to description logics, and to argue why they are well-suited as ontology languages. In the remainder of the chapter we will put some flesh on this skeleton by providing more technical details with respect to the theory of description logics, and their relationship to state of the art ontology languages. More detail on these and other matters related to description logics can be found in [6]. Ontologies There have been many attempts to define what constitutes an ontology, per- haps the best known (at least amongst computer scientists) being due to Gruber: “an ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualisation” [47].3 In this context, a conceptualisation means an abstract model of some aspect of the world, taking the form of a definition of the properties of important 3 This was later elaborated to “a formal specification of a shared conceptualisation” [21].
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 11Th International Workshop on Ontology
    Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2016) Pavel Shvaiko, Jérôme Euzenat, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Michelle Cheatham, Oktie Hassanzadeh, Ryutaro Ichise To cite this version: Pavel Shvaiko, Jérôme Euzenat, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Michelle Cheatham, Oktie Hassanzadeh, et al.. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2016). Ontology matching workshop, Kobe, Japan. No commercial editor., pp.1-252, 2016. hal-01421835 HAL Id: hal-01421835 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01421835 Submitted on 15 Jul 2019 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. Ontology Matching OM-2016 Proceedings of the ISWC Workshop Introduction Ontology matching1 is a key interoperability enabler for the semantic web, as well as a useful tactic in some classical data integration tasks dealing with the semantic hetero- geneity problem. It takes ontologies as input and determines as output an alignment, that is, a set of correspondences between the semantically related entities of those on- tologies. These correspondences can be used for various tasks, such as ontology merg- ing, data translation, query answering or navigation on the web of data. Thus, matching ontologies enables the knowledge and data expressed in the matched ontologies to in- teroperate.
    [Show full text]
  • Justification Oriented Proofs In
    Justification Oriented Proofs in OWL Matthew Horridge, Bijan Parsia, and Ulrike Sattler School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester Abstract. Justifications — that is, minimal entailing subsets of an on- tology — are currently the dominant form of explanation provided by ontology engineering environments, especially those focused on the Web Ontology Language (OWL). Despite this, there are naturally occurring justifications that can be very difficult to understand. In essence, justifi- cations are merely the premises of a proof and, as such, do not articulate the (often non-obvious) reasoning which connect those premises with the conclusion. This paper presents justification oriented proofs as a poten- tial solution to this problem. 1 Introduction and Motivation Modern ontology development environments such as Prot´eg´e-4, the NeOn Toolkit, Swoop, and Top Braid Composer, allow users to request explanations for entail- ments (inferences) that they encounter when editing or browsing ontologies. In- deed, the provision of explanation generating functionality is generally seen as being a vital component in such tools. Over the last few years, justifications have become the dominant form of explanation in these tools. This paper examines justifications as a kind of explanation and highlights some problems with them. It then presents justification lemmatisation as a non-standard reasoning service, which can be used to augment a justification with intermediate inference steps, and gives rise to a structure known as a justification oriented proof. Ultimately, a justification oriented proof could be used as an input into some presentation de- vice to help a person step though a justification that is otherwise too difficult for them to understand.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    Curriculum vitae Thomas Andreas Meyer 25 August 2019 Address Room 312, Computer Science Building University of Cape Town University Avenue, Rondebosch Tel: +27 12 650 5519 e-mail: [email protected] WWW: http://cs.uct.ac.za/~tmeyer Biographical information Date of birth: 14 January 1964, Randburg, South Africa. Marital status: Married to Louise Leenen. We have two children. Citizenship: Australian and South African. Qualifications 1. PhD (Computer Science), University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, 1999. 2. MSc (Computer Science), Rand Afrikaans University (now the University of Johan- nesburg), Johannesburg, South Africa, 1986. 3. BSc Honours (Computer Science) with distinction, Rand Afrikaans University (now the University of Johannesburg), Johannesburg, South Africa, 1985. 4. BSc (Computer Science, Mathematical Statistics), Rand Afrikaans University (now the University of Johannesburg), Johannesburg, South Africa, 1984. 1 Employment and positions held 1. July 2015 to date: Professor, Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 2. July 2015 to June 2020: Director, Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research (CAIR), CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa. 3. July 2015 to June 2020: UCT-CSIR Chair in Artificial Intelligence, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 4. August 2011 to June 2015: Chief Scientist, CSIR Meraka Institute, Pretoria, South Africa. 5. May 2011 to June 2015: Director of the UKZN/CSIR Meraka Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research, CSIR and University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. 6. August 2007 to July 2011: Principal Researcher, CSIR Meraka Institute, Pretoria, South Africa. 7. August 2007 to June 2015: Research Group Leader of the Knowledge Representation and Reasoning group (KRR) at the CSIR Meraka Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Owl2, Rif, Sparql1.1)
    http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/ http://www.deri.ie The Role of Logics and Logic Programming in Semantic Web Standards (OWL2, RIF, SPARQL1.1) Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) National University of Ireland, Galway 1 Outline ESWC2010 Quick intro of RDF/OWL/Linked Open Data OWL2 Overview: from OWL 1 to OWL 2 Reasoning services in OWL 2 OWL2 Treactable Fragments (OWL2RL, OWL2EL, OWL2QL) OWL2 and RIF OWL2 and SPARQL1.1 Time allowed: Implementing SPARQL, OWL2RL, RIF on top of DLV – The GiaBATA system 2 Example: Finding experts/reviewers? ESWC2010 Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly, Lalana Kagal, Yosi Scharf, Jim Hendler: N3Logic: A logical framework for the World Wide Web. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), Volume 8, p249-269 Who are the right reviewers? Who has the right expertise? Which reviewers are in conflict? Observation: Most of the necessary data already on the Web, as RDF! More and more of it follows the Linked Data principles, i.e.: 1. Use URIs as names for things 2. Use HTTP dereferenceable URIs so that people can look up those names. 3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information. 4. Include links to other URIs so that they can discover more things. 3 RDF on the Web ESWC2010 (i) directly by the publishers (ii) by e.g. transformations, D2R, RDFa exporters, etc. FOAF/RDF linked from a home page: personal data (foaf:name, foaf:phone, etc.), relationships foaf:knows, rdfs:seeAlso ) 4 RDF on the Web ESWC2010 (i) directly by the publishers (ii) by e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents - Part II
    Table of Contents - Part II Semantic Web In-Use Track KOIOS: Utilizing Semantic Search for Easy-Access and Visualization of Structured Environmental Data 1 Veil Bicer, Thanh Tran, Andreas Abecker, and Radoslav Nedkov Wiki-Based Conceptual Modeling: An Experience with the Public Administration 17 Cristiano Casagni, Chiara Di Francescomarino, Mauro Dragoni, Licia Fiorentini, Luca Franci, Matteo Gerosa, Chiara Ghidini, Federica Rizzoli, Marco Rospocher, Anna Rovella, Luciano Serajini, Stefania Sparaco, and Alessandro Tabarroni Linking Semantic Desktop Data to the Web of Data 33 Laura Drägan, Renaud Delbru, Tudor Groza, Siegfried Handschuh, and Stefan Decker Linking Data across Universities: An Integrated Video Lectures Dataset 49 Miriam Fernandez, Mathieu d'Aquin, and Enrico Motta Mind Your Metadata: Exploiting Semantics for Configuration, Adaptation, and Provenance in Scientific Workflows 65 Yolanda Gil, Pedro Szekely, Sandra Villamizar, Thomas C. Harmon, Varun Ratnakar, Shubham Gupta, Maria Muslea, Fabio Silva, and Craig A. Knoblock Using Semantic Web Technologies to Build a Community-Driven Knowledge Curation Platform for the Skeletal Dysplasia Domain 81 Tudor Groza, Andreas Zankl, Yuan-Fang Li, and Jane Hunter Cyber Scientific Test Language 97 Peter Haglich, Robert Grimshaw, Steven Wilder, Marian Nodine, and Bryan Lyles How to "Make a Bridge to the New Town" Using OntoAccess 112 Matthias Hert, Giacomo Ghezzi, Michael Würsch, and Harald C. Gall The MetaLex Document Server: Legal Documents as Versioned Linked Data 128 Rinke Hoekstra Bibliografische
    [Show full text]
  • Data Complexity of Reasoning in Very Expressive Description Logics
    Data Complexity of Reasoning in Very Expressive Description Logics Ullrich Hustadt Boris Motik Ulrike Sattler Dept. of Computer Science Forschungszentrum Informatik Dept. of Computer Science Univ. of Liverpool, UK Univ. of Karlsruhe, Germany Univ. of Manchester, UK [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract reasoning problems are P-complete in |A|. To develop an intuition and to provide a more detailed account of these re- Data complexity of reasoning in description logics sults, we compare them with similar results for (variants of) (DLs) estimates the performance of reasoning al- datalog [Dantsin et al., 2001]. gorithms measured in the size of the ABox only. Our results are important since they provide a formal justi- We show that, even for the very expressive DL fication for hoping to provide tractable algorithms for very ex- SHIQ, satisfiability checking is data complete for pressive description logics. Furthermore, Horn-SHIQ sub- NP. For applications with large ABoxes, this can sumes DL-lite [Calvanese et al., 2004], a logic aiming to be a more accurate estimate than the usually con- capture most constructs of ER and UML formalisms, while sidered combined complexity, which is EXPTIME- providing polynomial algorithms for satisfiability checking complete. Furthermore, we identify an expressive and conjunctive query answering (assuming an unbounded fragment, Horn-SHIQ, which is data complete for knowledge base, but a bound on the query size). Horn- P, thus being very appealing for practical usage. SHIQ additionally allows qualified existential quantifica- tion, conditional functionality and role inclusions, while al- 1 Introdcution lowing for a reasoning algorithm that runs in time polynomial Description logics (DLs) [Baader et al., 2003] are state-of- in the size of data.
    [Show full text]
  • Justification Masking In
    Proc. 23rd Int. Workshop on Description Logics (DL2010), CEUR-WS 573, Waterloo, Canada, 2010. Justification Masking in OWL Matthew Horridge1, Bijan Parsia1, Ulrike Sattler1 The University of Manchester, UK Abstract. This paper presents a discussion on the phenomena of mask- ing in the context of justifications for entailments. Various types of mask- ing are introduced and a definition for each type is given. 1 Introduction Many open source and commercial ontology development tools such as Prot´eg´e- 4, Swoop, The NeOn Toolkit and Top Braid Composer use justifications [5] as a kind of explanation for entailments in ontologies. A justification for an entail- ment, also known as a MinA [1, 2], or a MUPS [11] if specific to explaining why a class name is unsatisfiable, is a minimal subset of an ontology that is sufficient for the given entailment to hold. More precisely, a justification is taken to be a subset minimal set of axioms that supports an entailment. Justifications are a popular in the OWL world and, as the widespread tooling support shows, have been used in preference to full blown proofs for explaining why an entailment follows from a set of axioms. However, despite the popularity of justifications, they suffer from several problems. Some of these problems, namely issues arising from the potential su- perfluity of axioms in justifications, were highlighted in [3]. Specifically, while all of the axioms in a justification are needed to support the entailment in question, there may be parts of these axioms that are not required for the entailment to hold. For example, consider J = {A ⊑ ∃R.B, Domain(R, C),C ⊑ D ⊓E} which entails A ⊑ D.
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Study of Logic-Based Modules: Cheap Is Cheerful
    Empirical Study of Logic-Based Modules: Cheap Is Cheerful Chiara Del Vescovo1, Pavel Klinov2, Bijan Parsia1, Ulrike Sattler1, Thomas Schneider3, and Dmitry Tsarkov1 1 University of Manchester, UK {delvescc|bparsia|sattler|tsarkov}@cs.man.ac.uk 2 University of Ulm, Germany [email protected] 3 Universit¨atBremen, Germany [email protected] Abstract. For ontology reuse and integration, a number of approaches have been devised that aim at identifying modules, i.e., suitably small sets of \relevant" axioms from ontologies. Here we consider three logically sound notions of modules: MEX modules, only applicable to inexpressive ontologies; modules based on semantic locality, a sound approximation of the first; and modules based on syntactic locality, a sound approximation of the second (and thus the first), widely used since these modules can be extracted from OWL DL ontologies in time polynomial in the size of the ontology. In this paper we investigate the quality of both approximations over a large corpus of ontologies, using our own implementation of seman- tic locality, which is the first to our knowledge. In particular, we show with statistical significance that, in most cases, there is no difference between the two module notions based on locality; where they differ, the additional axioms can either be easily ruled out or their number is relatively small. We classify the axioms that explain the rare differences into four kinds of \culprits" and discuss which of those can be avoided by extending the definition of syntactic locality. Finally, we show that differences between MEX and locality-based modules occur for a minor- ity of ontologies from our corpus and largely affect (approximations of) expressive ontologies { this conclusion relies on a much larger and more diverse sample than existing comparisons between MEX and syntactic locality-based modules.
    [Show full text]