A New Approach of Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies
نویسندگان
چکیده
Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies is to use an inconsistency reasoner to get meaningful answers from inconsistent ontologies. In this paper, we propose an improved inconsistency reasoner which selects some consistent subsets by using minimal inconsistent sets(MIS) and a resolution method to improve the run-time performance of the reasoning processing. A minimal inconsistent set contains a minimal explanation for the inconsistency of an ontology. Thus, it can replace the consistency checking operation, which is executed frequently in the existing approaches. When selecting subsets of the inconsistent ontology, we select formulas which can be directly or indirectly resolved with the negation of the query formula, because only those formulas have effects on the consequences of the reasoner. In this paper, we prove that the complexity of the reasoning processing is reduced a lot. Furthermore, the experimental results show that the run-time performance of the inconsistency reasoner has been significantly improved.
منابع مشابه
A Method of Contrastive Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies
Contrastive reasoning is the reasoning with contrasts which are expressed as contrary conjunctions like the word ”but” in natural language. Contrastive answers are more informative for reasoning with inconsistent ontologies, as compared with the usual simple Boolean answer, i.e., either ”yes” or ”no”. In this paper, we propose a method of computing contrastive answers from inconsistent ontologi...
متن کاملAn Argumentative Approach to Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies
Standard approaches to reasoning with Description Logics (DL) ontologies require them to be consistent. However, as ontologies are complex entities and sometimes built upon other imported ontologies, inconsistencies can arise. In this paper, we present a framework for reasoning with inconsistent DL ontologies. Our proposal involves expressing DL ontologies as Defeasible Logic Programs (DeLP). G...
متن کاملUsing Semantic Distances for Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies1
Re-using and combining multiple ontologies on the Web is bound to lead to inconsistencies between the combined vocabularies. Even many of the ontologies that are in use today turn out to be inconsistent once some of their implicit knowledge is made explicit. However, robust and efficient methods to deal with inconsistencies are lacking from current Semantic Web reasoning systems, which are typi...
متن کاملReasoning with Uncertain and Inconsistent OWL Ontologies
Reasoning with uncertainty and inconsistency in description logics are two important issues in the development of description logicbased ontology engineering. When constructing ontologies, one may obtain ontologies that are inconsistent and are pervaded with uncertain information, such as confidence values. In this paper, we propose some approaches to reasoning with inconsistent and uncertain o...
متن کاملContrastive Reasoning for the Semantic Web
The sentences “but” are used frequently in natural languages. However, the semantics of “but” has not yet been well studied in logic and reasoning. Contrastive reasoning is the reasoning with contrasts which are expressed as contrary conjunctions like the word ”but” in natural language. Contrastive answers are more informative for reasoning with inconsistent ontologies, as compared with the usu...
متن کامل