Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Defeasible Ontology Language

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE (OTM 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2519))

Abstract

We extend the description logic SHOQ(D) with a preference order on the axioms. With this strict partial order certain axioms can be overruled, if defeated with more preferred ones. Furthermore, we impose a preferred model semantics, thus effectively introducing nonmonotonicity into SHOQ(D). Since a description logic can be viewed as an ontology language, or a proper translation of one, we obtain a defeasible ontology language. Finally, we argue that such a defeasible language may be usefully applied for learning and integrating ontologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. F. Baader, D.L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P.F. Patel-Schneider, editors. Description Logic Handbook, chapter 2, pages 47–100. Cambridge University Press, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  2. F. Baader and U. Sattler. Tableau algorithms for description logics. In R. Dyckhoff, editor, Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Reasoning with Tableaux and Related Methods (Tableaux 2000), volume 1847 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1–18, St Andrews, Scotland, UK, 2000. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Franz Baader and Philipp Hanschke. A scheme for integrating concrete domains into concept languages. Technical Report RR-91-10, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Franz Baader and Bernhard Hollunder. Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms. In Bernhard Nebel, Charles Rich, and William Swartout, editors, KR’92. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, pages 306–317, San Mateo, California, 1992. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Franz Baader and Bernhard Hollunder. How to prefer more specific defaults in terminological default logic. In Ruzena Bajcsy, editor, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 669–674, San Mateo, California, 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Bechhofer, C. Goble, and I. Horrocks. DAML+OIL is not enough. In Proceedings of the First Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS’01), pages 151–159. CEUR, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sean Bechhofer, Ian Horrocks, Carole Goble, and Robert Stevens. OilEd: a reason-able ontology editor for the semantic web. In Proceedings of KI2001, Joint German/Austrian conference on Artificial Intelligence, number 2174 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 396–408, Vienna, September 2001. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  8. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, pages 34–43, May 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Borgida and R. Küsters. What’s not in a name: Some Properties of a Purely Structural Approach to Integrating Large DL Knowledge Bases. In F. Baader and U. Sattler, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2000), number 33 in CEUR-WS, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Decker, F. van Harmelen, J. Broekstra, M. Erdmann, D. Fensel, I. Horrocks, M. Klein, and S._Melnik. The SemanticWeb-on the respective roles of XML and RDF. IEEE Internet Computing, September-October 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. Fensel, I. Horrocks, F. van Harmelen, S. Decker, M. Erdmann, and M. Klein. OIL in a Nutshell. In R. Dieng et al., editor, Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling, and Management, Proceedings of the European Knowledge Acquisition Conference (EKAW-2000), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D. McGuinness, and P. F. Patel-Schneider. OIL: An ontology infrastructure for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2):38–45, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. D. Gabbay, E. Laenens, and D. Vermeir. Credulous vs. sceptical semantics for ordered logic programs. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 208–217. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  14. P. Geerts and D. Vermeir. Defeasible logics. In D. M. Gabbay and P. Smets, editors, Handbook of defeasible reasoning and uncertainty management systems, volume 2, pages 175–210. Kluwer Academic Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J.C. Hage, H.B. Verheij, and A.R. Lodder. Reason Based Logic; a Logic that Deals with Rules and Reasons. In J.M. Akkermans and J.A. Breuker, editors, Working Papers NAIC’ 93, pages 293–304. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. Heymans and D. Vermeir. Using Preference Order in Ontologies. 2002. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  17. I. Horrocks. A denotational semantics for Standard OIL and Instance OIL. http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/downl/semantics.pdf, 2000.

  18. I. Horrocks, D. Fensel, J. Boekstra, S. Decker, M. Erdmann, C. Goble, F. Van Harmelen, M. Klein, S. Staab, R. Studer, and E. Motta. The ontology inference layer OIL. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dieter/oil/Tr/oil.pdf, 2000.

  19. I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. Ontology reasoning in the SHOQ(D) description logic. In B. Nebel, editor, Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-01), pages 199–204. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. I. Horrocks, U. Sattler, and S. Tobies. Reasoning with individuals for the description logic SHIQ. In David MacAllester, editor, Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE-17), number 1831 in Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence, pages 482–496. Springer-Verlag, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler, and Stephan Tobies. Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In Harald Ganzinger, David McAllester, and Andrei Voronkov, editors, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR’99), number 1705, pages 161–180. Springer-Verlag, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  22. E. Laenens and D. Vermeir. A Logical Basis for Object Oriented programming. In J. Siekmann, editor, Logics in AI, number 478 in Lecture notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 317–332. Springer-Verlag, September 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ora Lassila and Ralph R. Swick. Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax specification. W3C Recommendation-http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/, February 1999.

  24. Tom Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  25. N.F. Noy and M.A. Musen. SMART: Automated Support for Ontology Merging and Alignment. In Proceedings of the TwelfthWorkshop on Knowledge Acquisition (KAW’99), Banf, Canada, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J.J. Quantz and M. Ryan. Preferential Default Description Logics. KIT 110, Technische Universität Berlin, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mark Ryan. Representing Defaults as Sentences with Reduced Priority. In Bernhard Nebel, Charles Rich, and William Swartout, editors, KR’92. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, pages 649–660. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Andrea Schaerf. Reasoning with individuals in concept languages. Data Knowledge Engineering, 13(2):141–176, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mike Uschold and Michael Grüninger. Ontologies: principles, methods, and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2):93–155, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Computer Science, Free University of Brussels, VUB, Brussels

    S. Heymans & D. Vermeir

Authors
  1. S. Heymans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Vermeir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DOA Institute, p/a Leeuwlantstraat 83, 2100, Antwerp, Belgium

    Robert Meersman

  2. RMIT University School of Computer Science and IT, GPO Box 2476V, VIC 3001, Melbourne, Australia

    Zahir Tari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Heymans, S., Vermeir, D. (2002). A Defeasible Ontology Language. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE. OTM 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2519. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36124-3_66

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36124-3_66

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00106-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36124-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation