Integrity constraints in OWL ontologies based on grounded circumscription

Abstract

The extensions for logic-based knowledge bases with integrity constraints are rather popular. We put forward an alternative criteria for analysis of integrity constraints in Web ontology language (OWL) ontology under the closed world assumption. According to this criteria, grounded circumscription is applied to define integrity constraints in OWL ontology and the satisfaction of the integrity constraints by minimizing extensions of the predicates in integrity constraints. According to the semantics of integrity constraints, we provide a modified tableau algorithm which is sound and complete for deciding the consistency of an extended ontology. Finally, the integrity constraint validation is converted into the corresponding consistency of the extended ontology. Comparing our approach with existing integrity constraint validation approaches, we show that the results of our approach are more in accordance with user requirements than other approaches in certain cases.

Keywords

semantic Web / description logic / ontology / integrity constraints / grounded circumscription

References

[1] Antoniou G, Van Harmelen F. In: Web ontology language: OWL.Springer, 2004, 67-92

[2] Baader F, McGuinness D L, Nardi D. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2007

[3] Kremen P, Kouba Z. Ontology-driven information system design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 2012, 42(3): 334-344

[4] Khalid M A, Edgar H S. Translating relational & object-relational database models into OWL models. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse & Integration. 2009, 336-341

[5] Kowalski R. Logic for Data Description. Springer, 1978

[6] Eiter T, Lukasiewicz T, Schindlauer R, Tompits H. Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artificial Intelligence, 2008, 172(12): 1495-1539

[7] Motik B, Rosati R. Reconciling description logics and rules. Journal of the ACM, 2010, 57(5): 1-62

[8] Reiter R. On integrity constraints. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge. 1988, 97-111

[9] Levesque H. All I know: a study in autoepistemic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 1990, 42(2): 263-310

[10] Donini F, Lenzerini M, Nardi D, Schaerf A, Nutt W. An epistemic operator for description logics. Artificial Intelligence, 1998, 100(1): 225-274

[11] Donini F, Bari P, Nardi D. Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL), 2002, 3(2): 177-225

[12] Tao J, Sirin E, Bao J, McGuinness D. Integrity constraints in OWL. In: Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2010

[13] Motik B, Horroks I, Sattler U I. Bridging the gap between owl and relational databases. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2009, 7(2): 74-89

[14] Cui X J, Ouyang D T, Ye Y X, Wang H Y. Integrity maintenance of continually changed OWL ontology. Journal of Computational Information Systems, 2012, 8(7): 2931-2939

[15] Ouyang D T, Cui X J, Ye Y X. Mapping integrity constraint ontology to relational databases. The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications, 2010, 17(6): 113-121

[16] Cui X J, Ouyang D T, Ye Y X, Wang X L. Translation of Sparql to SQL based on integrity constraint. Journal of Computational Information Systems, 2011, 7(2): 394-402

[17] McCarthy J. Circumscriptionała form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 1980, 13(1): 27-39

[18] Sengupta K, Krisnadhi A, Hitzler P. Local closed world semantics: grounded circumscription for OWL. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Semantic Web. 2011 (1): 617-632

[19] Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider P F, Harmelen F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2003, 1(1): 7-26

[20] Lifschitz V. Foundations of logic programming. Principles of Knowledge Representation, 1996, 3: 69-127

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg