Zhisheng huang frank van harmelen vrije university amsterdam karlsruhe oct 28 th 200 8
1 / 27

Zhisheng Huang, Frank van Harmelen Vrije University Amsterdam Karlsruhe , Oct 28 th 200 8 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Zhisheng Huang, Frank van Harmelen Vrije University Amsterdam Karlsruhe , Oct 28 th 200 8. Using Semantic Distances for Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies. One cannot live without inconsistency . Carl Jung (1875-1961) There is nothing constant in this world b ut inconsistency .

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Zhisheng Huang, Frank van Harmelen Vrije University Amsterdam Karlsruhe , Oct 28 th 200 8' - viet

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Zhisheng huang frank van harmelen vrije university amsterdam karlsruhe oct 28 th 200 8

Zhisheng Huang,Frank van Harmelen

Vrije University Amsterdam

Karlsruhe, Oct28th 2008

Using Semantic Distances for Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies

One cannot live without


Carl Jung (1875-1961)

There is nothing constantin this world butinconsistency.

Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)

The importance of the inconsistency problem
The importance of the inconsistency problem

  • A key ingredient of the Semantic Web vision is avoiding to impose asingle ontology. Hence, merging ontologies is a key step.

  • Merging multipleontologies can quickly lead to inconsistencies[Hameed 2003].

  • Migration and evolution also lead to inconsistencies.[Schlobach et al.2003, Haase et al. 2005]

The importance of the inconsistency problem cont
The importance of the inconsistency problem (cont.)

  • Many ontologies are semantically solightweight (e.g. expressible in RDF Schema only thatthe inconsistency problem doesn't arise.)

  • Many of these semantically lightweight ontologies makeimplicit assumptions such as the Unique NameAssumption, or assumingthat sibling classes are disjoint.

  • If such assumptions aremade explicit, many ontologies turn out to be inconsistent.

Outline of this talk
Outline of This Talk

  • Framework of Reasoning with Inconsistent ontologies

  • Syntactic Approach

  • Semantic Approach

  • Implementation, Test, and Evaluation

  • Conclusions

Processing inconsistent ontologies
Processing Inconsistent Ontologies

  • Debugging inconsistent ontologies

    • diagnose and repair it when we encounter inconsistencies (Schlobach, IJCAI 2003).

  • Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies

    • simply avoid the inconsistency and apply a non-standard reasoning method to obtain meaningful answers (Huang, van Harmelen, and ten Teije, IJCAI 2005).

What an inconsistency reasoner is expected

  • Given an inconsistent ontology, return meaningful answers to queries.

  • General solution: Use non-standard reasoning to deal with inconsistency

  •  |= : the standard inference relations

     | : nonstandard inference relations

Formal notions of Reasoning

with Inconsistent Ontologies

  • Various Answers

    • Accepted:

    • Rejected:

    • Over-determined:

    • Undetermined:

  • Soundness: (only classically justified results)

  • Meaningful: (sound & never over-determined)soundness +

Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies: Main Idea

Starting from the query,

  • select consistent sub-theory by using a relevance-based selection function.

  • apply standard reasoning on the selected sub-theory to find meaningful answers.

  • If it cannot give a satisfying answer, the selection function would relax the relevance degree to extend consistent sub-theory for further reasoning.

Over determined processing
Over-determined Processing

  • If selected data set is too large so that it leads to inconstenties, we need some kinds of backtracking, called over-determined processing.

  • Blind over-determined processing vs. Informed over-determined processing with threshold

  • First Maximal consistent Set (FMC) approach

Syntactic Relevance

  • Direct Syntactic relevance(0-relevance).

    • there is a common name in two formulas: C()  C()  R()  R()I() I().

  • K-relevance: there exist formulas 0, 1,…, k such that  and 0, 0 and 1 , …, k and are directly relevant.

Semantic relevance
Semantic Relevance

  • Relevance is measured by using semantic information of data.

  • Selection functions are defined in terms of Semantic Distance SD(x,y).

Using semantic distances for reasoning with inconsistent ontologies
Using Semantic Distances for Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies

  • Google distances are used to develop semantic relevance functions to reason with inconsistent ontologies.

  • Assumption: two concepts appear morefrequently in thesame web page, they are semantically more relevant.

Google Distance Ontologiess

(Cilibrasi and Vitanyi 2004)

  • Google distance is measured in terms of the co-occurrence of two search items in the Web by Google search engine.

  • Normalized Google Distance (NGD) is introduced to measure the similarity/light-weight semantic relevance

  • NGD(x,y)= (max{log f(x), log f(y)}-log f(x,y))/(log M-min{log f(x),log f(y)}


    f(x) is the number of Google hits for x

    f(x,y) is the number of Google hits for the tuple of search items x and y

    M is the number of web pages indexed by Google.

Normalized google distances
Normalized Google Distances Ontologies

  • NGD(x, y) can be understood intuitively as a measurefor the symmetric conditional probability of co-occurrenceof the search terms x and y.

Semantic distances between two formulas
Semantic Distances between two formulas Ontologies

  • Define semantic distances (SD) between two formulas in terms of semantic distances between two concepts/roles/individuals (NGD)

Semantic distances by ngd
Semantic Distances Ontologies by NGD

Semantic distance are measured by the ratio of the summed distance of the difference between two formulae to the maximal distance between two formulae.

Proposition Ontologies

  • The semantic distance SD satisfies the properties Range,Reflexivity, Symmetry, Maximum Distance, and Intermediate Values.

Example madcow
Example: MadCow Ontologies

NGD(MadCow, Grass)=0.7229

NGD(MadCow, Sheep)=0.6120

Implementation: PION Ontologies

PION: Processing Inconsistent ONtologies


Answer Evaluation Ontologies

  • Intended Answer (IA):Query answer = Intuitive Answer

  • Cautious Answer (CA):Query answer is ‘undetermined’, but Intutitve answer is ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’.

  • Reckless Answer (RA):Query answer is ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’, but Intutive answer is ‘undetermined’.

  • Counter Intuitive Answer (CIA):Query answer is ‘accepted’ but Intuitive answer is ‘rejected’, or vice versa.

Summary answers

  • The run-time of the semantic approach is much better than the syntactic approach, while the quality remains comparable.

  • The semantic approach can be parameterised so as to stepwise further improve the run-time with only a very small drop in quality.

Summary cont
Summary answers (cont.)

  • The semantic approach for reasoning with inconsistent ontologies trade-off computational cost for inferential completeness, and provide attractive scalability.

Questions? answers

Thank you for your attention!