#### DMCA

## R.: First steps towards revising ontologies

### Cached

### Download Links

Venue: | In: Proc. of WONRO’2006. (2006 |

Citations: | 11 - 2 self |

### Citations

2352 | The Semantic Web.
- Berners-Lee, Hendler, et al.
- 2001
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...escription logics. We depart from the well known AGM-paradigm and show how it can be adapted in order to be applied to description logics. 1 Introduction Recently, with the advent of the Semantic Web =-=[BLHL01]-=-, there has been a growing interest in the use of ontologies for representing domain knowledge. When ontologies evolve and are re-used in different contexts, inconsistency may arise. In [HvHtT05], at ... |

729 |
Knowledge in Flux – Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States.
- Gardenfors
- 1988
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...d idempotency or iteration (Cn(Cn(A)) = Cn(A)). 2 AGM Belief Change In this section, we briefly introduce the AGM paradigm for belief change. For a more complete exposition, the reader is referred to =-=[Gär88]-=-,[GR95] or [Han99]. In the AGM model, belief states are represented by theories (possibly together with some selection mechanism), that is, sets of formulas K such that Cn(K) = K.These theories are ca... |

285 |
OWL Web Ontology Language overview. W3C Recommendation,
- McGuinness, Harmelen
- 2004
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...nown as the AGM theory, due to the initial of the names of the authors of the seminal paper [AGM85]. Although our results are more general, we have in mind the revision of ontologies described in OWL =-=[MvH04]-=-. OWL has been a W3C recommendation since 2004 and is now seen as the standard language for representing ontologies. It was defined as three different sub-languages, with increasing expressivity (and ... |

228 | Reducing owl entailment to description logic satisfiability.
- Horrocks, Patel-Schneider
- 2004
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...l. We will concentrate on the first two, since there is no complete reasoner for OWL-Full. It was already shown that OWL-Lite and OWL-DL are equivalent to the description logics SHIF(D) and SHOIN (D) =-=[HPS04]-=-, so we will concentrate our examples on description logics. We will first briefly review the AGM-theory. Then, in Section 3 we will present some results from [FPA04,FPA05] which show that in the desc... |

198 |
Belief Revision',
- Gärdenfors, Rott
- 1995
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...tency or iteration (Cn(Cn(A)) = Cn(A)). 2 AGM Belief Change In this section, we briefly introduce the AGM paradigm for belief change. For a more complete exposition, the reader is referred to [Gär88],=-=[GR95]-=- or [Han99]. In the AGM model, belief states are represented by theories (possibly together with some selection mechanism), that is, sets of formulas K such that Cn(K) = K.These theories are called be... |

82 |
On the logic of theory change.
- Alchourron, Gardenfors, et al.
- 1985
(Show Context)
Citation Context ... will be followed in the rest of the paper. The most well known paradigm for horizontal belief revision is known as the AGM theory, due to the initial of the names of the authors of the seminal paper =-=[AGM85]-=-. Although our results are more general, we have in mind the revision of ontologies described in OWL [MvH04]. OWL has been a W3C recommendation since 2004 and is now seen as the standard language for ... |

72 |
A Textbook of Belief Dynamics.
- Hansson
- 1997
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...teration (Cn(Cn(A)) = Cn(A)). 2 AGM Belief Change In this section, we briefly introduce the AGM paradigm for belief change. For a more complete exposition, the reader is referred to [Gär88],[GR95] or =-=[Han99]-=-. In the AGM model, belief states are represented by theories (possibly together with some selection mechanism), that is, sets of formulas K such that Cn(K) = K.These theories are called belief sets. ... |

63 |
On the logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions.
- Alchourron, Makinson
- 1982
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...r revising) the given set by the input. This construction makes use of the concept of a remainder set, the set of maximal subsets of a given set not implying a given sentence. Formally: Definition 1. =-=[AM82]-=- Let X be a set of formulas and α a formula. The remainder set X⊥α of X and α is defined as follows. For any set Y , Y ∈ X⊥α if and only if: – Y ⊆ X – Y �⊢ α – For all Y ′ such that Y ⊂ Y ′ ⊆ X, Y ′ ⊢... |

56 |
On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change.
- Makinson
- 1987
(Show Context)
Citation Context ... the sentence to be contracted is logically valid (and hence, an element of every theory), it is not an element of the resulting belief set. The recovery postulate (K-5) is the most controversial one =-=[Mak87]-=-. It says that a contraction should be recoverable, that is, that the original belief set should be recovered by expanding by the formula that was contracted. The last postulate assures that contracti... |

48 |
ten Teije A.: Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies. In:
- Huang, Harmelen
- 2005
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...c Web [BLHL01], there has been a growing interest in the use of ontologies for representing domain knowledge. When ontologies evolve and are re-used in different contexts, inconsistency may arise. In =-=[HvHtT05]-=-, at least four different reasons for the presence of inconsistency in ontologies are described: mis-representation of defaults (stating that birds can fly and then that penguins are birds and cannot ... |

41 | Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. - Alchourron, Makinson - 1981 |

41 | On Applying the AGM theory to DLs and OWL.
- Flouris, Plexousakis, et al.
- 2005
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...K ′ = Γ and consider the two options for β: R ⊑ S or ∀R.A ⊑ ∀S.A. In both cases, ∀R.A ⊑ ∀S.A is in Cn(K ′ ∪ β). Actually, Flouris, Plexousakis and Antoniou have shown the following result: Theorem 6. =-=[FPA05]-=- Any description logic which admits: – At least two role names and one concept name – At least one of the operators ∀, ∃, (≥n), (≤n) for some n – Any (or none) of the operators ¬, ⊔, ⊓, − , ⊥, ⊤, {...... |

34 | Generalizing the AGM postulates: Preliminary results and applications.
- Flouris, Plexousakis, et al.
- 2004
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...r family of logics. Although the AGM theory was formulated having in mind some general notion of logic, some assumptions were made which limit the kind of logic that can be really used. In their work =-=[FPA04]-=-, Flouris, Plexousakis and Antoniou have shown that not even all Tarskian logics admit a contraction operation satisfying the six AGM postulates. As an example, they present a logic containing only tw... |

31 | On belief change in ontology evolution.
- Flouris
- 2006
(Show Context)
Citation Context ... where no contraction with recovery is possible. But it is not difficult to see that relevance does not present this problem: 3 provided it is equipped with infinite roles and empty ABox, as shown in =-=[Flo06]-=-. 6sTheorem 4. Every tarskian logic admits a contraction operator that satisfies the AGM postulates with relevance instead of recovery. Proof. Take for example the construction K − α = � γ(K⊥α), where... |

20 |
An essay on contraction.
- Fuhrmann
- 1997
(Show Context)
Citation Context ... of recovery are equivalent to the original ones. This is a weaker result because every logic that satisfies AGM-assumptions also satisfies AGM-compliance, but the opposite is not true in general. In =-=[Fuh97]-=-, the AGM-postulates were generalised so that the contraction on belief sets could be applied to remove sets of formulas instead of just a single formula. For this purpose, Fuhrmann proposed two kinds... |

19 |
Inference: A study of Belief Revision and Nonmonotonic Reasoning
- Change
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...oduction of new, possibly inconsistent knowledge. We note that, from the four approaches above, only the last one (versioning) is not addressed by the Belief Revision literature. Rott has proposed in =-=[Rot01]-=- the classification of methods for Belief Revision into vertical or horizontal. In the vertical mode, revision is reduced to the simple addition of the new formula to the knowledge base, while some no... |

11 |
Ove Hansson. New operators for theory change
- Sven
- 1989
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...arantee some kind of minimal change, i.e., that as much information as possible will be preserved. If we want to avoid the recovery postulate, we need some other condition to preserve information. In =-=[Han89]-=-, Hansson has proposed that minimal change could be captured by the following intuition: in a contraction operation, when a belief is removed, it must contribute somehow for the derivation of the cont... |

7 | On generalizing the AGM postulates.
- Flouris, Plexousakis, et al.
- 2006
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...ration and compactness. So it follows that: Corollary 1. There exists a contraction operation for the logics SHIF(D) and SHOIN (D) satisfying the AGM postulates with relevance instead of recovery. In =-=[FPA06]-=-, Flouris, Plexousakis and Antoniou have also proposed substituting the recovery postulate for guaranteeing the existence of contraction operators. They stated that any candidate substitute for recove... |

2 | A framework for handling inconsistency in changing ontologies. - Huang, Sure - 2005 |

2 |
and Sven Ove Hansson. A survey of multiple contractions
- Fuhrmann
- 1994
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...ch satisfy the AGM-assumptions, Fuhrmann and Hansson have shown that the relevance postulate is stronger than recovery, but on the presence of the other postulates, they are equivalent: Observation 3 =-=[FH94]-=- Let K be a belief set and − a contraction operator for K. Then: 1. If − satisfies relevance, then it satisfies recovery. 2. If − satisfies closure, inclusion, vacuity and recovery, then it satisfies ... |

1 | Five faces of recovery - Fermé - 2001 |