Download - Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution
![Page 1: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution
PhD StudentComputer Science Department
University of [email protected]
Giorgos Flouris
Research AssistantInstitute of Computer Science
PhD Thesis Summary
ISWDS 0507/11/05
![Page 2: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Part Overview
(“Elevator Talk”)
![Page 3: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Ontology Evolution and Belief Change
• We propose a different viewpoint on ontology evolution:– Addressing the problem of ontology evolution using
techniques from belief change
• In particular:– AGM theory of contraction– In ontologies represented using some DL or OWL flavor
![Page 4: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Summary of Results
Logics (under Tarski’s model)
AGM-compliantlogics
AGM Class
Base-AGM-compliantlogics
DLs(OVA)
DLs(CVA)
OWL
DLs
![Page 5: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Part Research Description
![Page 6: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Ontology Evolution:Definition and Importance
• Ontology evolution is the process of modifying an ontology in response to a certain change in the domain or its conceptualization
• Main reasons for ontology evolution:– Dynamic domains– Change in users’ needs or perspective– New information (previously unknown, classified or
unavailable) that improves the conceptualization– Errors during original conceptualization– Ontology dependency– …
![Page 7: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Output Ontology
Ontology Evolution Input Ontology
Success
Fail
Change Representation Semantics of Change
Implementation Change Propagation
Validation
Change Capturing “penguins can’t fly”
Add_IsA(…)
Penguin⊑Fly
User: , , ,
System: ,
Current Approaches
![Page 8: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Limitations
• Main limitations of current approaches:– Manual or semi-automatic approaches– Too many operators (complex and atomic)– No formal semantics
• Cause problems:– Automated agents and systems– Scalability– Formal properties unknown– Bottleneck for current research
![Page 9: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Proposed Approach
User:
System: , , , ,
Output Ontology
Ontology Evolution Input Ontology
Success
Fail
Change Representation Semantics of Change
Implementation Change Propagation
Validation
Change Capturing “penguins can’t fly”
Add_IsA(…)
Penguin⊑Fly
![Page 10: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Why Belief Change?(1/2)
• Knowledge should be up-to-date:– Keeping KBs up-to-date: belief change– Keeping ontologies up-to-date: ontology evolution
• Ontology evolution can be viewed as a special case of belief change:– View belief change techniques, ideas, intuitions, results,
algorithms and methods under the prism of ontology evolution
– We address ontology evolution using belief change
![Page 11: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Why Belief Change?(2/2)
• Belief change properties:– Mature– Formal– Automatic
• Addresses important issues that have not been considered in ontology evolution:– Revision and Update– Revision and Contraction– Postulations vs Explicit Constructions– Foundational vs Coherence Theories– Principle of Minimal Change– Principle of Primacy of New Information
![Page 12: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Difficulties and Methodology
• Belief change techniques are generally targeted at classical logic:– Their assumptions fail for DLs and other ontological
languages– Cannot be directly used for such logics– But: the underlying intuitions are applicable
• Belief change techniques need to be migrated to the ontology evolution context
• PhD, Phase 1:– Set the foundations for future work on the subject– Very abstract, long-term and ambitious goal
![Page 13: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
A More Specific Approach:the AGM Theory
• For the purposes of this PhD, we restricted ourselves to deal with:– The most influential belief change theory (AGM theory)– The most fundamental operation (contraction)– The most promising languages for ontological representation
(DLs and OWL)
• PhD, Phase 2:– Study the applicability of the AGM theory of contraction in
DLs and OWL
![Page 14: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
AGM Theory
• AGM theory (Alchourron, Gärdenfors, Makinson):– The most influential approach in belief change
• Contraction:– The most fundamental operation for theoretical purposes
– Deals with the removal of knowledge from a KB
• Main contribution: 6 AGM postulates that determine whether a contraction operator behaves “rationally”
• AGM theory is based on certain assumptions on the underlying logic, so, as usual:– Intuitions applicable in ontologies
– Postulates and results not applicable in ontologies
![Page 15: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
AGM-Compliance
• Dropped the AGM assumptions and considered the class of logics studied by Tarski:– Very general class of logics (that contains DLs)
• We generalized the AGM theory (and postulates) to be applicable to Tarski’s class
• Noticed that only some of the logics in this class admit an operator satisfying the generalized postulates (i.e., a “rational” operator):– Termed AGM-compliant logics (3 characterizations)
![Page 16: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Results(AGM-Compliance)
Logics (under Tarski’s model)
AGM-compliantlogics
AGM Class
![Page 17: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Further Results
• Connection with lattice theory:– Every logic can be described by a lattice– AGM-compliance can be determined by the lattice’s
structure
• Connection with the foundational model:– AGM theory based on the coherence model– There are logics in which a “foundational AGM theory” can
be applied– Termed base-AGM-compliant logics (2 characterizations)
![Page 18: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Results(Base-AGM-Compliance)
Logics (under Tarski’s model)
AGM-compliantlogics
AGM Class
Base-AGM-compliantlogics
![Page 19: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
AGM-Compliance and DLs
• Studied DLs (two types)– CVA (Closed Vocabulary Assumption): allows the
description of the ontological signature using DL axioms– OVA (Open Vocabulary Assumption): ignores the signature
because it cannot be described using DL axioms
• DLs (CVA): non-AGM-compliant• DLs (OVA): some are AGM-compliant, some are not
– Introduced results, heuristics, rules of thumb
• OWL (different flavors, CVA or OVA, annotation features, owl:imports): all non-AGM-compliant
![Page 20: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Results(AGM-Compliance and DLs)
Logics (under Tarski’s model)
AGM-compliantlogics
AGM Class
Base-AGM-compliantlogics
DLs(OVA)
DLs(CVA)
OWL
![Page 21: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Partial List of DLs (OVA)
AGM-compliant DLs Non-AGM-compliant DLs ALCO,⊓
ALC,⊓ with no Abox
ALCO with no axioms involving role terms
ALC with empty Abox and no axioms involving role terms
All DLs with more operators (but no more connectives) than the above DLs
………
SH, SHI, SHIN, SHOIN, SHOIN(D), SHOIN+, SHOIN+(D), SHIQ, SHIF, SHIF(D), SHIF+, SHIF+(D)
FL0, FL with role axioms
All DLs between ALH and ALHCIOQ
OWL DL, OWL Lite without annotations and all flavors of OWL with annotations
………
![Page 22: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Conclusion
• Phase 1:– Proposed the study of ontology evolution from a different
perspective, using belief change ideas and terminology
• Phase 2:– Focused on the AGM theory of contraction– Determined its applicability to DLs and OWL
![Page 23: Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062805/56814dce550346895dbb27e5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Future Work
• Study other belief change approaches• Connection of AGM-compliance with other AGM-
related results:– The operation of revision– Levi identity– Representation theorems
• The development and/or implementation of a specific algorithm for integration into ontology evolution tools