Tu Anh T. Nguyen
Department of Computing, The Open University, UK
Richard Power
Department of Computing, The Open University, UK
Paul Piwek
Department of Computing, The Open University, UK
Sandra Williams
Department of Computing, The Open University, UK
Download article
Published in: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Debugging Ontologies and Ontology Mappings - WoDOOM12; Galway; Ireland; October 8; 2012
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 79:1, p. 1-12
Published: 2012-11-28
ISBN:
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
Debugging OWL ontologies can be aided with automated reasoners that generate entailments; including undesirable ones. This information is; however; only useful if developers understand why the entailments hold. To support domain experts (with limited knowledge of OWL); we are developing a system that explains; in English; why an entailment follows from an ontology. In planning such explanations; our system starts from a justification of the entailment and constructs a proof tree including intermediate statements that link the justification to the entailment. Proof trees are constructed from a set of intuitively plausible deduction rules. We here report on a study in which we collected empirical frequency data on the understandability of the deduction rules; resulting in a facility index for each rule. This measure forms the basis for making a principled choice among alternative explanations; and identifying steps in the explanation that are likely to require extra elucidation.
Explanations; Entailments; Justifications; Understandability; Diculty; Deduction Rules; Inference Rules
1. Ontology Design Patterns. http://ontologydesignpatterns.org; Last Accessed: 30th August 2010
2. The TONES Ontology Repository. http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/ repository/; Last Accessed: 30th August 2010
3. Ding; L.; Finin; T.; Joshi; A.; Pan; R.; Cost; R.S.; Peng; Y.; Reddivari; P.; Doshi; V.; Sachs; J.: Swoogle: a search and metadata engine for the semantic web. In: ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2004). pp. 652-659 (2004)
4. Horridge; M.; Bail; S.; Parsia; B.; Sattler; U.: The Cognitive Complexity of OWL Justi cations. In: International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2011). pp. 241-256 (2011)
5. Horridge; M.; Parsia; B.; Sattler; U.: Laconic and Precise Justi cations in OWL. In: International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2008). pp. 323-338 (2008)
6. Horridge; M.; Parsia; B.; Sattler; U.: Lemmas for Justi cations in OWL. In: Inter- national Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2009) (2009)
7. Kalyanpur; A.: Debugging and repair of OWL ontologies. Ph.D. thesis; The Uni- versity of Maryland; US (2006)
8. Kalyanpur; A.; Parsia; B.; Horridge; M.; Sirin; E.: Finding All Justi cations of OWL DL Entailments. In: International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2007) (2007)
9. Nguyen; T.A.T.; Piwek; P.; Power; R.; Williams; S.: Justi cation Patterns for OWL DL Ontologies. Tech. Rep. TR2011/05; The Open University; UK (2010)
10. Nguyen; T.A.T.; Power; R.; Piwek; P.; Williams; S.: Planning Accessible Expla- nations for Entailments in OWL Ontologies. In: International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG 2012). pp. 110-114 (2012)
11. Sirin; E.; Parsia; B.; Grau; B.C.; Kalyanpur; A.; Katz; Y.: Pellet: A Practical OWL-DL Reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5; 51-53 (2007)
12. Tsarkov; D.; Horrocks; I.: FaCT++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Descrip- tion. In: International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006). pp. 292-297 (2006)
Citations in Crossref
