Kernel Contraction and Consolidation of Alignment under Ontology Change

Full Text (PDF, 759KB), PP.31-42

Views: 0 Downloads: 0


Ahmed Zahaf 1,2,* Mimoun Malki 2,3

1. University of Dr Moulay Tahar, Saida, Algeria

2. EEDIS Laboratory, University of Djillali Liab├Ęs, Sidi BEL-ABBES, Algeria

3. ESI High School of Computer Science, Sidi BEL-ABBES, Algeria

* Corresponding author.


Received: 2 Oct. 2015 / Revised: 23 Feb. 2016 / Accepted: 11 May 2016 / Published: 8 Aug. 2016

Index Terms

Ontology Change, Alignment revision, Base Revision, Kernel Contraction, Kernel Consolidation


Alignment overcomes divergence in the specification of the semantics of vocabularies by different but overlapping ontologies. Therefore, it enhances semantic interoperability for many web based applications. However, ontology change following applications new requirements or new perception of domain knowledges can leads to undesirable knowledge such as inconsistent and therefore to a useless alignment. Ontologies and alignments are encoded in knowledge bases allowing applications to store only some explicit knowledge while they derive implicit ones by applying reasoning services on these knowledge bases. This underlying representation of ontologies and alignments leads us to follow base revision theory to deal with alignment revision under ontology change. For that purpose, we adapt kernel contraction framework to design rational operators and to formulate the set of postulates that characterize each class of these operators. We demonstrate the connection between each class of operators and the set of postulates that characterize them. Finally, we present algorithms to compute alignment kernels and incision functions. Kernels are sets of correspondences responsible of undesirable knowledge following alignment semantics. Incision functions determine the sets of correspondences to eliminate in order to restore alignment consistency or to realize a successful contraction.

Cite This Paper

Ahmed ZAHAF, Mimoun MALKI, "Kernel Contraction and Consolidation of Alignment under Ontology Change", International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science(IJITCS), Vol.8, No.8, pp.31-42, 2016. DOI:10.5815/ijitcs.2016.08.04


[1]Grimm,S.,Abecker,A., Völker,J., Studer,R. Ontologies and the Semantic Web. In: Dominigue, J., Fensel, D., Hendler, J.A. (eds) Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies; ch 13, pp. 507-579. Springer 2011

[2]G Yang,G. Feng,J. Database Semantic Interoperability based on Information Flow Theory and Formal Concept Analysis. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science, PP.33-42, 2012, DOI: 10.5815/ijitcs.2012.07.05.

[3]Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P. Ontology Matching. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidlberg (DE) 2013. 

[4]Stojanovic, L. Methods and Tools for Ontology Evolution. PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe. 2004

[5]Euzenat,J. Revision in networks of ontologies. Artificial Intelligence Volume 228, November 2015, Pages 195–216,( doi:10.1016/j.artint.2015.07.007)

[6]Dos Reis, J. C., Pruski, C. and Reynaud, C. "State-of-the-art on mapping maintenance and challenges towards a fully automatic approach." Expert Systems with Applications 42.3 (2015): 1465-1478.

[7]Groß, A., Dos Reis, J. C., Hartung, M., Pruski, C., & Rahm, E. Semi-automatic adaptation of mappings between life science ontologies. In C. Baker, G. Butler, & I. Jurisica (Eds.), Data integration in the life sciences. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7970, pp. 90–104). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

[8]Dinh, D., Dos Reis, J.C., Pruski, C., Da Silveira, M., Reynaud-Delaître, C. Identifying Relevant Concept Attributes to Support Mapping Maintenance under Ontology Evolution, Journal of Web Semantics (JWS): Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 29(0), 53-66, Life Science and e-Science, (DOI: 10.1016/j.websem.2014.05.002), 2014, Elsevier.

[9]Martins, H., Silva, N. A User-Driven and a Semantic-Based Ontology Mapping Evolution Approach. In Proc. of ICEIS, 2009.

[10]Alchourrón,C., Gärdenfors,P. Makinson,D. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions, J. Symb. Log. 50(2) (1985) 510–530.

[11]Hansson, S. O. Logic of belief revision. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab.Center for the Study of Lan-guage and Information.Stanford University, 2006.

[12]Reiter,R. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence, 1987, 32(1): 57~96.

[13]Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1), 1–31 2003

[14]Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider,P.F. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning on the Semantic Web: OWL. In: Dominigue, J., Fensel, D., Hendler, J.A. (eds) Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies; ch 9, pp. 365-398. Springer 2011

[15]Ribeiro, M., Wassermann, R., Antoniou, G., Flouris, G. and Pan, J. Belief contraction in Web-ontology languages. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Ontology Dynamics (IWOD-09), 2009.

[16]Haase, P., Stojanovic, L. Consistent evolution of owl ontologies. In In Proc. Of ESWC’05, pages 182–197, 2005.

[17]Flouris,G., Huang,Z., Pan,J., Plexousakis,D., Wache,H. Inconsistencies, negations and changes in ontologies. In Proc. of AAAI’06, 2006.

[18]Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, , M. , Nardi, D. , Schaerf, A. Deduction in concept languages: From subsumption to instance checking. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4:1-30, 1994.

[19]Schlobach,S., Cornet, R. Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In Georg Gottlob and Toby Walsh, editors, IJCAI-03, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 355–362. Morgan Kaufmann, 2003.

[20]Borgida, A., Serafini, L. Distributed description logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. Journal on Data Semantics, 2003

[21]Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H. An Efficient Method for Computing Alignment Diagnoses. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR-09), Chantilly, Virginia, USA, 2009

[22]Fermé,E., Hansson,S. AGM 25 years, J. Philos. Log. 40 (2011) 295–331.

[23]Peppas,P. Belief revision. In Handbook of Knowledge Representation, pages 317–359. Elsevier, 2008

[24]Hansson, S. O. Kernel contraction. Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol 59, pp.845- 859. 1994

[25]Hansson, S. O. Semi-revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 7(1-2), pp.151-175. 1997

[26]Hansson, S. O., Wassermann.R. Local change. Studia Logica, 70(1):49–76, 2002.

[27]Baader,F., Penaloza,R., Suntisrivaraporn,B. Pinpointing in the description logic EL+. In Proc .KI 2007, Springer LNAI 4667, 2007

[28]Horridge, M., Bechhofer,S. The OWL API: A Java API for Working with OWL 2 Ontologies. OWLED 2009, 6th OWL Experienced and Directions Workshop, Chantilly, Virginia, October 2009.

[29]Euzenat, J. An API for ontology alignment. In:McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen,F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 698–712. Springer, Heidelberg 2004 

[30]Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C, Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y. Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(2), 2007

[31]Zahaf, A. Alignment between versions of the same ontology Proc. 4th International Conference on Web and Information Technologies, Sidi Bel Abbes (DZ), 2012.

[32]Atig,Y., Zahaf,A., Bouchiha,D. Conservativity Principle Violations for Ontology Alignment: Survey and Trends. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science (IJITCS), year 2015, DOI: 10.5815/ijitcs. To appear. 

[33]Wang, P., Xu,B. Lily: Ontology alignment results for OAEI 2008. Proceedings for the Third International Workshop on Ontology Matching, October 26, 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany

[34]Jean-Mary, Y.R., Shironoshita, E.P., Kabuka, M.R. Ontology matching with semantic verification. Journal of Web Semantics 7(3), 235–251 2009

[35]Ngo, D., Bellahsene, Z. YAM++: (not) Yet Another Matcher for Ontology Matching Task. In BDA 2012

[36]Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H. (2007): Applying logical constraints to ontology matching. In Proc. of the 30th German Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Osnabrück, Germany, 2007.

[37]Meilicke, C., Tamilin, A., Stuckenschmidt,H.( 2007): Repairing ontology mappings. In Proc. of the Twenty-Second Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, Canada, 2007.