Handling Disagreement in Ontologies-Based Reasoning via Argumentation

Reasoning in inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases: an argumentative approach

“…In this section, we survey works on explaining query (non-)answers and entailments. As mentioned in the introduction, DL reasoning systems with explanation facilities have recently become interests in different areas of AI [10]- [12], [14]- [16]. The earliest work mainly focuses on the explanation of standard reasoning tasks and the associated types of entailments [10], [11].…”

“…While the study of inconsistency-tolerant querying in prioritized knowledge bases (KBs) is rather well-understood, less interest has been paid to the issue of explaining query answers under such semantics. There are some existing approaches concerning with the explanation of standard reasoning and query entailment [10]- [16]. The earlier approaches mainly introduce a proof-theoretic approach with explanation services [10], [11].…”

“…It should emphasize that the works on axiom pinpointing focus on classical reasoning and the associated types of entailment. To date, the only works in explaining inconsistency-tolerant querying are given for the DL-Lite family of languages [12], [16] and Datalog ± [13]- [15]. The idea of these works is to determine a set of assertions as an explanation that will lead to the answer of a given query entailing under inconsistency-tolerant semantics.…”

“…Lukasiewicz et al [15] defined explanations for conjunctive queries in different formalisms based on existential rules, and provided a thorough complexity analysis under different complexity measures. An argumentation framework is a prominent approach for representation and reasoning in inconsistent KBs, with an aim to improve explanation techniques of querying answers [14], [16]. The authors explored the explanation techniques for query answering under the intelligent character recognition (ICR) semantics in rule-based languages.…”

A model of three-way decisions for Knowledge Harnessing

“…For instance, assuming that one ontology is correct and the problem of conflict comes from a second one. From the point of view of KH, a disagreement between a O 1 ontology with F , a result deduced from another O 2 , can be repaired by using argumentative techniques [21]. This technique is an opportunity, since it reduces the problem to repairing the conflict of some of the axioms of the second one that are used in the argument that entails F .…”