Ontology Constraints in Incomplete and Complete Data

Abstract

Abstract. Ontology and other logical languages are built around the idea that axioms enable the inference of new facts about the available data. In some circumstances, however, the data is meant to be complete in certain ways, and deducing new facts may be undesirable. Previous approaches to this issue have relied on syntactically specifying certain axioms as constraints or adding in new constructs for constraints, and providing a different or extended meaning for constraints that reduces or eliminates their ability to infer new facts without requiring the data to be complete. We propose to instead directly state that the extension of certain concepts and roles are complete by making them DBox predicates, which eliminates the distinction between regular axioms and constraints for these concepts and roles. This proposal eliminates the need for special semantics and avoids problems of previous proposals.

Active Integrity Constraints for Multi-context Systems

“…Similar considerations about the two possible ways to formulate this type of ICs can be found in [22].…”

“…Integrating ICs with ontology-based systems poses several challenges, mainly due to the open-world assumption and the absence of the unique name assumption [14,20,22,24]. In this context, ICs are conventionally modelled as T-Box axioms [19], but variants based on hybrid knowledge bases, auto-epistemic logic, modal logic, and grounded circumscription have recently been proposed.…”

“…Constraints that distinguish between assertions explicitly stated in the A-Box and derived ones have been considered e.g. in [22].…”

“…We now turn our attention to a kind of ICs that is also very common in ontologies: disallowing unnamed individuals for particular properties [22]. Example 7.…”

Innovations, Developments, and Applications of Semantic Web and Information Systems

“…This problem can be tackled by performing reasoning on a per-resource (and its mentions) basis, exploiting the fact that resource descriptions are largely independent one to another. Of course, this solution sacrifices completeness of reasoning for scalability, but at the same time it enables the use of OWL 2 profiles more expressive than OWL 2 RL, and even of OWL 2 extensions (Patel-Schneider & Franconi, 2012;Tao, Sirin, Bao, & McGuinness, 2010) realizing a restricted closed world assumption useful for validation purposes.…”