1 / 41

Updating TBoxes in DL-Lite

Updating TBoxes in DL-Lite. D. Zheleznyakov , D. Calvanese, E. Kharlamov, W. Nutt Free University of Bozen-Bolzano DL 2010, May 6th. Outline. I. Introduction II. Requirements A nd P rinciples of TBox U pdates III. Review of Model-Based Semantics IV. Review of Formula-Based Semantics

cain-petersen
Télécharger la présentation

Updating TBoxes in DL-Lite

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Updating TBoxes in DL-Lite D. Zheleznyakov, D. Calvanese,E. Kharlamov, W. Nutt Free University of Bozen-Bolzano DL 2010, May 6th

  2. Outline I. Introduction II.Requirements And Principles ofTBox Updates III. Review of Model-Based Semantics IV. Review of Formula-Based Semantics V. Bold Semantics VI. Conclusion

  3. Inference in DLs • Traditional inference tasks for static DL KBs:– checking concept satisfiability– computing concept and role hierarchies– query answering • Ontologies may evolve in time: interest in ontology evolution has appeared 3/31

  4. DLs for Web Services • DLs provide foundation for OWL • Services: software systems supportingmachine-to-machine interoperation • Services access data through ontologies • Services can be specified using ontologies • To reflect changes, we need: ∙ABox evolution ∙TBox evolution 4/31

  5. DL-Lite Ontologies • DL-Lite is a tractable fragment of OWL 2 • TBox reasoning in DL-Lite is polynomial • We consider DL-LiteFR:∙ Concept and role inclusions∙ Concept disjointness∙ Domain and range of roles∙ Mandatory participation to roles∙ Role functionality∙ Interaction between role functionality and role inclusion is restricted to ensure polynomiality 5/31

  6. Example of DL-Lite TBox Concepts: PermStaff PermStaff Manager AreaManager TopManager TBox: Manager ⊑ PermStaff AreaManager ⊑ Manager Manager AreaManager TopManager 6/31

  7. Updating DL-Lite Ontologies • We study updates for DL-Lite KBs • ABox updates:– Initially studied in [De Giacomo&al:2006, 2009]– Revised and extended in [Calvanese&al:2010] • TBox updates:– TBox evolution studied in [Qi,Du:2009]– Topic of this talk is TBox updates We do not consider ABoxes 7/31

  8. PermStaff Employee Manager Manager Project AreaManager TopManager AreaManager TopManager Updating DL TBoxes Old TBox: New TBox: • New TBox should be consistent • New TBox should entail U • New TBox should minimally differ from Old TBox U: 8/31

  9. Outline I. Introduction II.Requirements and Principles ofTBox Updates III. Review of Model-Based Semantics IV. Review of Formula-Based Semantics V. Bold Semantics VI. Conclusion

  10. Desiderata for Updates We want an update operator such that: • Closure under updates:Updated TBox should be expressible in DL-Lite • Efficiency:Update result should be computable in PTIME 10/31

  11. Principles of TBox Updates (1) U: AreaManager ⊑ ¬ PermStaff PermStaff ⊨ AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff TBox IF new TBox has both AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff and AreaManager ⊑ ¬ PermStaff Manager THEN AreaManagerM=∅for every modelM of the new TBox Satisfiability Preservation: Updates should preserve satisfiability of every atomic concept and role in the TBox (i.e., updates preserve full satisfiability) AreaManager TopManager 11/31

  12. Principles of TBox Updates (2) U: AreaManager ⊑ ¬ PermStaff PermStaff ⊨ AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff TBox We may want to forbidto changesome parts of the TBox. We declare a fragment Tpr⊆ TBoxas protectedE.g., Tpr = {Manager ⊑ PermStaff}. Manager Protection: Update should not affect the protected part of the TBox AreaManager TopManager 12/31

  13. Principles of TBox Updates • Preservation of full satisfiability • Protection  We accept update iff the resulting TBox is fully satisfiable and contains both the protected part and the update • Minimal change principleWe discuss it later 13/31

  14. Outline I. Introduction II.Requirements And Principles ofTBox Updates III. Review of Model-Based Semantics IV. Review of Formula-Based Semantics V. Bold Semantics VI. Conclusion

  15. PermStaff Manager AreaManager TopManager Manager Manager Project Project TopManager TopManager Model-BasedSemantics (MBS) TBox: Mod(TBox): U: ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15/31

  16. PermStaff Manager AreaManager TopManager Manager Project TopManager Model-BasedSemantics (MBS) TBox: Mod(TBox): Minimaldistance U: Mod(U): ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ 15/31

  17. PermStaff Manager Employee AreaManager TopManager Manager Project AreaManager TopManager Model-BasedSemantics (MBS) TBox: Mod(TBox): T’: ? ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ Mod(T’): 15/31

  18. Winslett's Semantics • What does minimal distance mean?This depends on semantics. • Winslett’s semantics:∙Well known∙There are works on ABox update under Winslett’s semantics∙Representative of MBS • Distance under Winslett’s Semantics:based on symmetric difference and set inclusion 16/31

  19. Winslett's Semantics When distance(I, J) < distance(I, K) ? I: A(John), A(Frank),B(Mary) distance(I, J) distance(I, K) A(John)B(Mary) K: A(John)B(Jane) J: 17/31

  20. Winslett's Semantics When distance(I, J) < distance(I, K) ? I: A(John),A(Frank),B(Mary) diff(I, J) = { A(Frank) } distance(I, J) distance(I, K) A(John)B(Mary) K: A(John)B(Jane) J: 17/31

  21. Winslett's Semantics When distance(I, J) < distance(I, K) ? I: A(John),A(Frank),B(Mary) diff(I, J) = { A(Frank) } diff(I, K) = { A(Frank), B(Mary), B(Jane) } diff(I, J) ⊂ diff(I, K) So, distance(I, J) < distance(I, K)iff diff(I, J) ⊂ diff(I, K) distance(I, J) distance(I, K) A(John)B(Mary) K: A(John)B(Jane) J: 17/31

  22. Winslett's Semantics. Example PermStaff TopManager ⊑ Manager U: What should the updated TBox be? The expectation: like in the picture Is it so under Winslett’s semantics? Manager AreaManager TopManager 18/31

  23. Winslett's Semantics. Example FrankMary PermStaff TopManager ⊑ Manager U: What should the updated TBox be? ✓ ⊨ TopManager ⊑ Manager new TBox: ✗ ⊨ Manager ⊑ PermStaff ? FrankMary` Manager ✓ ⊨ AreaManager ⊑ Manager ? ⊨ AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff ? ✓ Anything else? John John Mary AreaManager TopManager 18/31

  24. Winslett's Semantics. Example PermStaff This TBox has irrelevant modelsthat cannot be obtainedfrom any model of the old TBox. • We should add something into the new TBoxto cut them off Manager We cannot add any otherDL-Lite assertion into the new TBox,otherwise, we cut off some relevant models AreaManager TopManager 18/31

  25. Drawbacks of Winslett’s Sem. • Result of update under Winslett’s semantics is inexpressible in DL-Lite • We have to unexpectedly drop assertions(Manager ⊑ PermStaff) Every MBS may have similar problems  Consider Formula-Based semantics 19/31

  26. Outline I. Introduction II.Requirements And Principles ofTBox Updates III. Review of Model-Based Semantics IV. Review of Formula-Based Semantics V. Bold Semantics VI. Conclusion

  27. PermStaff PermStaff Manager Manager AreaManager TopManager AreaManager TopManager Manager AreaManager TopManager Formula-Based Semantics (FBS) TBox: FBS: closeness is measuredbetween sets of formulas How? T1: Satisfiable ✓ • We take a satisfiable subsetTmax⊆ TBox, which is maximal wrt: ∙ cardinality, or ∙ set inclusion, or ∙ some preferences T2: Unsatisfiable ✗ • Result is: Tmax∪U U: T3: Satisfiable • In general, Tmaxis not unique! • There are: T1max, T2max, … ✓ • What to do with all of them?This depends on the approach we choose 21/31

  28. WIDTIO Approach. Example We take only those formulas that appear in every Tmax: The result is: U∪ ∩Tjmax PermStaff j U: AreaManager ⊑ ¬ PermStaff Manager AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff TBox: { Manager ⊑ PermStaff } = T1max { AreaManager ⊑ Manager } = T2max TopManager AreaManager 22/31

  29. Cross-Product Approach. Example The output is a disjunction of TBoxes,one for each Tmax: The result is: U∪ {∨Tjmax} PermStaff j U: AreaManager ⊑ ¬ PermStaff Manager AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff TBox: OR { Manager ⊑ PermStaff } = T1max { AreaManager ⊑ Manager } = T2max TopManager AreaManager 23/31

  30. PermStaff PermStaff Manager Manager TopManager TopManager AreaManager AreaManager Cross-Product Approach. Example The output is a disjunction of TBoxes,one for each Tmax: The result is: U∪ {∨Tjmax} j U: AreaManager ⊑ ¬ PermStaff AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff TBox: OR { Manager ⊑ PermStaff } = T1max { AreaManager ⊑ Manager } =T2max 23/31

  31. Formula-Based Semantics • WIDTIO approach: – Loses too much information – We have proved that computing the result is NP-complete • Cross-product approach: – “Keeps” too much information – Disjunction is inexpressible in DL-Lite 24/31

  32. Outline I. Introduction II.Requirements And Principles ofTBox Updates III. Review of Model-Based Semantics IV. Review of Formula-Based Semantics V. Bold Semantics VI. Conclusion

  33. Bold Semantics • Which Tmax to take? • Bold approach: – Takes on board only one Tmax • A maximal one by cardinality.NP-Hard • A maximal one by set inclusion.Polynomial • A maximal one by some preferences 26/31

  34. Bold Semantics. Algorithm • Start with empty TBox • Add assertions from U • Add assertions of the old TBoxone by one,if no unsatisfiability appears PermStaff U: AreaManager ⊑ ¬ PermStaff ✓ Manager TBox: AreaManager ⊑ Manager ? ✓ Manager ⊑ PermStaff ✗ ? AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff ✗ ? TopManager AreaManager 27/31

  35. Bold Semantics. Algorithm • Start with empty TBox • Add assertions from U • Add assertions of the old TBoxone by one,if no unsatisfiability appears PermStaff U: AreaManager ⊑ ¬ PermStaff ✓ Manager TBox: AreaManager ⊑ Manager ✓ Manager ⊑ PermStaff ✗ AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff ✗ The algorithm is non-deterministic U: AreaManager ⊑ ¬ PermStaff ✓ TopManager AreaManager TBox: AreaManager ⊑ Manager ? ✗ Manager ⊑ PermStaff ✓ ? AreaManager ⊑ PermStaff ✗ ? 27/31

  36. Polynomiality of the Algorithm • Building the closure of the TBox:polynomial • Going through all the assertions:polynomial • Checking full satisfiability:Theorem: Checking full satisfiability for DL-LiteFR is polynomial in the size of (TBox∪ U) 28/31

  37. Outline I. Introduction II.Requirements And Principles ofTBox Updates III. Review of Model-Based Semantics IV. Review of Formula-Based Semantics V. Bold Semantics VI. Conclusion

  38. Conclusion • We discussed principles for TBox updates • Both MBS and FBS have drawbacks forDL-Lite TBox updates • We proposed a new semantics • We developed a polynomial time algorithmto compute update under the new semantics 30/31

  39. Future work • Combining ABox and TBox updates • Use of preferences to manage non-determinism • Implementing update algorithms • Extend it to more expressive DLs 31/31

  40. Thank you! ONTORULE ProjectONTOlogies Meets Business RULesFP 7 grant, ICT-231875http://ontorule-project.eu/ Webdam Project Foundations of Web Data Management ERC FP7 grant, agreement n. 226513http://webdam.inria.fr/

  41. References • [De Giacomo&al:2006] On the update of description logic ontologies at the instance level. In: Proc. of the 21st Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2006). 1271–1276 • [Calvanese&al:2010] Updating ABoxes in DL-Lite. In: Proc. of the 4th Alberto Mendelzon Workshop on Foundations of Data Management (AWS 2010) • [Qi,Du:2009] Model-based revision operators forterminologies in description logics.In:Proc. of the 21st Int. Joint Conf.on ArtificialIntelligence (IJCAI 2009).891–897

More Related