Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies

ABSTRACT

The ability to extract meaningful fragments from an ontology is key for ontology re-use. We propose a definition of a module that guarantees to completely capture the meaning of a given set of terms, i.e., to include all axioms relevant to the meaning of these terms, and study the problem of extracting minimal modules. We show that the problem of determining whether a subset of an ontology is a module for a given vocabulary is undecidable even for rather restricted sub-languages of OWL DL. Hence we propose two "approximations", i.e., alternative definitions of modules for a vocabulary that still provide the above guarantee, but that are possibly too strict, and that may thus result in larger modules: the first approximation is semantic and can be computed using existing DL reasoners; the second is syntactic, and can be computed in polynomial time. Finally, we report on an empirical evaluation of our syntactic approximation which demonstrates that the modules we extract are surprisingly small.

REFERENCES

• 1: F. Baader, S. Brandt, and C. Lutz. Pushing the EL envelope. In Proc. IJCAI-2005, pages 364--370, 2005.
• 2: Franz Baader , Diego Calvanese , Deborah L. McGuinness , Daniele Nardi , Peter F. Patel-Schneider, The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2003
• 3: B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, Y. Kazakov, and U. Sattler. Extracting modules from ontologies: Theory and practice. Technical report, University of Manchester, 2007. Available from: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bcg/Publications.html.
• 4: B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, Y. Kazakov, and U. Sattler. A logical framework for modularity of ontologies. In Proc. IJCAI-2007, pages 298--304, 2007.
• 5: B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, O. Kutz, and U. Sattler. Will my Ontologies Fit Together? In Proc. DL-2006, 2006.
• 6: B. Cuenca Grau, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, and A. Kalyanpur. Modularity and Web Ontologies. In Proc. KR-2006, pages 198--209, 2006.
• 7: S. Ghilardi, C. Lutz, and F. Wolter. Did I Damage my Ontology? A Case for Conservative Extensions in Description Logics. In Proc. KR-2006, pages 187--197, 2006.
• 8: I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and F. van Harmelen. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. of Web Semantics, 1(1):7--26, 2003.
• 9: A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E.Sirin, B. Cuenca Grau, and J. Hendler. SWOOP: A web editing browser. Elsevier's Journal Of Web Semantics, 4(2):144--153, 2006.
• 10: C. Lutz, D. Walther, and F. Wolter. Conservative extensions in expressive description logics. In Proc. of IJCAI-2007, pages 453--459, 2007.
• 11: Natalya F. Noy , Mark A. Musen, The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.59 n.6, p.983-1024, December 2003 [doi>10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.08.002]
• 12: P. Patel-Schneider, P. Hayes, and I. Horrocks. Web ontology language OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics. W3C Recommendation, 2004.
• 13: A. Rector and J. Rogers. Ontological issues in using a description logic to represent medical concepts: Experience from GALEN. In Proc. of IMIA WG6 Workshop, 1999.
• 14: Manfred Schmidt-Schaubß , Gert Smolka, Attributive concept descriptions with complements, Artificial Intelligence, v.48 n.1, p.1-26, Feb. 1991 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(91)90078-X ]
• 15: Julian Seidenberg , Alan Rector, Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classification and use, Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, May 23-26, 2006, Edinburgh, Scotland [doi>10.1145/1135777.1135785]
• 16: H. Stuckenschmidt and M. Klein. Structure-based partitioning of large class hierarchies. In Proc. ISWC-2004, pages 289--303, 2004.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.4 Knowledge Representation Formalisms and Methods

General Terms:
Algorithms

Keywords:
description logics, oWL, ontologies, semantic web