Elect: An Inconsistency Handling Approach for Partially Preordered Lightweight Ontologies

2019 ◽  
pp. 210-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sihem Belabbes ◽  
Salem Benferhat ◽  
Jan Chomicki
Keyword(s):  
Inconsistency Handling

scholarly journals Evaluation of Techniques for Inconsistency Handling in OWL 2 QL Ontologies

2012 ◽  
pp. 337-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riccardo Rosati ◽  
Marco Ruzzi ◽  
Mirko Graziosi ◽  
Giulia Masotti
Keyword(s):  
Inconsistency Handling

scholarly journals Querying and Repairing Inconsistent Prioritized Knowledge Bases: Complexity Analysis and Links with Abstract Argumentation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meghyn Bienvenu ◽  
Camille Bourgaux
Keyword(s):  
Complexity Analysis ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Data Complexity ◽  
The Core ◽  
Inconsistency Handling ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Priority Relation ◽  
Inconsistent Database ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Computational Properties

In this paper, we explore the issue of inconsistency handling over prioritized knowledge bases (KBs), which consist of an ontology, a set of facts, and a priority relation between conflicting facts. In the database setting, a closely related scenario has been studied and led to the definition of three different notions of optimal repairs (global, Pareto, and completion) of a prioritized inconsistent database. After transferring the notions of globally-, Pareto- and completion-optimal repairs to our setting, we study the data complexity of the core reasoning tasks: query entailment under inconsistency-tolerant semantics based upon optimal repairs, existence of a unique optimal repair, and enumeration of all optimal repairs. Our results provide a nearly complete picture of the data complexity of these tasks for ontologies formulated in common DL-Lite dialects. The second contribution of our work is to clarify the relationship between optimal repairs and different notions of extensions for (set-based) argumentation frameworks. Among our results, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs correspond precisely to stable extensions (and often also to preferred extensions), and we propose a novel semantics for prioritized KBs which is inspired by grounded extensions and enjoys favourable computational properties. Our study also yields some results of independent interest concerning preference-based argumentation frameworks.

scholarly journals Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications

1994 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 569-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.C.W. Finkelstein ◽  
D. Gabbay ◽  
A. Hunter ◽  
J. Kramer ◽  
B. Nuseibeh
Keyword(s):  
Inconsistency Handling

Logic Databases and Inconsistency Handling

2005 ◽  
pp. 336-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
José A. Alonso-Jiménez ◽  
Joaquín Borrego-Díaz ◽  
Antonia M. Chávez-González
Keyword(s):  
World Wide Web ◽  
Data Management ◽  
World Wide ◽  
Inconsistent Information ◽  
Inconsistency Handling ◽  
The World

Nowadays, data management on the World Wide Web needs to consider very large knowledge databases (KDB). The larger is a KDB, the smaller the possibility of being consistent. Consistency in checking algorithms and systems fails to analyse very large KDBs, and so many have to work every day with inconsistent information.

Towards Automated Inconsistency Handling in Design Models

2010 ◽  
pp. 348-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Aurélio Almeida da Silva ◽  
Alix Mougenot ◽  
Xavier Blanc ◽  
Reda Bendraou
Keyword(s):  
Design Models ◽  
Inconsistency Handling
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document