Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL) - Revision history

EnricoDaga: Text replace - 'WOP2009:Main' to 'WOP:2009'

2010-05-31T08:29:53Z

Text replace - 'WOP2009:Main' to 'WOP:2009'

MichaelUschold at 20:04, 5 March 2010

2010-03-05T20:04:06Z

EnricoDaga: Text replace - '{{Reviews about me}}' to '{{Reviews about me}}{{Modeling issues about me}}'

2010-03-01T13:24:28Z

Text replace - '{{Reviews about me}}' to '{{Reviews about me}}{{Modeling issues about me}}'

EnricoDaga: Text replace - 'Include Image' to 'Graphical representation'

2010-03-01T12:38:23Z

Text replace - 'Include Image' to 'Graphical representation'

CatherineRoussey at 16:47, 12 November 2009

2009-11-12T16:47:58Z

CatherineRoussey at 16:47, 12 November 2009

2009-11-12T16:47:29Z

CatherineRoussey at 16:42, 12 November 2009

2009-11-12T16:42:44Z

CatherineRoussey at 16:41, 12 November 2009

2009-11-12T16:41:32Z

CatherineRoussey at 16:30, 12 November 2009

2009-11-12T16:30:07Z

AlessandroAdamou: Review has been created. Annotation 'assigned' has been removed.

2009-09-10T11:30:54Z

Review has been created. Annotation 'assigned' has been removed.

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 {{My references}}
 {{Submission to event
-|Event=WOP2009:Main
+|Event=WOP:2009
 }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
 {{Graphical representation
 |ImageName=[[Media:AntipatternOIL.JPG]]
@@ Line 46: / Line 47: @@
 }}
 {{Logical OP Reference Template}}
 [[Category:Review assigned]]
 {{Scenarios about me}}
-{{Reviews about me}}{{Modeling issues about me}}
+{{Reviews about me}}
 {{Submission to event
 |Event=WOP2009:Main
 }}

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 [[Category:Review assigned]]
 {{Scenarios about me}}
-{{Reviews about me}}
+{{Reviews about me}}{{Modeling issues about me}}
 {{Submission to event
 |Event=WOP2009:Main
 }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
-{{Include Image
+{{Graphical representation
 |ImageName=[[Media:AntipatternOIL.JPG]]
 }}

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.
-Wet_Zone   subClassOf Wetlands and are_inundated only Sea_Water  and  are_inundated only Surface_Water  and
+Wet_Zone   subClassOf Wetlands and are_inundated only Sea_Water  and  are_inundated only Surface_Water  and  are_inundated min 1 Thing;
   are_inundated min 1 Thing;
 see Zona_Humeda concept in hydrontology.
@@ Line 44: / Line 43: @@
 |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters
 Wet_Zone subClassOf Wetlands and are_inundated only (Sea_Water or Surface_Water)  and  are_inundated min 1 Thing;
-−
-−
 }}
 {{Logical OP Reference Template}}

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3
-others altrenative solution could be:
+other alternative solutions could be:
 ) suppress the disjointness axiom.
@@ Line 30: / Line 31: @@
 ) create two subproperty of R: R2 subPropertyOf R; R3 subProperty of R; C1 subClassOf R2 only C2; C1 subClassOf R3 only C3; C2 disjointWith C3.
 }}
 {{Logical OP Example Template

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 }}
 {{Logical OP Description Template
-|Motivation=Our work is based on the debugging process of real ontologies that have been developed by domain experts, who are not necessarily too familiar with DL, and hence can misuse DL constructors and misunderstand the semantics of some OWL expressions, leading to unwanted unsatisfiable classes. Our patterns were first found during the debugging process of a medium-sized OWL ontology (165 classes) developed by a domain expert in the area of hydrology. The first version of this ontology had a total of 114 unsatisfiable classes. The information provided by the debugging systems used on (root) unsatisfiable classes was not easily understandable by domain experts to find the reasons for their unsatisfiability. And in several occasions during the debugging process the generation of justifications for unsatisfiability took several hours, what made these tools hard to use, confirming the results described in \cite{STU08}. Using this debugging process and several other real ontologies debugging one, we found out that in several occasions domain experts were just changing axioms from the original ontology in a somehow random manner, even changing the intended meaning of the definitions instead of correcting errors in their formalisations.
+|Motivation=Our work is based on the debugging process of real ontologies that have been developed by domain experts, who are not necessarily too familiar with DL, and hence can misuse DL constructors and misunderstand the semantics of some OWL expressions, leading to unwanted unsatisfiable classes. Our patterns were first found during the debugging process of a medium-sized OWL ontology (165 classes) developed by a domain expert in the area of hydrology called HydrOntology. The first version of this ontology had a total of 114 unsatisfiable classes. The information provided by the debugging systems used on (root) unsatisfiable classes was not easily understandable by domain experts to find the reasons for their unsatisfiability. And in several occasions during the debugging process the generation of justifications for unsatisfiability took several hours, what made these tools hard to use. Using this debugging process and several other real ontologies debugging one, we found out that in several occasions domain experts were just changing axioms from the original ontology in a somehow random manner, even changing the intended meaning of the definitions instead of correcting errors in their formalisations.
 We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. Thus they are antipatterns. A Koenig  define antipatterns as patterns that appear obvious but are ineffective or far from optimal in practice, representing worst practice about how to structure and build software. We also have made an effort to identify common alternatives for providing solutions to them, so that they can be used by domain experts to debug their ontologies.
 All these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation.
 |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.
 |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3
 If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3.
 C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3
 }}
 {{Logical OP Example Template

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:30, 10 September 2009
Line 30:		Line 30:


−	~~[[Category:Review assigned]]~~	+
	[[Category:Review assigned]]		[[Category:Review assigned]]