Submissions:Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption

From Odp

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Review has been assigned.)
Current revision (08:29, 31 May 2010) (view source)
m (Text replace - 'WOP2009:Main' to 'WOP:2009')
 
(12 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
-
{{Include Image
+
{{Graphical representation header}}
 +
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Djedidi_LOP1_WOP09.pdf
|ImageName=Djedidi_LOP1_WOP09.pdf
}}
}}
{{Logical OP General Template
{{Logical OP General Template
-
|Name=Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption
+
|Name=Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption
|SubmittedBy=RimDjedidi
|SubmittedBy=RimDjedidi
-
|Author=Rim Djedidi
+
|Author=Rim Djedidi, Marie-Aude Aufaure
}}
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
{{Logical OP Description Template
-
|Motivation=Problem : Resolve disjointness –caused by a subsumption– by defining a hybrid class.
+
|Motivation=Problem :
 +
This pattern helps resolving a logical inconsistency triggered by a situation of disjoint classes subsuming a common sub-class. When we need to define – for some modeling issues related to domain of interest – a class as a sub-class of two disjoint classes, a disjointness inconsistency is caused.
 +
The problem can be illustrated by the following scenario: let’s consider a class Sub_Class defined as a sub-class of a class Disjoint_Class 2; and a class Disjoint_Class 1 disjoint with the Disjoint_Class 2 (see diagram in attached file). If we need to add a sub-class relation between the Sub_Class and the Disjoint_Class 1, this generates a disjointness inconsistency:
-
Competency Question : How to resolve disjointness –caused by a subsumption– by defining a hybrid class while maintaining the semantic of existing knowledge?
+
- If the extension of the Sub_Class contains individuals instantiating this sub-class, the logical inconsistency will be extended to the knowledge base;
-
|Aim=The logical pattern models an alternative resolving disjointness inconsistency –caused by a subsumption– by creating a hybrid class.
+
- If the Sub_Class is not instantiated to individuals, it will be diagnosed as an unsatisfiable class.
-
|Solution=The pattern resolves a disjointness inconsistency –caused by a subsumption– by defining a hybrid class based on the definition of disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency; and redistributing correctly sub-class relations between classes implicated in the inconsistency.
+
 
-
Process:
+
To solve this inconsistency, one can think about deleting the disjointness axiom. However, this can alter the semantics expressed in the ontology, and negatively affect consistency checking and automatic evaluation of existing individuals as explained in [1].
-
1) The pattern defines a hybrid class as a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency to be resolved;  
+
This pattern tackles the questions of how to resolve the inconsistency caused by such kind of subsumption while preserving existing knowledge.
-
2) The pattern defines a subsumption between the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency and the hybrid class created;
+
 
-
3) The pattern defines a subsumption between the hybrid class and the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency.
+
[1]  Völker, J., Vrandecic, D., Sure, Y., Hotho, A.: Learning Disjointness. In F., Enrico, K., Michael, May. Wolfgang (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2007. LNCS: Vol. 4519  pp: 175-189. (2007)
 +
|Aim=Intent:  The purpose of this pattern is to support the semantics of a subsumption defined under two disjoint classes and resolve the resulting inconsistency.
 +
 
 +
Covered Requirements: The pattern solves a problem of disjointness inconsistency caused by a subsumption relation without deleting the disjointness axiom so that existing knowledge can be preserved.
 +
|Solution=The pattern resolves a disjointness inconsistency –due to a subsumption–by defining a Hybrid Class based on the definition of disjoint classes implicated in the inconsistency; and redistributing correctly sub-class relations between the sub-class, the hybrid class, and the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes implicated. The definition of the Hybrid Class is the union (OR) of the definitions of the disjoint classes.
 +
The application of the solution can be described by the following process (see diagram in attached file):
 +
 
 +
1.The pattern defines a Hybrid Class as a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes implicated in the inconsistency to be resolved;
 +
2.The pattern defines a subsumption between the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes implicated in the inconsistency, and the Hybrid Class created;
 +
3.The pattern defines a subsumption between the Hybrid Class and the sub-class involved in the inconsistency.
 +
 
 +
Consequences:  The application of the pattern resolves the disjointness inconsistency (even if the involved sub-class is instantiated by individuals) and preserves existing knowledge. As a Logical OP, this pattern is independent from a specific domain of interest. However, it depends on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation of the ontology. Therefore, the language of the targeted ontology should allow expressing class union.
|Elements=The following elements are manipulated by the pattern:
|Elements=The following elements are manipulated by the pattern:
-
ID of the sub-class (sub_classID).
+
ID of the sub-class (Sub_Class).
-
ID of the first disjoint class (ClsDisj1ID).
+
ID of the first disjoint class (Disjoint_Class 1).
-
ID of the second disjoint class (ClsDisj2ID).
+
ID of the second disjoint class (Disjoint_Class 2).
-
ID of the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes involved (Common_super_classID).
+
ID of the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes involved (Common_Super_Class).
}}
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
{{Logical OP Example Template
-
|ProblemExample=Let’s consider the OWL ontology O defined by the following axioms:
+
|ProblemExample=Let’s consider the OWL ontology O defined by the following axioms:  
{Animal ⊑Fauna-Flora, Plant ⊑Fauna-Flora, Carnivorous-Plant ⊑Plant, Plant ⊑ Not(Animal)}
{Animal ⊑Fauna-Flora, Plant ⊑Fauna-Flora, Carnivorous-Plant ⊑Plant, Plant ⊑ Not(Animal)}
-
If we apply a change to the ontology defining Carnivorous-Plant class as a sub-class of class Animal we cause a disjointness inconsistency as the class Carnivorous-Plant and the class Animal are disjointed.
+
If we apply a change to the ontology defining Carnivorous-Plant class as a sub-class of the class Animal, we cause a disjointness inconsistency. The proposed pattern resolves this kind of inconsistency.
-
The proposed pattern propose a resolution alternative to this kind of inconsistency
+
|Consequences=The application of the pattern to resolve the example above is performed as follow:
-
|Consequences=Define a hybrid class Animal_Plant based on the definition of the two disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency: Animal and Plant.
+
1.The pattern defines a class Animal_Plant as a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes Animal and Plant;
-
Then, create a sub-class relation between the hybrid class created and a common super-class of the classes Animal and Plant.
+
2.The pattern defines a subsumption between the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes Fauna-Flora and the hybrid class created Animal_Plant;
-
And finally, substitute the sub-class relation between the classes Animal and Carnivorous-Plant by a subsumption between the classes Carnivorous-Plant and Animal_Plant.
+
3.The pattern defines a subsumption between the defined hybrid class Animal_Plant and the sub-class Carnivorous-Plant involved in the inconsistency.
-
 
+
-
Process:
+
-
1) The pattern defines a class Animal_Plant as a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes Animal and Plant;  
+
-
2) The pattern defines a subsumption between the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes Fauna-Flora and the hybrid class created Animal_Plant;
+
-
3) The pattern defines a subsumption between the hybrid class Animal_Plant and the sub-class Carnivorous-Plant which is the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency.
+
}}
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}
-
 
+
[[Category:Review assigned]]
{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
 +
{{Modeling issues about me}}
 +
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
{{Submission to event
-
|Event=WOP2009:Main
+
|Event=WOP:2009
}}
}}
-
[[Category:Review assigned]]
 

Current revision


This pattern has been certified.

Related submission, with evaluation history, can be found here

If you are a member of quality committee please visit the

evaluation section

If you are author of this proposal or you want to contribute to this pattern's review, you can:

In general, it could be useful to visit the evaluation section to have information about the evaluation process of this proposal

Current revision ID: 9702

Graphical representation

Diagram

Image:Djedidi LOP1 WOP09.pdf

General information

Name Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption
Also known as
Author(s) Rim Djedidi, Marie-Aude Aufaure
SubmittedBy RimDjedidi


Description

Motivation Problem :

This pattern helps resolving a logical inconsistency triggered by a situation of disjoint classes subsuming a common sub-class. When we need to define – for some modeling issues related to domain of interest – a class as a sub-class of two disjoint classes, a disjointness inconsistency is caused. The problem can be illustrated by the following scenario: let’s consider a class Sub_Class defined as a sub-class of a class Disjoint_Class 2; and a class Disjoint_Class 1 disjoint with the Disjoint_Class 2 (see diagram in attached file). If we need to add a sub-class relation between the Sub_Class and the Disjoint_Class 1, this generates a disjointness inconsistency:

- If the extension of the Sub_Class contains individuals instantiating this sub-class, the logical inconsistency will be extended to the knowledge base; - If the Sub_Class is not instantiated to individuals, it will be diagnosed as an unsatisfiable class.

To solve this inconsistency, one can think about deleting the disjointness axiom. However, this can alter the semantics expressed in the ontology, and negatively affect consistency checking and automatic evaluation of existing individuals as explained in [1]. This pattern tackles the questions of how to resolve the inconsistency caused by such kind of subsumption while preserving existing knowledge.

[1] Völker, J., Vrandecic, D., Sure, Y., Hotho, A.: Learning Disjointness. In F., Enrico, K., Michael, May. Wolfgang (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2007. LNCS: Vol. 4519 pp: 175-189. (2007)

Aim Intent: The purpose of this pattern is to support the semantics of a subsumption defined under two disjoint classes and resolve the resulting inconsistency.

Covered Requirements: The pattern solves a problem of disjointness inconsistency caused by a subsumption relation without deleting the disjointness axiom so that existing knowledge can be preserved.

Solution description The pattern resolves a disjointness inconsistency –due to a subsumption–by defining a Hybrid Class based on the definition of disjoint classes implicated in the inconsistency; and redistributing correctly sub-class relations between the sub-class, the hybrid class, and the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes implicated. The definition of the Hybrid Class is the union (OR) of the definitions of the disjoint classes.

The application of the solution can be described by the following process (see diagram in attached file):

1.The pattern defines a Hybrid Class as a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes implicated in the inconsistency to be resolved; 2.The pattern defines a subsumption between the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes implicated in the inconsistency, and the Hybrid Class created; 3.The pattern defines a subsumption between the Hybrid Class and the sub-class involved in the inconsistency.

Consequences: The application of the pattern resolves the disjointness inconsistency (even if the involved sub-class is instantiated by individuals) and preserves existing knowledge. As a Logical OP, this pattern is independent from a specific domain of interest. However, it depends on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation of the ontology. Therefore, the language of the targeted ontology should allow expressing class union.

Elements The following elements are manipulated by the pattern:

ID of the sub-class (Sub_Class). ID of the first disjoint class (Disjoint_Class 1). ID of the second disjoint class (Disjoint_Class 2). ID of the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes involved (Common_Super_Class).

Implementation
Reusable component
Component type


Example

Problem example Let’s consider the OWL ontology O defined by the following axioms:

{Animal ⊑Fauna-Flora, Plant ⊑Fauna-Flora, Carnivorous-Plant ⊑Plant, Plant ⊑ Not(Animal)}

If we apply a change to the ontology defining Carnivorous-Plant class as a sub-class of the class Animal, we cause a disjointness inconsistency. The proposed pattern resolves this kind of inconsistency.

Pattern solution example
Consequences The application of the pattern to resolve the example above is performed as follow:

1.The pattern defines a class Animal_Plant as a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes Animal and Plant; 2.The pattern defines a subsumption between the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes Fauna-Flora and the hybrid class created Animal_Plant; 3.The pattern defines a subsumption between the defined hybrid class Animal_Plant and the sub-class Carnivorous-Plant involved in the inconsistency.


Pattern reference

Origin
Known use
Reference
Related ODP
Used in combination with
Test

Scenarios

Scenarios about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption

No scenario is added to this Content OP.

Reviews

Reviews about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption
Review article Posted on About revision (current is 9702)
BorisVillazón-Terrazas about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption 24550849 September 2009 56275,627
WimPeters about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption 24550849 September 2009 57535,753
RinkeHoekstra about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption 245513025 October 2009 58675,867
RinkeHoekstra about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption 2 245513025 October 2009 58675,867

This revision (revision ID 9702) takes in account the reviews: none

Other info at evaluation tab


Modeling issues

Modeling issues about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption

There is no Modeling issue related to this proposal.


References

Add a reference


Submission to event

WOP:2009

Personal tools
Quality Committee
Content OP publishers