# Submissions:Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption

(Difference between revisions)
 Revision as of 12:54, 11 September 2009 (view source) (Review has been created. Annotation 'assigned' has been removed.)← Previous diff Revision as of 18:19, 24 September 2009 (view source) (This pattern helps resolving a logical inconsistency triggered by a situation of disjoint classes subsuming a common sub-class.)Next diff → Line 4: Line 4: }} }} {{Logical OP General Template {{Logical OP General Template - |Name=Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption. + |Name=Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption. |SubmittedBy=RimDjedidi |SubmittedBy=RimDjedidi |Author=Rim DJEDIDI |Author=Rim DJEDIDI }} }} {{Logical OP Description Template {{Logical OP Description Template - |Motivation=Problem: + |Motivation=Problem : - Resolve disjointness –caused by a subsumption– by enlarging a class definition. + - Competency Question: + 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: - How to resolve disjointness –caused by a subsumption– by enlarging a definition of a class? + - |Aim=The logical pattern models an alternative resolving disjointness inconsistency –caused by a subsumption– by enlarging the definition of a class. + - |Solution=The pattern resolves a disjointness inconsistency –caused by a subsumption–by enlarging the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency, based on the definition of disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency. + - Process: + - 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=The pattern resolves a disjointness inconsistency –caused by a subsumption– by enlarging the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency, based on the definition of the involved disjoint classes. The definition of the sub-class is enlarged by 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 enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency to be resolved. 1) The pattern enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency to be resolved. - |Elements=the following elements are manipulated y the pattern: + |Elements=the following elements are manipulated by the pattern: - ID of the class to enlarge (classID). + ID of the sub-class to enlarge (Sub_Class). - ID(s) of the classes defining the enlargement. + ID of the first disjoint class (Disjoint_Class 1). - Operator : Union + ID of the second disjoint class (Disjoint_Class 2). }} }} {{Logical OP Example Template {{Logical OP Example Template Line 30: Line 36: {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. The proposed pattern propose a resolution alternative to this kind of inconsistency + 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. - |Consequences=Enlarge the definition of the class Carnivorous-Plant based on the definition of the classes Animal and Plant. + |Consequences=The application of the pattern to resolve the example above is performed as follow: 1) The pattern enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency Carnivorous-Plant by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency: the classes Animal and Plant. 1) The pattern enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency Carnivorous-Plant by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency: the classes Animal and Plant. }} }} - {{Logical OP Reference Template}} + {{Logical OP Reference Template - + |KnownUse= This pattern is proposed as another solution to the problem solved by the Logical OP "Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption" + }} + [[Category:Review assigned]] {{Scenarios about me}} {{Scenarios about me}} {{Reviews about me}} {{Reviews about me}} Line 41: Line 49: |Event=WOP2009:Main |Event=WOP2009:Main }} }} - - - - - [[Category:Review assigned]]

## Revision as of 18:19, 24 September 2009

Warning!

This is an old revision. Go to current revision

 If you are a member of quality committee please visit the 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: 5857

# General information

 Name Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption. Rim DJEDIDI 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) 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. The pattern resolves a disjointness inconsistency –caused by a subsumption– by enlarging the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency, based on the definition of the involved disjoint classes. The definition of the sub-class is enlarged by 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 enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency to be resolved. the following elements are manipulated by the pattern: ID of the sub-class to enlarge (Sub_Class). ID of the first disjoint class (Disjoint_Class 1). ID of the second disjoint class (Disjoint_Class 2).

# 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. The application of the pattern to resolve the example above is performed as follow: 1) The pattern enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency Carnivorous-Plant by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency: the classes Animal and Plant.

# Pattern reference

 Origin This pattern is proposed as another solution to the problem solved by the Logical OP "Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption"

# Scenarios

Scenarios about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption

No scenario is added to this Content OP.

# Reviews

Reviews about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption
Review article Posted on About revision (current is 5857)
MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption 24550838 September 2009 56245,624
MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption 2 24550838 September 2009 57315,731
WimPeters about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption 24550849 September 2009 57315,731
FrancoisScharffe about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption 245508611 September 2009 58005,800

This revision (revision ID 5857) takes in account the reviews: none

Other info at evaluation tab

Submission to event