WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 |

«Abstract. We consider the problem of computing the logical differ- ence between distinct versions of description logic terminologies. For the ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

The Logical Difference Problem for Description

Logic Terminologies

Boris Konev, Dirk Walther, and Frank Wolter

University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

{konev, dwalther, wolter}@liverpool.ac.uk

Abstract. We consider the problem of computing the logical differ-

ence between distinct versions of description logic terminologies. For the

lightweight description logic EL, we present a tractable algorithm which,

given two terminologies and a signature, outputs a set of concepts, which

can be regarded as the logical difference between the two terminologies.

As a consequence, the algorithm can also decide whether they imply the same concept implications in the signature. A prototype implementa- tion CEX of this algorithm is presented and experimental results based on distinct versions of Snomed ct, the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, Clinical Terms, are discussed. Finally, results regarding the re- lation to uniform interpolants and possible extensions to more expressive description logics are presented.

1 Introduction The standard diff operation for text files is an indispensable tool for comparing different versions of texts, and similar operations are available to software en- gineers comparing distinct versions of code produced in collaborative software projects. As observed, e.g., in [14], such a purely syntactic diff operation is hardly useful if the text consists of a set of axioms of an ontology. In this case, one is usually not interested in a comparison of the syntactic form of axioms, but in the consequences that the ontologies have. The authors of [14] present a number of heuristic rules to address this problem and develop a diff operator for ontolo- gies. Except theoretical results in [12, 13, 9], we are not aware of any logic-based approach to computing the logical diff of ontologies.

Our formalisation of the logical difference problem is based on the observation that when comparing distinct versions of ontologies one should take into account their signatures. In fact, the interesting differences between ontologies are those formulated in their shared signature (or even subsets thereof), and not those involving symbols used only in one of the two ontologies. Thus, the proposed notion of logical difference is based on the notion of Σ-entailment: an ontology T Σ-entails an ontology T for a signature Σ, if for all concept implications D in Σ, T |= C D implies T |= C D. If T and T mutually Σ- C entail each other, then they are called Σ-inseparable. By taking Σ as the set of shared symbols of T and T, Σ-inseparability means that T and T are not distinguishable by means of concept implications in their shared signature. In this case, their logical difference will be regarded as empty.

We show that deciding Σ-entailment is tractable for EL-terminologies, i.e., sets of possibly cyclic concept definitions in the lightweight description logic EL; see [1, 10]. Observe that for ontologies formulated as general TBoxes in description logics, the computational complexity of deciding Σ-entailment is by at least one exponential harder than the deduction problem, e.g., it is 2ExpTimecomplete for expressive description logics such as ALC, ALCQ, and ALCQI [6, 12] and ExpTime-complete for EL itself [13]. Moreover, even in such simple formalisms as acyclic propositional Horn Logic Σ-entailment is co-NP-complete [5].

In applications, it is not enough to decide whether two ontologies are logically different, but an informative list of differences is required. We show that D in the logical difference between two ELfor any concept implication C terminologies, there exist subconcepts C and D of C and D, respectively, such that C D is in the logical difference and C or D is a concept name. Thus, listing the set of all concept names involved in such implications appears to be an informative approximation of the logical difference between two EL-terminologies.

This list is empty if, and only if, there is no logical difference between the two terminologies.

The system CEX implements, by employing a dynamic programming approach, the algorithm deciding Σ-entailment and lists the set of logical differences described above for acyclic EL-terminologies. We present a variety of experiments in which CEX is applied to different versions of Snomed ct, the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, Clinical Terms. This terminology comprises ∼0.4 million terms and underlies the systematised medical terminology used in the health systems of the US, the UK, and other countries [17].

Finally, we discuss an alternative approach to deciding Σ-entailment using uniform interpolants and explore the complexity of corresponding reasoning problems for acyclic ALC-terminologies.

Detailed proofs are provided in the technical report [11].

2 Preliminaries

Let NC and NR be countably infinite and disjoint sets of concept names and role names, respectively. In the description logic EL, concepts C are built according to the syntax rule C ::= | A | C D | ∃r.C, where A ranges over NC, r ranges over NR, and C, D range over concepts. The semantics of concepts is defined by means of interpretations I = (∆I, ·I ), where the interpretation domain ∆I is a non-empty set, and ·I is a function mapping each concept name A to a subset AI of ∆I and each role name rI to a binary relation rI ⊆ ∆I × ∆I. The function ·I is inductively extended to arbitrary concepts by setting I := ∆I, (C D)I := C I ∩ DI, and (∃r.C)I := {d ∈ ∆I | ∃e ∈ C I : (d, e) ∈ rI }.





A general TBox is a finite set of axioms, where an axiom can be either a D or a concept equality (CE) C ≡ D, where C, D concept inclusion (CI) C are concepts. An interpretation I satisfies a CI C D (written I |= C D) if C I ⊆ DI ; it satisfies a CE C ≡ D (written I |= C ≡ D) if C I = DI. I is a model of a general TBox T if it satisfies all axioms in T. We write T |= C D (T |= C ≡ D) if every model of T satisfies C D (C ≡ D, respectively).

Our main concern in this paper are terminologies, i.e., general TBoxes T

satisfying the following two conditions:

– T consists of CEs of the form A ≡ C (concept definitions) and CIs of the form A C (primitive concept definitions) only, where A is a concept name;

– no concept name occurs more than once on the left hand side of an axiom in T.

Define the relation T between concept names by setting A T B if there exists an axiom of the form A ≡ C or A C in T such that B occurs in C. A terminology T is called acyclic if the transitive closure ∗ of T is irreflexive.

T A signature Σ is a finite subset of NC ∪ NR. The signature sig(C) (sig(α), sig(T )) of a concept C (axiom α, terminology T ) is the set of concept and role names which occur in C (α, T, respectively). If sig(C) ⊆ Σ, we also call C a Σ-concept and similarly for axioms and terminologies.

Definition 1 (Σ-difference, Σ-entailment). Let T and T be terminologies and Σ a signature. The Σ-difference, Diff Σ (T, T ), between T and T is defined as Diff Σ (T, T ) = {C D | T |= C D and T |= C D) ⊆ Σ}.

D and sig(C T Σ-entails T if, and only if, Diff Σ (T, T ) = ∅. T and T are called Σinseparable if T and T Σ-entail each other.

Example 1. Observe that, in some cases, Diff Σ (T, T ) only contains concept implications of at least exponential size, even for acyclic terminologies.

To start with, let T = ∅,

T = {A0 B0, A1 ≡ Bn } ∪ {Bi+1 ≡ ∃r.Bi ∃s.Bi | 0 ≤ i n},

and Σ = {A0, A1, r, s}. Then T is not Σ-entailed by T, and a minimal implication of the form C A1 in Diff Σ (T, T ) is given by Cn A1, where C0 = A0 and Ci+1 = ∃r.Ci ∃s.Ci, for i ≥ 0. Clearly, Cn is of exponential size. Observe, however, that there exist much smaller implications than Cn A1 in Diff Σ (T, T ).

∃r., A1 ∃s., A1 ∃r. ∃s., etc. To avoid this type of Namely, A1 implications in Diff Σ (T, T ) replace T by

–  –  –

Observe that if T Σ-entails T, then T Σ -entails T for any Σ with Σ ∩ sig(T ) ⊆ Σ. This follows immediately from the following interpolation result [16].

Theorem 1. EL has the interpolation property, i.

e., if T |= C D, then there exists a finite set T0 of CIs with sig(T0 ) ⊆ sig(T ) ∩ sig(C D) such that T |= T0 and T0 |= C D.

Basic properties of EL3

We derive basic properties of EL from the Gentzen-style sequent calculus of Hofmann [10], see Figure 1.1 The basic calculus of [10] considers EL without the constant and for terminologies without primitive concept definitions. To take care of, we have added the rule (AxTop), and (PDefL) is the rule representing axioms of the form A C. Cut-elimination, completeness, and correctness can now be proved by a straightforward extension of the proof in [10].

For a terminology T and concepts C, D, we write T C D iff there exists a proof of C D in the calculus of Figure 1.

Theorem 2 (Hofmann). For all terminologies T and concepts C, D, it holds that T |= C D if, and only if, T C D.

We apply this calculus to derive a description of the syntactic form of concepts C such that T |= C D, where D is not equivalent to a conjunction. Call a concept name A primitive in T if A does not occur on the left hand side of an axiom in T. Call A pseudo-primitive in T if it is primitive in T or occurs on the left hand side of primitive concept definitions in T. In what follows, we say that a concept F is a conjunction of concepts if F = D∈X D, for a set X of concepts. Any D ∈ X is then called a conjunct of F and, if D is a concept name, 1 Alternatively, one could start from the model-theoretic analysis of EL terminologies in [1].

then it is called an atomic conjunct of F. We sometimes write D ∈ F instead of D ∈ X and if X is empty, then F denotes the concept.

Lemma 1. Let T be a terminology and C = F (r,D)∈Q ∃r.

D, where F is a conjunction of concept names and Q is a set of pairs (r, D) in which r is a role and D a concept.

1. If T |= C A for an A which is pseudo-primitive in T, then T |= B A, for some atomic conjunct B of F.

2. If T |= C ∃s.C0, then – T |= B ∃s.C0, for some atomic conjunct B of F, or – there exists (r, D) ∈ Q such that r = s and T |= D C0.

Proof. We use Theorem 2 and prove Point 1. Point 2 is proved similarly. Let T C A, where A is pseudo-primitive in T. Let D be a proof of C A. Note that, since A is pseudo-primitive in T, D can only end with one of Ax, AndL1, AndL2, DefL, or PDefL. We show that then T B A, for some conjunct B of F, by induction on the number n of conjuncts in C.

The base case of n = 1 is trivial: D can only end with one of Ax, PDefL, or DefL; so, C is a concept name itself.

Assume n 1. Then D can only end with one of AndL1 or AndL2.

In any case, there exists a conjunct C of C such that T C A and C contains less conjuncts than C. By induction, there exists a concept name B which is a conjunct in C such that T B A. Note now that B is also a conjunct of C.

We apply Lemma 1 to show that if T does not Σ-entail T, then there exists C D ∈ Diff Σ (T, T ) such that C or D is a concept name.

–  –  –

Proof. Let C D ∈ Diff Σ (T, T ). Then D = because otherwise T |= C D.

If D = D1 D2, then one of C Di, i = 1, 2, is in the Σ-difference. If D = ∃r.D1 then, by Lemma 1, either there exists a subconcept A of C, A a concept name, such that A D is in the Σ-difference, or there exists a subconcept ∃r.C1 of C, such that C1 D1 is in the Σ-difference. Simplify C D until none of these simplification rules is applicable. The resulting CI is as required.

4 Deciding Σ-entailment: theory By Lemma 2, to decide Σ-entailment, it is sufficient to decide whether the set Diff Σ (T, T ) contains Σ-implications of the form C A or A D, where A is a concept name. The latter problem is decidable in polynomial time already for general EL-TBoxes [13]. So, in what follows we concentrate on Σ-implications of the form C A. We first transform T into a normalised terminology. A concept For A ∈ NC, – if A is pseudo-primitive in T, then

–  –  –

name A is called non-conjunctive in T if it is pseudo-primitive in T or has a definition of the form A ≡ ∃r.C ∈ T. Otherwise A is called conjunctive in T. A

terminology T is normalised if it consists of axioms of the following form:

– A ≡ ∃r.B or A ∃r.B, where B is a concept name;

– A ≡ F or A F, where F is a (possibly empty) conjunction of concept names such that every conjunct B of F is non-conjunctive in T.

Normalised terminologies in the sense defined above are a minor modification of normalised terminologies as defined in [1]. Say that two interpretations I and J coincide on a signature Σ, in symbols I|Σ = J |Σ, if ∆I = ∆J and X I = X J for all X ∈ Σ.

Lemma 3. For every terminology T, one can construct in polynomial time a normalised terminology T of polynomial size in |T | such that sig(T ) ⊆ sig(T ), T |= T, and for every model I of T there exists a model J of T which coincides with I on Σ.

Moreover, T is acyclic if T is acyclic.

The proof is a straightforward modification of the proof in [1]. From now on we will work with normalised terminologies only.

A ∈ Diff Σ (T, T ), we want Intuitively, to decide whether there exists C to construct the most specific2 Σ-concept CA such that T |= CA A. Then there exists some Σ-concept C such that C A ∈ Diff Σ (T, T ) if, and only if, T |= CA A. Unfortunately, most specific Σ-concepts with this property do not always exist and, therefore (and also to enable structure sharing), we use an

additional terminology. We use the following sets and axiom:

– Σ fresh = {AllΣ } ∪ {ξA | A ∈ NC non-conjunctive in T }, where AllΣ and each ξA are fresh concept names not occurring in Σ ∪ sig(T );

2 Recall that a concept C is more specific than a concept D if |= C D.

r∈Σ ∃r.( A ∈Σ A – α denotes the concept inclusion AllΣ AllΣ );

– preΣ (A) = {B ∈ Σ | T |= B A}, for A ∈ NC. These sets can be computed T in polynomial time [1].

Theorem 3. Let T be a normalised terminology and Σ a signature.



Pages:   || 2 | 3 |


Similar works:

«1 II.nd Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology Center Faculty of Medicine, University of Sciences, Szeged New diagnostic and interventional methods in invasive cardiology Ph.D. Thesis by Zoltán Ruzsa, M.D. Szeged 2011 Supervisor: Albert Varga, M.D., D.Sc. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PUBLICATIONS INTRODUCTION THE PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF MYOCARDIAL ISCHAEMIA 1. Coronary circulation 2. Myocardial ischaemia VISUALISATION OF THE CORONARY ARTERIES WITH ULTRASOUND 1. Transoesophageal echocardiography 2....»

«Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Public Health Theses School of Public Health 5-16-2014 Identification of Medical Interpreter Services in Atlanta Metropolitan Area Huong Giang Tran School of Public Health Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/iph_theses Recommended Citation Tran, Huong Giang, Identification of Medical Interpreter Services in Atlanta Metropolitan Area. Thesis, Georgia State University, 2014....»

«Seniors Speak Out. About Being Stigmatized Seniors Speak Out. About Being Stigmatized In the Fall and Spring of 2001-2, we had the opportunity to ask seniors from across Canada for their views on stigmatization, a common phenomenon in the lives of many people who are experiencing alcohol problems. This was part of Seeking Solutions (a national project on seniors and alcohol issues funded through Health Canada and the National Population Health Fund). This document provides a summary of those...»

«Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., Vol 3 (2) January 2014:224-228 ©2014 Academy for Environment and Life Sciences, India Online ISSN 2277-1808 Journal’s URL:http://www.bepls.com CODEN: BEPLAD Global Impact Factor 0.533 Universal Impact Factor 0.9804 ORIGINAL ARTICLE The study of the Sustainability indexes in Lahijan and its effect on the Urban Environment Reihaneh Raoufi¹, Abdolkarim Keshavarz Shokri2*, Hassan Karimzadegan³...»

«Dartmouth College Safety and Security 5 Rope Ferry Road #6156 HANOVER • NEW HAMPSHIRE • 03755-1420 Telephone (603) 646-4000 • Fax (603) 646-1603 Pandemic Flu Planning Guidelines and Checklist for Individuals Over the past few months the media has begun informing the world of the real possibility of a pandemic influenza outbreak. The Department of Safety and Security is devoting considerable energy and resources to planning and preparing for this very real threat. You, too, can prepare for...»

«13 Health Partners Plans Provider Manual Complaints, Grievances and Appeals Purpose: This chapter provides guidelines for understanding the complaint, grievance and appeal procedures used at Health Partners Plans.Topics:  Provider Disputes  Provider Initiated Member Grievances and Appeals  Sanctions and Appeals  Medicaid Member Complaint & Grievance Process  CHIP Member Complaint & Grievance Process  Medicare Member Grievance & Appeal Process  PCO Member Complaint & Appeal...»

«Page Andiroba (Carapa guianensis) 29 Bacuri (Platonia insignis) 39 Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) 49 Cat’s claw (Uncaria tomentosa and Uncaria guianensis) 65 Copaíba (Copaifera spp.) 71 Ipê–roxo (Tabebuia impetiginosa) 81 Jatobá (Hymenaea courbaril) 91 Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) 101 Piquiá (Caryocar villosum) 109 Rubber tree, seringueira (Hevea brasiliensis) 121 Titica (Heteropsis spp.) 129 Uxi (Endopleura uchi) 139 Carapa guianensis Aubl. Patricia Shanley Marina Londres A...»

«PACKAGE LEAFLET PACKAGE LEAFLET: INFORMATION FOR THE USER Alvesco 40, 80 and 160 mcg Inhaler Ciclesonide Read all of this leaflet carefully before you start using this medicine because it contains important information for you.Keep this leaflet. You may need to read it again.If you have any further questions, ask your doctor or pharmacist.This medicine has been prescribed for you only. Do not pass it on to others. It may harm them, even if their signs of illness are the same as yours. If you...»

«Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories CH4 EMISSIONS: COAL MINING AND HANDLING ACKNOWLEDGEM E N T This paper was written by William Irving (USEPA) and Oleg Tailakov (Russia Coalbed Methane Center). It was reviewed by Dina Kruger (USEPA) and David Williams (CSIRO).ABSTRACT The amount of methane (CH4 ) released during coal mining depends on a number of factors, the most important of which are coal rank, coal seam depth, and method of mining....»

«Contents of the Final National Implementation Survey Your Provider 1. Our records show that you visited the provider named below in the last 6 months. Name of provider label goes here Is that right? Yes No  If No, go to #44 on page 5 The questions in this survey will refer to the provider named in Question 1 as “this provider.” Please think of that person as you answer the survey.2. Is this the provider you usually see if you need a check-up, want advice about a health problem, or get...»

«Traditional ethnoveterinary medicine in East Africa: a manual on the use of medicinal plants Authors: Najma Dharani, Abiy Yenesew Ermias Aynekulu, Beatrice Tuei Ramni Jamnadass Editor: Ian K Dawson i A manual on the use of medicinal plants The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) is a non-profit research organisation whose vision is a rural transformation in the developing world resulting in a massive increase in the use of trees in rural landscapes by smallholder households for improved food...»

«Access to unapproved therapeutic goods via the Special Access Scheme November 2009 Therapeutic Goods Administration About the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) · The TGA is a division of the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, and is responsible for regulating medicines and medical devices. · TGA administers the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act), applying a risk management approach designed to ensure therapeutic goods supplied in Australia meet acceptable standards...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.