Reasoning With Inconsistent Ontologies Based On ABA Framework

Ontology,as a technique for expressing complex knowledge structures,is highly valued by many industries,including expert faculties and medical databases,for their superior expressiveness and interpretability.The most dominant ontology languages today are the OWL1 and OWL2 languages,which are based on description logic.As a decidable subset of first-order logic,descriptive logic does not support the expression of uncertain knowledge and cannot handle inconsistent contexts.However,in real life,reasoning in inconsistent and uncertain contexts is a common and important task.This paper therefore attempts to address this problem using structured argumentation theory that is good at handling inconsistent and uncertain information.After an analytical comparison,we choose to use the Assumption-based argumentation theory(ABA)to address this problem.In this paper,after describing the basic theories of description logic and ABA.It is designed how to translate the description logic ontology into a Assumption-based argumentation framework.It also designs how to accomplish traditional reasoning tasks including consistency detection,satisfiability detection,concept inclusion and instance detection in inconsistency contexts.Finally,in order to analyse the respective advantages and disadvantages of different argumentation theories in solving the inconsistent ontology reasoning problem and to explore possible directions for future research,this paper compares different inconsistent ontology reasoning schemes based on different structured argumentation theories such as deductive argumentation,De LP,ASPIC+ and ABA in terms of interpretability,difficulty of transcription,information completeness and difficulty of content adjustment and so on.Chapter 1 clarifies the research thrust,objectives and ideas of this paper,and sorts out a brief history of the development of research related to the topic of this paper and the current state of development at home and abroad.This chapter points out the significance of the research in this paper.At the end of the chapter,the structure of the paper and the relationship between the chapters are introduced.Chapter 2 provides the theoretical foundation and introduces the descriptive logic and the Assumption-based structured argumentation framework ABA,respectively.Chapter 3 designs an argumentative system that enables inconsistent ontologybased reasoning based on ABA,called A-Ontology.Chapter 4 illustrates how some important ontology reasoning tasks can be handled in inconsistent contexts in A-Ontology.Chapter 5 focuses on comparing A-Ontology with approaches based on other structured argumentation theories for implementing inconsistent ontology reasoning in five ways.Chapter 6 uses A-Ontology to portray and provide a case study of the famous Casey’s murder.Chapter 7 summarises the whole text and illustrates the innovations of the thesis,mainly the design of an ABA-based ontology structure,the design of a way of reasoning about inconsistent ontologies in this structure,and a focused comparative analysis of different structured argumentation solutions to inconsistent ontological reasoning in terms of several important criteria.The remaining shortcomings of the research are also pointed out,and the prospects for further research are given.