REASONING WITH INCONSISTENT ONTOLOGIES THROUGH ARGUMENTATION

Figures & data

FIGURE 1 Architecture of a knowledge representation system based on Description Logics (adapted from Baader et al. (2003), Fig. 2.1).

FIGURE 2 Architecture of a knowledge representation system based on defeasible argumentation.

FIGURE 3 Mapping from DL ontologies to DeLP defeasible rules.

FIGURE 4 Mapping from DL ontologies to DeLP strict rules.

FIGURE 5 Open retrieval.

FIGURE 6 Retrieval of all classes.

FIGURE 7 Global ontology .

FIGURE 8 Source ontologies 𝒮₁ and 𝒮₂.

FIGURE 9 Bridge ontologies ℳ₁ and ℳ₂.

FIGURE 10 DeLP program 𝒫_𝒢 = (∅, Δ_𝒢) obtained from global ontology 𝒢.

FIGURE 11 DeLP programs 𝒫₁ and 𝒫₂ obtained from source ontologies 𝒮₁ and 𝒮₂, resp.

FIGURE 12 Bridge ontologies expressed as defeasible rules.

FIGURE 13 Dialectical trees for queries good(john), good(mary), and good(paul).

Baader , F. , D. Calvanese , D. McGuinness , D. Nardi , and P. Patel-Schneider . eds. 2003 . The Description Logic Handbook – Theory, Implementation and Applications , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

 Google Scholar