Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies
Abstract Background The ontology authoring step in ontology development involves having to make choices about what subject domain knowledge to include. This may concern sorting out ontological differences and making choices between conflicting axioms due to limitations in the logic or the subject do...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2021-08-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Biomedical Semantics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-021-00246-0 |
| _version_ | 1818903133403742208 |
|---|---|
| author | C. Maria Keet Rolf Grütter |
| author_facet | C. Maria Keet Rolf Grütter |
| author_sort | C. Maria Keet |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background The ontology authoring step in ontology development involves having to make choices about what subject domain knowledge to include. This may concern sorting out ontological differences and making choices between conflicting axioms due to limitations in the logic or the subject domain semantics. Examples are dealing with different foundational ontologies in ontology alignment and OWL 2 DL’s transitive object property versus a qualified cardinality constraint. Such conflicts have to be resolved somehow. However, only isolated and fragmented guidance for doing so is available, which therefore results in ad hoc decision-making that may not be the best choice or forgotten about later. Results This work aims to address this by taking steps towards a framework to deal with the various types of modeling conflicts through meaning negotiation and conflict resolution in a systematic way. It proposes an initial library of common conflicts, a conflict set, typical steps toward resolution, and the software availability and requirements needed for it. The approach was evaluated with an actual case of domain knowledge usage in the context of epizootic disease outbreak, being avian influenza, and running examples with COVID-19 ontologies. Conclusions The evaluation demonstrated the potential and feasibility of a conflict resolution framework for ontologies. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T20:46:42Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d2f839a23bf6460a83ecb95b36421ce0 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2041-1480 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T20:46:42Z |
| publishDate | 2021-08-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Biomedical Semantics |
| spelling | doaj.art-d2f839a23bf6460a83ecb95b36421ce02022-12-21T20:06:13ZengBMCJournal of Biomedical Semantics2041-14802021-08-0112111510.1186/s13326-021-00246-0Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologiesC. Maria Keet0Rolf Grütter1Department of Computer Science, University of Cape TownSwiss Federal Research Institute WSLAbstract Background The ontology authoring step in ontology development involves having to make choices about what subject domain knowledge to include. This may concern sorting out ontological differences and making choices between conflicting axioms due to limitations in the logic or the subject domain semantics. Examples are dealing with different foundational ontologies in ontology alignment and OWL 2 DL’s transitive object property versus a qualified cardinality constraint. Such conflicts have to be resolved somehow. However, only isolated and fragmented guidance for doing so is available, which therefore results in ad hoc decision-making that may not be the best choice or forgotten about later. Results This work aims to address this by taking steps towards a framework to deal with the various types of modeling conflicts through meaning negotiation and conflict resolution in a systematic way. It proposes an initial library of common conflicts, a conflict set, typical steps toward resolution, and the software availability and requirements needed for it. The approach was evaluated with an actual case of domain knowledge usage in the context of epizootic disease outbreak, being avian influenza, and running examples with COVID-19 ontologies. Conclusions The evaluation demonstrated the potential and feasibility of a conflict resolution framework for ontologies.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-021-00246-0Ontology engineeringOntology developmentInfectious disease ontologies |
| spellingShingle | C. Maria Keet Rolf Grütter Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies Journal of Biomedical Semantics Ontology engineering Ontology development Infectious disease ontologies |
| title | Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies |
| title_full | Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies |
| title_fullStr | Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies |
| title_full_unstemmed | Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies |
| title_short | Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies |
| title_sort | toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies |
| topic | Ontology engineering Ontology development Infectious disease ontologies |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-021-00246-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT cmariakeet towardasystematicconflictresolutionframeworkforontologies AT rolfgrutter towardasystematicconflictresolutionframeworkforontologies |