Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 99 references

Completing and Debugging Ontologies: state of the art and challenges

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read One repair definition unifies ontology completion and debugging.

desk verdict A solid survey whose CDP framework gives the field a common vocabulary; the oracle gap is a precision issue, not a fatal one. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03171 v2 pith:HK2HKMUD submitted 2019-08-08 cs.AI cs.LO

Patrick Lambrix This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LO
keywords ontologyrepairdebuggingcompletionabductivereasoningdescriptionlogicsTBoxpreferencerelationscomplete-debugproblem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper attempts to establish that the repair phase of ontology engineering—the phase after defects have been detected—can be stated as one uniform abduction problem rather than a collection of ad-hoc tasks. In the formalization, called the Complete-Debug-Problem, an ontology is a description-logic TBox, the user supplies sets of missing and wrong axioms, and a repair is a pair consisting of axioms to add and axioms to delete such that the added axioms are true according to a domain-expert oracle, the deleted ones are false, and the resulting TBox is consistent and derives exactly the right statements. Situating prior work inside this definition shows that debugging and completion have usually been studied separately, that a naive combination of a debugging step and a completion step does not generally yield a repair, and that most existing methods assume an all-knowing oracle. A sympathetic reader would care because the framework gives a common yardstick for comparing tools, makes explicit which assumptions each method makes, and clarifies what open algorithmic problems must be solved before ontologies can be kept both correct and complete.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Complete-Debug-Problem (CDP) and its repair relation from Definition 1, together with the oracle $Or$ that answers true or false for each TBox axiom and represents the domain expert. The oracle is the only channel through which domain correctness enters; without it, 'missing' and 'wrong' are just syntactic labels. The framework's other machinery is a family of preference relations over repairs—more complete, less incorrect, and subset minimal—and their combinations, which let the survey classify algorithms by which kind of optimal repair they can produce, such as maximally complete, minimally incorrect, or skyline-optimal. The CDP carries the argument by turning every repair task into the same abductive schema, making the comparison of methods a matter of checking which conditions and preferences each method realizes.

What would settle it

Take a repair produced by an axiom-weakening tool and try to express it as a pair ($A$,$D$) of whole axioms under any oracle; if there is an ontology where the weakened axiom cannot be split into oracle-true additions and oracle-false deletions that keep all missing axioms derivable and all wrong axioms underivable, then Definition 1 does not cover every repair method it claims to unify.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Definition 1: for a TBox $T$, atomic concepts $C$, an oracle $Or$ returning true or false for every axiom, a finite set $M$ of missing axioms and a finite set $W$ of wrong axioms, a repair of CDP($T,C,Or,M,W$) is any pair ($A$,$D$) of finite axiom sets such that every axiom in $A$ is oracle-true, every axiom in $D$ is oracle-false, the TBox obtained by deleting $D$ from and adding $A$ to $T$ is consistent, every axiom in $M$ is derivable from the repaired TBox, and no axiom in $W$ is derivable from it. The author then reads the literature through this lens: correctness-only debugging is the special case with $M$ empty and $A$ empty, completeness-only completion is $W$ empty and $D$ empty, and work that does both at once is rare and mostly restricted to lightweight is-a structures. On this reading the field's main gap is not detection but the combined repair problem and the algorithmic guarantee of preferred repairs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a domain expert can serve as an oracle that returns the correct true or false judgment for every TBox axiom, because the definition of a repair lets axioms be added only on 'true' answers and deleted only on 'false' answers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every debugging-only or completion-only method discussed is a special case of CDP repair, which is why the framework can compare them uniformly.
  • A repair for the combined problem cannot in general be obtained by doing a completion step and then a debugging step, or vice versa, since additions can re-enable wrong derivations and deletions can remove needed support.
  • Preference relations distinguish good repairs: maximally complete, minimally incorrect, and subset-minimal are different goals, and existing systems often realize only some of them.
  • The open problems follow directly: algorithms for combined repair with guarantees, complexity results for completion and preferred repairs, and extensions to oracles that answer 'unknown'.
  • Ontology networks can be treated as single TBoxes by translating all mappings into axioms, so the same CDP definition applies there as well.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the CDP formalization became the standard interface for repair tools, benchmark evaluations could be built around a shared tuple ($T$,$M$,$W$,oracle answers), letting any proposed repair algorithm be scored against the same oracle judgments; current surveys compare systems only via their own benchmarks.
  • The oracle dependence suggests a robustness program the paper only touches: repairs could be defined relative to probability-of-correctness estimates or to multiple experts, so that add and delete decisions are made under uncertainty rather than by an all-knowing judge.
  • Axiom-level add/delete granularity may be the wrong cut for some real repairs, which weaken or rewrite axioms; the paper notes these can be encoded as delete-plus-add, but this encoding may hide a finer-grained repair problem worth formalizing separately.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a survey of ontology debugging and completion focused on the repair step. It introduces a formalization of a Complete-Debug-Problem CDP(T,C,Or,M,W), where a repair is a pair (A,D) of TBox axiom sets to add and delete such that: added axioms are declared true by an oracle Or, deleted axioms are declared false, the resulting TBox is consistent, all missing axioms M are entailed, and all wrong axioms W are not entailed (Definition 1). It then defines preference relations among repairs—more complete, less incorrect, subset minimality, and combined skyline optimality—and uses this framework to organize the state of the art for single ontologies and ontology networks, including correctness-only, completeness-only, and combined approaches. The paper concludes with open research problems in theory, algorithms, and user support, and an appendix works through a Galen-inspired EL example verifying several repairs against the five conditions.

Significance. The proposed framework is a useful unifying device: it makes explicit that repair involves both addition and deletion, it connects repair to abduction, and it provides preference notions that prior surveys lacked. The worked examples are careful, and the appendix verifies each candidate repair against Definition 1, which is a strength. The survey's descriptive claims are supported by references, and the separation of debugging and completion is convincingly documented. The paper does not claim machine-checked proofs or experimental results, which is appropriate for a survey; its value lies in the formalization and organization of the field.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.1.1 (Definition 1) and §4.1.2] Definition 1 constrains the oracle only on the added set A and the deleted set D (conditions (i)–(ii)); conditions (iv)–(v) apply to M and W without any requirement that Or has classified these axioms. The 'all-knowing' case is introduced informally in §4.1.2, and the statement that one can 'without loss of generality' assume that M-axioms are really missing and W-axioms are really false is an external meta-assumption rather than a consequence of Definition 1. As written, therefore, a repair can satisfy (iv) by entailing an axiom that is in fact false according to the domain (if M contains a false positive), and can satisfy (v) by making a true entailment non-derivable (if W contains a false negative); the preference relations in Definitions 2–3 inherit this issue because they compare entailment sets using a possibly fallible Or. I recommend adding explicit conditions to the definition of CDP or to Definition 1 (e.g., ∀ψ∈M: Or(ψ)=true and ∀ψ∈W: Or(ψ)=false, possibly as a separate 'validated defects' assumption) and stating formally what 'all-knowing' means (e.g., Or(ψ)=true iff ψ holds in the intended domain).
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2] In the sentence 'Therefore, in Def. 1, ∀ψm∈M:Or(ψp)=true, W=∅ and D=∅', the variable ψp should be ψm.
  2. [§4.1.1 (Definition 1)] Definition 1 includes C in the problem signature, but C is never used in any of the conditions; either remove it or state explicitly that it is part of the signature for notational uniformity.
  3. [§4.1.1 (Definition 1) and §4.1.2] Definition 1 does not explicitly require D⊆T or A∩D=∅ in general; the examples and the identity (T∪A)\D=(T\D)∪A in §4.1.2 assume A∩D=∅. Please state the intended domain of A and D.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The color coding and the T/F labels are helpful, but the captions do not explain that blue marks missing axioms and red marks wrong axioms; making the captions self-contained would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CDP framework is a definitional formalization, and surveyed prior work is assessed against it rather than derived from it.

full rationale

The paper's central move is Definition 1, which explicitly defines a repair for a Complete-Debug-Problem as a pair (A,D) satisfying oracle-based conditions on additions/deletions, consistency, derivability of all M, and non-derivability of all W. This is a stated formalization, not a prediction derived from hidden inputs, nor a parameter fitted to data. The subsequent preference relations (Definitions 2-10) are also explicit definitions built on the oracle, and Section 4.1.2 openly discusses the all-knowing oracle assumption and the consequences of oracle fallibility; the skeptic's observation that Definition 1 does not itself require the oracle to have validated M and W is a precision limitation the paper acknowledges in prose, not a circular reduction. The survey's citations of the author's own systems (e.g., RepOSE [24,25], EL completion algorithms [56,58], and ALC repair [59]) are used as examples of the state of the art; those works contain independent algorithms and complexity results, and the paper does not invoke them as premises that force the framework's conclusions. No fitted-input-called-prediction, self-citation-load-bearing, or renamed-known-result pattern is present, so the derivation chain is self-contained as a formalization-and-survey contribution.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented physical entities appear. The oracle is an abstraction for a domain expert, so it is recorded as an assumption rather than as an invented entity. The paper's central definitions depend on the oracle's reliability, which the paper itself qualifies.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard description logic semantics: interpretations, models, TBox consistency, and subsumption are well-defined.
    Used throughout Section 2.2 and in Definition 1 for consistency and entailment conditions.
  • domain assumption Ontologies of interest are represented as TBoxes without instances.
    Section 2.1 states 'In this paper we do not deal with instances', and Section 4 repeats this restriction.
  • ad hoc to paper An oracle Or exists that can answer true or false for any TBox axiom.
    Introduced in Definition 1 as the way to judge whether axioms are correct according to the domain; Section 4.1.2 acknowledges real experts can err, which exposes this as an idealization.
  • standard math EL TBoxes are always consistent.
    Used in the appendix when verifying repair R1: the text says 'EL Tboxes are consistent'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Completing and Debugging Ontologies: state of the art and challenges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HK2HKMUD

@misc{pith2026190803171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Completing and Debugging Ontologies: state of the art and challenges},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HK2HKMUD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03171}
}
read the original abstract

As semantically-enabled applications require high-quality ontologies, developing and maintaining ontologies that are as correct and complete as possible is an important although difficult task in ontology engineering. A key step is ontology debugging and completion. In general, there are two steps: detecting defects and repairing defects. In this paper we discuss the state of the art regarding the repairing step. We do this by formalizing the repairing step as an abduction problem and situating the state of the art with respect to this framework. We show that there are still many open research problems and show opportunities for further work and advancing the field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03171 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example complete-debug problem. by a set M of missing axioms, and a set W of wrong axioms. To repair the TBox, a set A of axioms that are correct according to the oracle should be added to the TBox and a set D of axioms that are not correct according to the oracle should be removed from the TBox such that the new TBox is consistent, the missing axioms are derivable from the new TBox and the wrong axioms are not deri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the example complete-debug problem in Fig. 1. The axioms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Repairs (a) R1, (b) R2, (c) R3, (d) R4, (e) R5 for the example in Fig. 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: EL example. (C is the set of atomic concepts in the ontology. T is a TBox representing the ontology. M is a set of missing axioms. W is the set of wrong axioms. Or is the oracle representing the domain expert.) 43 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the example complete-debug problem in Fig. 4. The axioms in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Result after repairing the ontology in the complete-debug problem in Fig. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Result after repairing the ontology in the complete-debug problem in Fig. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Result after repairing the ontology in the complete-debug problem in Fig. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Result after repairing the ontology in the complete-debug problem in Fig. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Result after repairing the ontology in the complete-debug problem in Fig. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Result after repairing the ontology in the complete-debug problem in Fig. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Result after repairing the ontology in the complete-debug problem in Fig. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Result after repairing the ontology in the complete-debug problem in Fig. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Staab, R

    S. Staab, R. Studer, Handbook on Ontologies, Springer-Verlag, 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3 2009

  2. [2]

    M. D. Wilkinson, M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, N. Blomberg, J.-W. Boiten, L. B. da Silva Santos, P. E. Bourne, J. Bouwman, A. J. Brookes, T. Clark, M. Crosas, I. Dillo, O. Dumon, S. Ed- munds, C. T. Evelo, R. Finkers, A. Gonzalez-Beltran, A. J. Gray, P. Groth, C. Goble, J. S. Grethe, J. Heringa, P. A. t Hoen, R. Hooft, T...

    2016

  3. [3]

    d’Aquin, N

    M. d’Aquin, N. F. Noy, Where to Publish and Find Ontologies? A Survey of Ontology Libraries, Journal of Web Semantics 11 (2012) 96–111. doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2011.08.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.websem.2011.08.005 2012

  4. [4]

    Simperl, M

    E. Simperl, M. Mochol, T. B ¨urger, Achieving maturity: the state of practice in ontology engineering in 2009, International Journal of Computer Science and Applications 7(1) (2010) 45–65

    2010

  5. [5]

    Q. Liu, P. Lambrix, A System for Debugging Missing Is-a Structure in Networked Ontologies, in: P. Lambrix, G. Kemp (Eds.), Data Integration in the Life Sciences, 7th International Conference, DILS 2010, Gothen- burg, Sweden, August 25-27, 2010. Proceedings, V ol. 6254 of Lecture 29 Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2010, pp. 50–57. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-6...

    2010

  6. [6]

    Kalyanpur, B

    A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, J. Hendler, Debugging Unsatisfiable Classes in OWL Ontologies, Journal of Web Semantics 3 (4) (2005) 268–

    2005

  7. [7]

    Lambrix, Q

    P. Lambrix, Q. Liu, H. Tan, Repairing the missing is-a structure of ontolo- gies, in: A. Gomez-Perez, Y . Yu, Y . Ding (Eds.), The Semantic Web, Fourth Asian Conference, ASWC 2009, Shanghai, China, December 6-9, 2009. Proceedings, V ol. 5926 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2009, pp. 76–90. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10871-6_6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10871-6_6 2009

  8. [8]

    Baader, D

    F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, P. F. Patel-Schneider (Eds.), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Ap- plications, Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Baader, I

    F. Baader, I. Horrocks, C. Lutz, U. Sattler (Eds.), An Introduction to De- scription Logic, Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Schlobach, R

    S. Schlobach, R. Cornet, Non-Standard Reasoning Services for the De- bugging of Description Logic Terminologies, in: G. Gottlob, T. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2003, pp. 355–360. URL https://www.ijcai.org/Proc...

    2003

  3. [11]

    Buitelaar, P

    P. Buitelaar, P. Cimiano, B. Magnini, Ontology Learning from Text: Meth- ods, Evaluation and Applications, IOS Press, 2005

    2005

  4. [12]

    Maedche, V

    A. Maedche, V . Pekar, S. Staab, Ontology learning part one - on discovering taxonomic relations from the web, in: Zhong, Liu, Yao (Eds.), Web Intelligence, Springer, 2003, pp. 301–320. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-662-05320-1_14

    2003

  5. [13]

    Maedche, S

    A. Maedche, S. Staab, Discovering conceptual relations from text, in: W. Horn (Ed.), ECAI 2000, Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, Germany, August 20-25, 2000, 2000, pp. 321–325. URL http://frontiersinai.com/ecai/ecai2000/pdf/ p0321.pdf 30

    2000

  6. [14]

    Zavitsanos, G

    E. Zavitsanos, G. Paliouras, G. A. V ouros, S. Petridis, Discovering subsump- tion hierarchies of ontology concepts from text corpora, in: IEEE / WIC / ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, 2007, pp. 402–408. doi:10.1109/WI.2007.55

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    Spiliopoulos, G

    V . Spiliopoulos, G. A. V ouros, V . Karkaletsis, On the discovery of subsump- tion relations for the alignment of ontologies, Journal of Web Semantics 8 (2010) 69–88. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2010.01.001

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Cimiano, A

    P. Cimiano, A. Hotho, S. Staab, Learning concept hierarchies from text cor- pora using formal concept analysis, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Re- search 24 (2005) 305–339. doi:10.1613/jair.1648

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    M. A. Hearst, Automatic Acquisition of Hyponyms from Large Text Cor- pora, in: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics, V ol. 2, 1992, pp. 539–545. doi:10.3115/992133. 992154

    1992 doi

  10. [18]

    Corcho, C

    O. Corcho, C. Roussey, L. M. Vilches Bl ´azquez, I. P ´erez, Pattern-based OWL ontology debugging guidelines, in: Workshop on Ontology Patterns, 2009, pp. 68–82. URL http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-516/pap02.pdf

    2009

  11. [19]

    C. M. Keet, Detecting and revising flaws in OWL object property ex- pressions, in: A. ten Teije, J. V ¨olker, S. Handschuh, H. Stuckenschmidt, M. d’Aquin, A. Nikolov, N. Aussenac-Gilles, N. Hernandez (Eds.), Knowl- edge Engineering and Knowledge Management - 18th International ...

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    Roussey, O

    C. Roussey, O. Zamazal, Antipattern detection: how to debug an ontology without a reasoner, in: P. Lambrix, G. Qi, M. Horridge, B. Parsia (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Debugging Ontolo- gies and Ontology Mappings, Montpellier, France, May 27, 2013...

    2013

  13. [21]

    Poveda-Villal ´on, A

    M. Poveda-Villal ´on, A. G ´omez-P´erez, M. C. Su ´arez-Figueroa, Oops! (on- tology pitfall scanner!): An on-line tool for ontology evaluation, Interna- tional Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 10 (2) (2014) 7–

    2014

  14. [22]

    P. Wang, B. Xu, Debugging ontology mappings: a static approach, Comput- ing and Informatics 27 (2008) 21–36. URL http://www.cai.sk/ojs/index.php/cai/article/ view/271/220

    2008

  15. [23]

    Beisswanger, U

    E. Beisswanger, U. Hahn, Towards valid and reusable reference alignments - ten basic quality checks for ontology alignments and their application to three different reference data sets, Journal of Biomedical Semantics 3 (Suppl

  16. [24]

    Ivanova, P

    V . Ivanova, P. Lambrix, A unified approach for aligning taxonomies and debugging taxonomies and their alignments, in: P. Cimiano, ´O. Corcho, V . Presutti, L. Hollink, S. Rudolph (Eds.), The Semantic Web: Seman- tics and Big Data, 10th International Conference, ESWC 2013, Mont...

    2013

  17. [25]

    Lambrix, V

    P. Lambrix, V . Ivanova, A unified approach for debugging is-a structure and mappings in networked taxonomies, Journal of Biomedical Semantics 4 (2013) 10. doi:10.1186/2041-1480-4-10

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1186/2041-1480-3-S1-S4

    (2012) S4:1–S4:14. doi:10.1186/2041-1480-3-S1-S4

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    Euzenat, P

    J. Euzenat, P. Shvaiko, Ontology Matching, Springer, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    Pesquita, D

    C. Pesquita, D. Faria, E. Santos, F. M. Couto, To repair or not to repair: reconciling correctness and coherence in ontology reference alignments, in: P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat, K. Srinivas, M. Mao, E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz (Eds.), Pro- ceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Onto...

    2013

  21. [29]

    M. Bada, L. Hunter, Identification of OBO Nonalignments and Its Impli- cations for OBO Enrichment, Bioinformatics 24 (12) (2008) 1448–1455. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn194

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    Haase, G

    P. Haase, G. Qi, An analysis of approaches to resolving inconsistencies in dl-based ontologies, in: G. Flouris, M. d Aquin (Eds.), International Workshop on Ontology Dynamics, 2007, pp. 97–109. URL http://kmi.open.ac.uk/events/iwod/papers/ paper-13.pdf

    2007

  23. [31]

    Dragisic, V

    Z. Dragisic, V . Ivanova, P. Lambrix, D. Faria, E. Jim´enez-Ruiz, C. Pesquita, User validation in ontology alignment, in: P. Groth, E. Simperl, A. Gray, M. Sabou, M. Kr ¨otzsch, F. Lecue, F. Fl ¨ock, Y . Gil (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2016, 15th International Semantic Web...

    2016

  24. [32]

    D. A. Bell, G. Qi, W. Liu, Approaches to inconsistency handling in description-logic based ontologies, in: R. Meersman, Z. Tari, P. Herrero (Eds.), On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: OTM 2007 Workshops, OTM Confederated International Workshops and Posters, AWe- S...

    2007

  25. [33]

    Kalyanpur, B

    A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, M. Horridge, E. Sirin, Finding All Justifications of OWL DL Entailments, in: K. Aberer, K.-S. Choi, N. Noy, D. Alle- mang, K.-I. Lee, L. Nixon, J. Golbeck, P. Mika, D. Maynard, R. Mizoguchi, G. Schreiber, P. Cudre-Mauroux (Eds.), The Semantic Web - 6th ...

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    doi:10.4018/ijswis.2014040102. 31

    doi

  27. [35]

    Schlobach, Debugging and Semantic Clarification by Pinpointing, in: A

    S. Schlobach, Debugging and Semantic Clarification by Pinpointing, in: A. Gomez-Perez, J. Euzenat (Eds.), The Semantic Web: Research and Appli- cations - Second European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2005, Herak- lion, Crete, Greece, May 29-June 1, 2005. Proceedings, 2005, pp. ...

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    Pe ˜naloza, B

    R. Pe ˜naloza, B. Sertkaya, Understanding the complexity of axiom pinpoint- ing in lightweight description logics, Artificial Intelligence 250 (2017) 80–

    2017

  29. [37]

    Pe ˜naloza, B

    R. Pe ˜naloza, B. Sertkaya, On the complexity of axiom pinpointing in the EL family of description logics, in: F. Lin, U. Sattler, M. Truszczynski (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference, KR 2010, Toront...

    2010

  30. [38]

    Pe ˜naloza, B

    R. Pe ˜naloza, B. Sertkaya, Complexity of axiom pinpointing in the dl-lite family of description logics, in: H. Coelho, R. Studer, M. J. Wooldridge (Eds.), ECAI 2010 - 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lisbon, Portugal, August 16-20, 2010, Proceedings, 2010, ...

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    Schlobach, Z

    S. Schlobach, Z. Huang, R. Cornet, F. van Harmelen, Debugging Incoher- ent Terminologies, Journal of Automated Reasoning 39 (3) (2007) 317–349. doi:10.1007/s10817-007-9076-z

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    Meyer, K

    T. Meyer, K. Lee, R. Booth, J. Pan, Finding maximally satisfiable termi- nologies for the description logic ALC, in: A. Cohn (Ed.), AAAI’06 - Proceedings of the 21st national conference on Artificial intelligence, AAAI Press, 2006, pp. 269–274. URL https://www.aaai.org/Papers/AA...

    2006

  33. [41]

    Reiter, A theory of diagnosis from first principles, Artificial Intelligence 32(1) (1987) 57–95

    R. Reiter, A theory of diagnosis from first principles, Artificial Intelligence 32(1) (1987) 57–95. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(87)90062-2

    1987 doi

  34. [42]

    Baader, W

    F. Baader, W. Nutt, Basic description logics, in: F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, P. Patel-Schneider (Eds.), The Description Logic Handbook, Cambridge University Press, 2003, Ch. 2, pp. 43–95

    2003

  35. [43]

    Q. Ji, Z. Gao, Z. Huang, M. Zhua, Measuring effectiveness of ontology de- bugging systems, Knowledge-Based Systems 71 (2014) 169–186. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2014.07.023

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Kalyanpur, B

    A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, B. Cuenca-Grau, Repairing Unsatisfiable Concepts in OWL Ontologies, in: Y . Sure, J. Domingue (Eds.), The Se- mantic Web: Research and Applications 3rd European Semantic Web Con- ference, ESWC 2006 Budva, Montenegro, June 11-14, 2006 Proceedin...

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    Horridge, B

    M. Horridge, B. Parsia, U. Sattler, Explaining inconsistencies in OWL ontologies, in: L. Godo, A. Pugliese (Eds.), Scalable Uncertainty Man- agement, Third International Conference, SUM 2009, Washington, DC, USA, September 28-30, 2009. Proceedings, V ol. 5785 of Lecture Notes ...

    2009

  38. [46]

    M. F. Arif, C. Menc ´ıa, A. Ignatiev, N. Manthey, R. Pe ˜naloza, J. Marques- Silva, BEACON: an efficient sat-based tool for debugging ELˆ+ ontologies, in: N. Creignou, D. L. Berre (Eds.), Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2016 - 19th International Conferenc...

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Q. Ji, G. Qi, P. Haase, A relevance-directed algorithm for finding justifica- tions of DL entailments, in: A. G ´omez-P´erez, Y . Yu, Y . Ding (Eds.), The Semantic Web, Fourth Asian Conference, ASWC 2009, Shanghai, China, December 6-9, 2009. Proceedings, 2009, pp. 306–320. doi:1...

    2009

  40. [48]

    Q. Ji, Z. Gao, Z. Huang, M. Zhu, An efficient approach to debugging on- tologies based on patterns, in: J. Z. Pan, H. Chen, H. Kim, J. Li, Z. Wu, I. Horrocks, R. Mizoguchi, Z. Wu (Eds.), The Semantic Web - Joint Inter- national Semantic Technology Conference, JIST 2011, Hangzho...

    2011

  41. [49]

    Moodley, T

    K. Moodley, T. Meyer, I. J. Varzinczak, Root justifications for ontology re- pair, in: S. Rudolph, C. Guti ´errez (Eds.), Web Reasoning and Rule Sys- tems - 5th International Conference, RR 2011, Galway, Ireland, August 29- 30, 2011. Proceedings, V ol. 6902 of Lecture Notes in ...

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    Lehmann, L

    J. Lehmann, L. B ¨uhmann, ORE - A tool for repairing and enriching knowl- edge bases, in: P. F. Patel-Schneider, Y . Pan, P. Hitzler, P. Mika, L. Zhang, J. Z. Pan, I. Horrocks, B. Glimm (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 - 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010...

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    Schekotihin, P

    K. Schekotihin, P. Rodler, W. Schmid, Ontodebug: Interactive ontology de- bugging plug-in for prot ´eg´e, in: F. Ferrarotti, S. Woltran (Eds.), Founda- tions of Information and Knowledge Systems - 10th International Sympo- sium, FoIKS 2018, Budapest, Hungary, May 14-18, 2018, ...

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    Fleischhacker, C

    D. Fleischhacker, C. Meilicke, J. V ¨olker, M. Niepert, Computing incoher- ence explanations for learned ontologies, in: W. Faber, D. Lembo (Eds.), Web Reasoning and Rule Systems - 7th International Conference, RR 2013, Mannheim, Germany, July 27-29, 2013. Proceedings, V ol. 7...

    2013

  45. [54]

    Rodler, W

    P. Rodler, W. Schmid, On the impact and proper use of heuristics in test- driven ontology debugging, in: C. Benzm ¨uller, F. Ricca, X. Parent, D. Ro- man (Eds.), Rules and Reasoning - Second International Joint Conference, RuleML+RR 2018, Luxembourg, September 18-21, 2018, Pro...

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    X. Fu, G. Qi, Y . Zhang, Z. Zhou, Graph-based approaches to debugging and revision of terminologies in dl-lite, Knowledge-Based Systems 100 (2016) 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2016.01.039

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    Wei-Kleiner, Z

    F. Wei-Kleiner, Z. Dragisic, P. Lambrix, Abduction framework for repairing incomplete el ontologies: Complexity results and algorithms, in: AAAI’14 - 36 Proceedings of the 28st national conference on Artificial intelligence, 2014, pp. 1120–1127. URL https://www.aaai.org/ocs/ind...

    2014

  48. [57]

    M. M. Ribeiro, R. Wassermann, Base revision for ontology debugging, Jour- nal of Logic and Computation 19 (5) (2009) 721–743. doi:10.1093/ logcom/exn048

    2009

  49. [58]

    Nikitina, S

    N. Nikitina, S. Rudolph, B. Glimm, Interactive ontology revision, Journal of Web Semantics 12 (2012) 118–130. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2011. 12.002

    2012 doi

  50. [59]

    Lambrix, Z

    P. Lambrix, Z. Dragisic, V . Ivanova, Get my pizza right: Repairing missing is-a relations in alc ontologies, in: H. Takeda, Y . Qu, R. Mizoguchi, Y . Kita- mura (Eds.), Semantic Technology, Second Joint International Conference, JIST 2012, Nara, Japan, December 2-4, 2012. Pro...

    2012 doi

  51. [60]

    J. Du, H. Wan, H. Ma, Practical tbox abduction based on justification patterns, in: S. P. Singh, S. Markovitch (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty- First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA., 2017, pp. 1100–1106. URL https...

    2017

  52. [61]

    Lambrix, Q

    P. Lambrix, Q. Liu, Debugging the missing is-a structure within taxonomies networked by partial reference alignments, Data and Knowledge Engineer- ing 86 (2013) 179–205. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2013.03.003

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    Lambrix, F

    P. Lambrix, F. Wei-Kleiner, Z. Dragisic, Completing the is-a structure in light-weight ontologies, Journal of Biomedical Semantics 6 (2015) 12:1– 12:26. doi:10.1186/s13326-015-0002-8

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    Shvaiko, J

    P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat, A survey of schema-based matching approaches, Journal on Data Semantics IV (2005) 146–171. doi:10.1007/ 11603412_5

    2005

  55. [64]

    Lambrix, L

    P. Lambrix, L. Str ¨omb¨ack, H. Tan, Information integration in bioinformatics with ontologies and standards, in: F. Bry, J. Maluszynski (Eds.), Semantic 37 Techniques for the Web: The REWERSE perspective, V ol. 5500 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2009, Ch. 8,...

    2009 doi

  56. [65]

    Kalfoglou, M

    Y . Kalfoglou, M. Schorlemmer, Ontology mapping: the state of the art, The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1) (2003) 1–31. doi:10.1017/ S0269888903000651

    2003

  57. [66]

    N. F. Noy, Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches, SIGMOD Record 33(4) (2004) 65–70. doi:10.1145/1041410. 1041421

    2004 doi

  58. [67]

    Lambrix, R

    P. Lambrix, R. Kaliyaperumal, A session-based ontology alignment ap- proach enabling user involvement, Semantic Web Journal 8 (2) (2017) 225–

    2017

  59. [68]

    Meilicke, H

    C. Meilicke, H. Stuckenschmidt, A. Tamilin, Repairing ontology mappings, in: R. C. Holte, A. Howe (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 22-26, 2007, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2007, pp. 1408–1413. URL https://www.aaa...

    2007

  60. [69]

    Shvaiko, J

    P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat, Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 25(1) (2013) 158–176. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2011.253

    2013 doi

  61. [70]

    Dragisic, V

    Z. Dragisic, V . Ivanova, H. Li, P. Lambrix, Experiences from the anatomy track in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative, Journal of Biomedical Semantics 8 (1) (2017) 56:1–56:28. doi:10.1186/ s13326-017-0166-5

    2017

  62. [71]

    Jim ´enez-Ruiz, B

    E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, B. C. Grau, Logmap: Logic-based and scalable ontol- ogy matching, in: L. Aroyo, C. Welty, H. Alani, J. Taylor, A. Bernstein, L. Kagal, N. F. Noy, E. Blomqvist (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2011 - 10th International Semantic Web Conference, Bonn, Germany, O...

    2011

  63. [72]

    Jim ´enez-Ruiz, B

    E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, B. C. Grau, Y . Zhou, I. Horrocks, Large-scale interac- tive ontology matching: Algorithms and implementation, in: L. D. Raedt, 38 C. Bessi `ere, D. Dubois, P. Doherty, P. Frasconi, F. Heintz, P. J. F. Lucas (Eds.), ECAI 2012 - 20th European Conference on Ar...

    2012 doi

  64. [73]

    Santos, D

    E. Santos, D. Faria, C. Pesquita, F. M. Couto, Ontology alignment repair through modularization and confidence-based heuristics, PLoS ONE 10(12):e0144807) (2015) 1–19. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0144807

    2015 doi

  65. [74]

    Q. Ji, P. Haase, G. Qi, P. Hitzler, S. Stadtm ¨uller, Radon - repair and diagnosis in ontology networks, in: The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. ESWC 2009., 2009, pp. 863–867. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-642-02121-3_71

    2009

  66. [75]

    Meilicke, Alignment incoherence in ontology matching, Ph.D

    C. Meilicke, Alignment incoherence in ontology matching, Ph.D. thesis, University of Mannheim (2011)

    2011

  67. [76]

    Meilicke, H

    C. Meilicke, H. Stuckenschmidt, A. Tamilin, Reasoning support for mapping revision, Journal of Logic and Computation 19 (5) (2009) 807–829. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exn047

    2009 doi

  68. [77]

    G. Qi, Q. Ji, P. Haase, A conflict-based operator for mapping revision, in: A. Bernstein, D. R. Karger, T. Heath, L. Feigenbaum, D. Maynard, E. Motta, K. Thirunarayan (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2009, 8th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2009, Chantilly, V A, USA...

    2009

  69. [78]

    Euzenat, Revision in networks of ontologies, Artificial Intelligence 228 (2015) 195–216

    J. Euzenat, Revision in networks of ontologies, Artificial Intelligence 228 (2015) 195–216. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2015.07.007. 39

    2015 doi

  70. [79]

    Solimando, E

    A. Solimando, E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, G. Guerrini, Detecting and correcting conservativity principle violations in ontology-to-ontology mappings, in: P. Mika, T. Tudorache, A. Bernstein, C. Welty, C. A. Knoblock, D. Vran- decic, P. T. Groth, N. F. Noy, K. Janowicz, C. A. Goble (Eds...

    2014 doi

  71. [80]

    Jim ´enez-Ruiz, C

    E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, C. Meilicke, B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, Evaluating mapping repair systems with large biomedical ontologies, in: T. Eiter, B. Glimm, Y . Kazakov, M. Kr ¨otzsch (Eds.), Informal Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Description Logics, Ulm, Germa...

    2013

  72. [81]

    J. S. C. Lam, D. H. Sleeman, J. Z. Pan, W. W. Vasconcelos, A fine-grained approach to resolving unsatisfiable ontologies, J. Data Semantics 10 (2008) 62–95. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77688-8\_3

    2008 doi

  73. [82]

    Baader, F

    F. Baader, F. Kriegel, A. Nuradiansyah, R. Pe ˜naloza, Making repairs in description logics more gentle, in: M. Thielscher, F. Toni, F. Wolter (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference, KR 2018, Tempe, A...

    2018

  74. [83]

    Troquard, R

    N. Troquard, R. Confalonieri, P. Galliani, R. Pe ˜naloza, D. Porello, O. Kutz, Repairing ontologies via axiom weakening, in: S. A. McIlraith, K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative App...

    2018

  75. [84]

    Horridge, B

    M. Horridge, B. Parsia, U. Sattler, Laconic and precise justifications in OWL, in: A. P. Sheth, S. Staab, M. Dean, M. Paolucci, D. Maynard, T. W. Finin, K. Thirunarayan (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2008, 7th Interna- tional Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, Germ...

    2008 doi

  76. [85]

    J. Du, G. Qi, X. Fu, A practical fine-grained approach to resolving inco- herent OWL 2 DL terminologies, in: J. Li, X. S. Wang, M. N. Garofalakis, I. Soboroff, T. Suel, M. Wang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Inter- national Conference on Conference on Information and Knowl...

    2014

  77. [86]

    Euzenat, Interaction-based ontology alignment repair with expansion and relaxation, in: C

    J. Euzenat, Interaction-based ontology alignment repair with expansion and relaxation, in: C. Sierra (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017, Melbourne, Aus- tralia, August 19-25, 2017, 2017, pp. 185–191. doi:...

    2017 doi

  78. [87]

    M. Vigo, S. Bail, C. Jay, R. D. Stevens, Overcoming the pitfalls of ontology authoring: Strategies and implications for tool design, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 72 (12) (2014) 835–845. doi:10.1016/j. ijhcs.2014.07.005

    2014 doi

  79. [88]

    S. M. Falconer, M. D. Storey, A cognitive support framework for ontology mapping, in: K. Aberer, K. Choi, N. F. Noy, D. Allemang, K. Lee, L. J. B. Nixon, J. Golbeck, P. Mika, D. Maynard, R. Mizoguchi, G. Schreiber, P. Cudr ´e-Mauroux (Eds.), The Semantic Web, 6th International...

    2007 doi

  80. [89]

    Baader, B

    F. Baader, B. Ganter, B. Sertkaya, U. Sattler, Completing description logic knowledge bases using formal concept analysis, in: M. M. Veloso (Ed.), IJ- 40 CAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January 6-1...

    2007

  81. [90]

    T. Dong, C. L. Duc, M. Lamolle, Tableau-based revision for expressive de- scription logics with individuals, Journal of Web Semantics 45 (2017) 63–

    2017

  82. [91]

    doi:10.1016/j.websem.2017.09.001

    2017 doi

  83. [92]

    Rodler, D

    P. Rodler, D. Jannach, K. Schekotihin, P. Fleiss, Are query-based ontology debuggers really helping knowledge engineers?, Knowledge Based Systems 179 (2019) 92–107. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2019.05.006

    2019 doi

  84. [93]

    Baader, B

    F. Baader, B. Sertkaya, Usability issues in description logic knowledge base completion, in: S. Ferr ´e, S. Rudolph (Eds.), Formal Concept Analysis, 7th International Conference, ICFCA 2009, Darmstadt, Germany, May 21- 24, 2009, Proceedings, V ol. 5548 of Lecture Notes in Comp...

    2009 doi

  85. [94]

    Dragisic, P

    Z. Dragisic, P. Lambrix, E. Blomqvist, Integrating ontology debugging and matching into the extreme design methodology, in: E. Blomqvist, P. Hitzler, A. Krisnadhi, T. Narock, M. Solanki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Ontology and Semantic Web Patterns, V ol. 1461 o...

    2015

  86. [95]

    Ivanova, P

    V . Ivanova, P. Lambrix, J. ˚Aberg, Requirements for and evaluation of user support for large-scale ontology alignment, in: F. Gandon, M. Sabou, H. Sack, C. d’Amato, P. Cudr´e-Mauroux, A. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Se- mantic Web. Latest Advances and New Domains - 12th European Se...

    2015 doi

  87. [96]

    H. Li, Z. Dragisic, D. Faria, V . Ivanova, E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, P. Lambrix, C. Pesquita, User validation in ontology alignment: functional assessment and impact, Knowledge Engineering Review 34 (2019) e15. doi:10. 1017/S0269888919000080. 41

    2019

  88. [97]

    Ivanova, P

    V . Ivanova, P. Lambrix, S. Lohmann, C. Pesquita, Visualization and interac- tion for ontologies and linked data - editorial, Journal of Web Semantics 55 (2019) 145–149. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2018.10.001

    2019 doi

  89. [104]

    doi:10.1016/j.artint.2017.06.002

    2017 doi

  90. [251]

    doi:10.3233/SW-160243

    doi

  91. [293]

    doi:10.1016/j.websem.2005.09.005

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.