Justifications, Ontology, and Conservativity
نویسندگان
چکیده
An ontologically transparent semantics for justifications that interprets justifications as sets of formulas they justify has been recently presented by Artemov. However, this semantics of modular models has only been studied for the case of the basic justification logic J, corresponding to the modal logic K. It has been left open how to extend and relate modular models to the already existing symbolic and epistemic semantics for justification logics with additional axioms, in particular, for logics of knowledge with factive justifications. We introduce modular models for extensions of J with any combination of the axioms (jd), (jt), (j4), (j5), and (jb), which are the explicit counterparts of standard modal axioms. After establishing soundness and completeness results, we examine the relationship of modular models to more traditional symbolic and epistemic models. This comparison yields several new semantics, including symbolic models for logics of belief with negative introspection (j5) and models for logics with the axiom (jb). Besides pure justification logics, we also consider logics with both justifications and a belief/knowledge modal operator of the same strength. In particular, we use modular models to study the conditions under which the addition of such an operator to a justification logic yields a conservative extension.
منابع مشابه
Pushing the limits of OWL 2 reasoners in ontology alignment repair problems
Ontologies play a key role in the development of the Semantic Web and are being used in many diverse application domains such as biomedicine and e-commerce. An application domain may have been modeled according to different points of view and purposes. This situation usually leads to the development of different ontologies that intuitively overlap, but that use different naming and modeling con...
متن کاملA Multi-strategy Approach for Detecting and Correcting Conservativity Principle Violations in Ontology Alignments
In order to enable interoperability between ontology-based systems, ontology matching techniques have been proposed. However, when the generated mappings suffer from logical flaws, their usefulness may be diminished. In this paper we present a multi-strategy approach to detect and correct violations of the so-called conservativity principle where novel subsumption entailments between named conc...
متن کاملModules in Transition - Conservativity, Composition, and Colimits
Several modularity concepts for ontologies have been studied in the literature. Can they be brought to a common basis? We propose to use the language of category theory, in particular diagrams and their colimits, for answering this question. We outline a general approach for representing combinations of logical theories, or ontologies, through interfaces of various kinds, based on diagrams and ...
متن کاملLaconic and Precise Justifications in OWL
A justification for an entailment in an OWL ontology is a minimal subset of the ontology that is sufficient for that entailment to hold. Since justifications respect the syntactic form of axioms in an ontology, they are usually neither syntactically nor semantically minimal. This paper presents two new subclasses of justifications—laconic justifications and precise justifications. Laconic justi...
متن کاملThe Justificatory Structure of the NCBO BioPortal Ontologies
Current ontology development tools offer debugging support by presenting justifications for entailments of OWL ontologies. While these minimal subsets have been shown to support debugging and understanding tasks, the occurrence of multiple justifications presents a significant cognitive challenge to users. In many cases even a single entailment may have many distinct justifications, and justifi...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2012