{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2024,3,8]],"date-time":"2024-03-08T16:03:15Z","timestamp":1709913795281},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"IOS Press","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,23]],"date-time":"2021-12-23T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1640217600000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,23]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>A successful application of ontologies relies on representing as much accurate and relevant domain knowledge as possible, while maintaining logical consistency. As the successful implementation of a real-world ontology is likely to contain many concepts and intricate relationships between the concepts, it is necessary to follow a methodology for debugging and refining the ontology. Many ontology debugging approaches have been developed to help the knowledge engineer pinpoint the cause of logical inconsistencies and rectify them in a strategic way. We show that existing debugging approaches can lead to unintuitive results, which may lead the knowledge engineer to opt for deleting potentially crucial and nuanced knowledge. We provide a methodological and design foundation for weakening faulty axioms in a strategic way using defeasible reasoning tools. Our methodology draws from Rodler\u2019s interactive ontology debugging approach and extends this approach by creating a methodology to systematically find conflict resolution recommendations. Importantly, our goal is not to convert a classical ontology to a defeasible ontology. Rather, we use the definition of exceptionality of a concept, which is central to the semantics of defeasible description logics, and the associated algorithm to determine the extent of a concept\u2019s exceptionality (their ranking); then, starting with the statements containing the most general concepts (the least exceptional concepts) weakened versions of the original statements are constructed; this is done until all inconsistencies have been resolved.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3233\/faia210374","type":"book-chapter","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,3]],"date-time":"2022-01-03T10:45:21Z","timestamp":1641206721000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Debugging Classical Ontologies Using Defeasible Reasoning Tools"],"prefix":"10.3233","author":[{"given":"Simone","family":"Coetzer","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"CAIR, Information Science Dept, Stellenbosch University"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Katarina","family":"Britz","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"CAIR, Information Science Dept, Stellenbosch University"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"7437","container-title":["Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications","Formal Ontology in Information Systems"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/ebooks.iospress.nl\/pdf\/doi\/10.3233\/FAIA210374","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,3]],"date-time":"2022-01-03T10:45:22Z","timestamp":1641206722000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/ebooks.iospress.nl\/doi\/10.3233\/FAIA210374"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,23]]},"references-count":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/faia210374","relation":{},"ISSN":["0922-6389","1879-8314"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0922-6389","type":"print"},{"value":"1879-8314","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,23]]}}}