This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice
**

Bernardo Cuenca Grau berg@comlab.ox.ac.uk

Ian Horrocks ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk

Yevgeny Kazakov yevgeny.kazakov@comlab.ox.ac.uk

Oxford University Computing Laboratory

Oxford, OX1 3QD, UK

Ulrike Sattler sattler@cs.man.ac.uk

School of Computer Science

The University of Manchester

Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a set of tasks that are relevant for the modular reuse of on-

tologies. In order to formalize these tasks as reasoning problems, we introduce the notions

of conservative extension, safety and module for a very general class of logic-based ontology

languages. We investigate the general properties of and relationships between these notions

and study the relationships between the relevant reasoning problems we have previously

identiﬁed. To study the computability of these problems, we consider, in particular, De-

scription Logics (DLs), which provide the formal underpinning of the W3C Web Ontology

Language (OWL), and show that all the problems we consider are undecidable or algo-

rithmically unsolvable for the description logic underlying OWL DL. In order to achieve a

practical solution, we identify conditions suﬃcient for an ontology to reuse a set of sym-

bols “safely”—that is, without changing their meaning. We provide the notion of a safety

class, which characterizes any suﬃcient condition for safety, and identify a family of safety

classes–called locality—which enjoys a collection of desirable properties. We use the notion

of a safety class to extract modules from ontologies, and we provide various modulariza-

tion algorithms that are appropriate to the properties of the particular safety class in use.

Finally, we show practical beneﬁts of our safety checking and module extraction algorithms.

1. Motivation

Ontologies—conceptualizations of a domain shared by a community of users—play a ma-

jor role in the Semantic Web, and are increasingly being used in knowledge management

systems, e-Science, bio-informatics, and Grid applications (Staab & Studer, 2004).

The design, maintenance, reuse, and integration of ontologies are complex tasks. Like

software engineers, ontology engineers need to be supported by tools and methodologies

that help them to minimize the introduction of errors, i.e., to ensure that ontologies are

consistent and do not have unexpected consequences. In order to develop this support, im-

portant notions from software engineering, such as module, black-box behavior, and controlled

interaction, need to be adapted.

Recently, there has been growing interest in the topic of modularity in ontology engi-

neering (Seidenberg & Rector, 2006; Noy, 2004a; Lutz, Walther, & Wolter, 2007; Cuenca

Grau, Parsia, Sirin, & Kalyanpur, 2006b; Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler,

c (2008 AI Access Foundation. All rights reserved.

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

2007), which has been motivated by the above-mentioned application needs. In this paper,

we focus on the use of modularity to support the partial reuse of ontologies. In particular,

we consider the scenario in which we are developing an ontology { and want to reuse a set

S of symbols from a “foreign” ontology O without changing their meaning.

For example, suppose that an ontology engineer is building an ontology about research

projects, which speciﬁes diﬀerent types of projects according to the research topic they

focus on. The ontology engineer in charge of the projects ontology { may use terms such

as Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder in his descriptions of medical research projects. The

ontology engineer is an expert on research projects; he may be unfamiliar, however, with

most of the topics the projects cover and, in particular, with the terms Cystic Fibrosis and

Genetic Disorder. In order to complete the projects ontology with suitable deﬁnitions for

these medical terms, he decides to reuse the knowledge about these subjects from a well-

established medical ontology O.

The most straightforward way to reuse these concepts is to construct the logical union

{ ∪ O of the axioms in { and O. It is reasonable to assume that the additional knowledge

about the medical terms used in both { and O will have implications on the meaning of the

projects deﬁned in {; indeed, the additional knowledge about the reused terms provides new

information about medical research projects which are deﬁned using these medical terms.

Less intuitive is the fact that importing O may also result in new entailments concerning

the reused symbols, namely Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder. Since the ontology engineer

of the projects ontology is not an expert in medicine and relies on the designers of O, it is

to be expected that the meaning of the reused symbols is completely speciﬁed in O; that

is, the fact that these symbols are used in the projects ontology { should not imply that

their original “meaning” in O changes. If { does not change the meaning of these symbols

in O, we say that { ∪ O is a conservative extension of O

In realistic application scenarios, it is often unreasonable to assume the foreign ontology

O to be ﬁxed; that is, O may evolve beyond the control of the modelers of {. The ontology

engineers in charge of { may not be authorized to access all the information in O or,

most importantly, they may decide at a later time to reuse the symbols Cystic Fibrosis and

Genetic Disorder from a medical ontology other than O. For application scenarios in which

the external ontology O may change, it is reasonable to “abstract” from the particular O

under consideration. In particular, given a set S of “external symbols”, the fact that the

axioms in { do not change the meaning of any symbol in S should be independent of the

particular meaning ascribed to these symbols by O. In that case, we will say that { is safe

for S.

Moreover, even if { “safely” reuses a set of symbols from an ontology O, it may still

be the case that O is a large ontology. In particular, in our example, the foreign medical

ontology may be huge, and importing the whole ontology would make the consequences

of the additional information costly to compute and diﬃcult for our ontology engineers in

charge of the projects ontology (who are not medical experts) to understand. In practice,

therefore, one may need to extract a module O

1

of O that includes only the relevant infor-

mation. Ideally, this module should be as small as possible while still guarantee to capture

the meaning of the terms used; that is, when answering queries against the research projects

ontology, importing the module O

1

would give exactly the same answers as if the whole

medical ontology O had been imported. In this case, importing the module will have the

274

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

same observable eﬀect on the projects ontology as importing the entire ontology. Further-

more, the fact that O

1

is a module in O should be independent of the particular { under

consideration.

The contributions of this paper are as follows:

1. We propose a set of tasks that are relevant to ontology reuse and formalize them as

reasoning problems. To this end, we introduce the notions of conservative extension,

safety and module for a very general class of logic-based ontology languages.

2. We investigate the general properties of and relationships between the notions of

conservative extension, safety, and module and use these properties to study the re-

lationships between the relevant reasoning problems we have previously identiﬁed.

3. We consider Description Logics (DLs), which provide the formal underpinning of the

W3C Web Ontology Language (OWL), and study the computability of our tasks. We

show that all the tasks we consider are undecidable or algorithmically unsolvable for

the description logic underlying OWL DL—the most expressive dialect of OWL that

has a direct correspondence to description logics.

4. We consider the problem of deciding safety of an ontology for a signature. Given that

this problem is undecidable for OWL DL, we identify suﬃcient conditions for safety,

which are decidable for OWL DL—that is, if an ontology satisﬁes our conditions

then it is safe; the converse, however, does not necessarily hold. We propose the

notion of a safety class, which characterizes any suﬃciency condition for safety, and

identify a family of safety classes–called locality—which enjoys a collection of desirable

properties.

5. We next apply the notion of a safety class to the task of extracting modules from

ontologies; we provide various modularization algorithms that are appropriate to the

properties of the particular safety class in use.

6. We present empirical evidence of the practical beneﬁts of our techniques for safety

checking and module extraction.

This paper extends the results in our previous work (Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kutz, &

Sattler, 2006; Cuenca Grau et al., 2007; Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler, 2007).

2. Preliminaries

In this section we introduce description logics (DLs) (Baader, Calvanese, McGuinness,

Nardi, & Patel-Schneider, 2003), a family of knowledge representation formalisms which

underlie modern ontology languages, such as OWL DL (Patel-Schneider, Hayes, & Hor-

rocks, 2004). A hierarchy of commonly-used description logics is summarized in Table 1.

The syntax of a description logic L is given by a signature and a set of constructors. A

signature (or vocabulary) Sg of a DL is the (disjoint) union of countably inﬁnite sets AC

of atomic concepts (A, B, . . . ) representing sets of elements, AR of atomic roles (r, s, . . . )

representing binary relations between elements, and Ind of individuals (a, b, c, . . . ) repre-

senting constants. We assume the signature to be ﬁxed for every DL.

275

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

DLs

Constructors Axioms [ Ax ]

Rol Con RBox TBox ABox

cL r ·, A, C

1

¯ C

2

, ∃R.C A ≡ C, C

1

_ C

2

a : C, r(a, b)

/L( –– ––, C –– ––

o –– –– Trans(r) –– ––

+ 1 r

−

+ H R

1

_ R

2

+ T Funct(R)

+ ^ (nS)

+ O (nS.C)

+ O ¦i¦

Here r ∈ AR, A ∈ AC, a, b ∈ Ind, R

(i)

∈ Rol, C

(i)

∈ Con, n ≥ 1 and S ∈ Rol is a simple

role (see (Horrocks & Sattler, 2005)).

Table 1: The hierarchy of standard description logics

Every DL provides constructors for deﬁning the set Rol of (general) roles (R, S, . . . ),

the set Con of (general) concepts (C, D, . . . ), and the set Ax of axioms (α, β, . . . ) which is

a union of role axioms (RBox), terminological axioms (TBox) and assertions (ABox).

cL (Baader, Brandt, & Lutz, 2005) is a simple description logic which allows one to

construct complex concepts using conjunction C

1

¯ C

2

and existential restriction ∃R.C

starting from atomic concepts A, roles R and the top concept ·. cL provides no role

constructors and no role axioms; thus, every role R in cL is atomic. The TBox axioms of

cL can be either concept deﬁnitions A ≡ C or general concept inclusion axioms (GCIs)

C

1

_ C

2

. cL assertions are either concept assertions a : C or role assertions r(a, b). In this

paper we assume the concept deﬁnition A ≡ C is an abbreviation for two GCIs A _ C and

C _ A.

The basic description logic /L( (Schmidt-Schauß & Smolka, 1991) is obtained from cL

by adding the concept negation constructor C. We introduce some additional constructors

as abbreviations: the bottom concept ⊥ is a shortcut for ·, the concept disjunction C

1

. C

2

stands for (C

1

¯ C

2

), and the value restriction ∀R.C stands for (∃R.C). In contrast

to cL, /L( can express contradiction axioms like · _ ⊥. The logic o is an extension of

/L( where, additionally, some atomic roles can be declared to be transitive using a role

axiom Trans(r).

Further extensions of description logics add features such as inverse roles r

−

(indicated

by appending a letter 1 to the name of the logic), role inclusion axioms (RIs) R

1

_ R

2

(+H),

functional roles Funct(R) (+T), number restrictions (nS), with n ≥ 1, (+^), qualiﬁed

number restrictions (nS.C), with n ≥ 1, (+O)

1

, and nominals ¦a¦ (+O). Nominals make

it possible to construct a concept representing a singleton set ¦a¦ (a nominal concept) from

an individual a. These extensions can be used in diﬀerent combinations; for example /L(O

is an extension of /L( with nominals; oH1O is an extension of o with role hierarchies,

1. the dual constructors (nS) and (nS.C) are abbreviations for ¬(n + 1 S) and ¬(n + 1 S.¬C),

respectively

276

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

inverse roles and qualiﬁed number restrictions; and oHO1O is the DL that uses all the

constructors and axiom types we have presented.

Modern ontology languages, such as OWL, are based on description logics and, to a cer-

tain extent, are syntactic variants thereof. In particular, OWL DL corresponds to oHO1^

(Horrocks, Patel-Schneider, & van Harmelen, 2003). In this paper, we assume an ontology

O based on a description logic L to be a ﬁnite set of axioms in L. The signature of an

ontology O (of an axiom α) is the set Sig(O) (Sig(α)) of atomic concepts, atomic roles and

individuals that occur in O (respectively in α).

The main reasoning task for ontologies is entailment: given an ontology O and an axiom

α, check if O implies α. The logical entailment [= is deﬁned using the usual Tarski-style

set-theoretic semantics for description logics as follows. An interpretation 1 is a pair 1 =

(∆

7

,

7

), where ∆

7

is a non-empty set, called the domain of the interpretation, and

7

is the

interpretation function that assigns: to every A ∈ AC a subset A

7

⊆ ∆

7

, to every r ∈ AR

a binary relation r

7

⊆ ∆

7

∆

7

, and to every a ∈ Ind an element a

7

∈ ∆

7

. Note that the

sets AC, AR and Ind are not deﬁned by the interpretation 1 but assumed to be ﬁxed for

the ontology language (DL).

The interpretation function

7

is extended to complex roles and concepts via DL-

constructors as follows:

(·)

7

= ∆

(C ¯ D)

7

= C

7

∩ D

7

(∃R.C)

7

= ¦x ∈ ∆

7

[ ∃y.'x, y` ∈ R

7

∧ y ∈ C

7

¦

(C)

7

= ∆

7

` C

7

(r

−

)

7

= ¦'x, y` [ 'y, x` ∈ r

7

¦

(nR)

7

= ¦ x ∈ ∆

7

[ ¦y ∈ ∆

7

[ 'x, y` ∈ R

7

¦ ≥ n¦

(nR.C)

7

= ¦ x ∈ ∆

7

[ ¦y ∈ ∆

7

[ 'x, y` ∈ R

7

∧ y ∈ C

7

¦ ≥ n¦

¦a¦

7

= ¦a

7

¦

The satisfaction relation 1 [= α between an interpretation 1 and a DL axiom α (read as 1

satisﬁes α, or 1 is a model of α) is deﬁned as follows:

1 [= C

1

_ C

2

iﬀ C

7

1

⊆ C

7

2

; 1 [= a : C iﬀ a

7

∈ C

7

;

1 [= R

1

_ R

2

iﬀ R

7

1

⊆ R

7

2

; 1 [= r(a, b) iﬀ 'a

7

, b

7

` ∈ r

7

;

1 [= Trans(r) iﬀ ∀x, y, z ∈ ∆

7

[ 'x, y` ∈ r

7

∧ 'y, z` ∈ r

7

⇒ 'x, z` ∈ r

7

];

1 [= Funct(R) iﬀ ∀x, y, z ∈ ∆

7

[ 'x, y` ∈ R

7

∧ 'x, z` ∈ R

7

⇒ y = z ];

An interpretation 1 is a model of an ontology O if 1 satisﬁes all axioms in O. An

ontology O implies an axiom α (written O [= α) if 1 [= α for every model 1 of O. Given

a set I of interpretations, we say that an axiom α (an ontology O) is valid in I if every

interpretation 1 ∈ I is a model of α (respectively O). An axiom α is a tautology if it is valid

in the set of all interpretations (or, equivalently, is implied by the empty ontology).

We say that two interpretations 1 = (∆

7

,

7

) and . = (∆

.

,

.

) coincide on the subset

S of the signature (notation: 1[

S

= .[

S

) if ∆

7

= ∆

.

and X

7

= X

.

for every X ∈ S. We

say that two sets of interpretations I and J are equal modulo S (notation: I[

S

= J[

S

) if for

every 1 ∈ I there exits . ∈ J such that .[

S

= 1[

S

and for every . ∈ J there exists 1 ∈ I

such that 1[

S

= .[

S

.

277

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

Ontology of medical research projects P:

P1 Genetic Disorder Project ≡ Project ¯ ∃has Focus.Genetic Disorder

P2 Cystic Fibrosis EUProject ≡ EUProject ¯ ∃has Focus.Cystic Fibrosis

P3 EUProject _ Project

P4 ∃has Focus.· _ Project

E1 Project ¯ (Genetic Disorder

::

Cystic Fibrosis) _ ⊥

E2 ∀

::

has Focus.Cystic Fibrosis _ ∃has Focus.Genetic Disorder

Ontology of medical terms Q:

M1 Cystic Fibrosis ≡ Fibrosis ¯ ∃located In.Pancreas ¯ ∃has Origin.Genetic Origin

M2 Genetic Fibrosis ≡ Fibrosis ¯ ∃has Origin.Genetic Origin

M3 Fibrosis ¯ ∃located In.Pancreas _ Genetic Fibrosis

M4 Genetic Fibrosis _ Genetic Disorder

M5 DEFBI Gene _ Immuno Protein Gene ¯ ∃associated With.Cystic Fibrosis

Figure 1: Reusing medical terminology in an ontology on research projects

3. Ontology Integration and Knowledge Reuse

In this section, we elaborate on the ontology reuse scenario sketched in Section 1. Based on

this application scenario, we motivate and deﬁne the reasoning tasks to be investigated in

the remainder of the paper. In particular, our tasks are based on the notions of a conservative

extension (Section 3.2), safety (Sections 3.2 and 3.3) and module (Section 3.4). These notions

are deﬁned relative to a language L. Within this section, we assume that L is an ontology

language based on a description logic; in Section 3.6, we will deﬁne formally the class of

ontology languages for which the given deﬁnitions of conservative extensions, safety and

modules apply. For the convenience of the reader, all the tasks we consider in this paper

are summarized in Table 2.

3.1 A Motivating Example

Suppose that an ontology engineer is in charge of a oHO1O ontology on research projects,

which speciﬁes diﬀerent types of projects according to the research topic they are concerned

with. Assume that the ontology engineer deﬁnes two concepts—Genetic Disorder Project and

Cystic Fibrosis EUProject—in his ontology {. The ﬁrst one describes projects about genetic

disorders; the second one describes European projects about cystic ﬁbrosis, as given by the

axioms P1 and P2 in Figure 1. The ontology engineer is an expert on research projects: he

knows, for example, that every instance of EUProject must be an instance of Project (the

concept-inclusion axiom P3) and that the role has Focus can be applied only to instances

of Project (the domain axiom P4). He may be unfamiliar, however, with most of the topics

the projects cover and, in particular, with the terms Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder

mentioned in P1 and P2. In order to complete the projects ontology with suitable deﬁnitions

278

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

for these medical terms, he decides to reuse the knowledge about these subjects from a well-

established and widely-used medical ontology.

Suppose that Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder are described in an ontology O contai-

ning the axioms M1-M5 in Figure 1. The most straightforward way to reuse these concepts

is to import in { the ontology O—that is, to add the axioms from O to the axioms in {

and work with the extended ontology { ∪O. Importing additional axioms into an ontology

may result in new logical consequences. For example, it is easy to see that axioms M1–M4

in O imply that every instance of Cystic Fibrosis is an instance of Genetic Disorder:

O [= α := (Cystic Fibrosis _ Genetic Disorder) (1)

Indeed, the concept inclusion α

1

:= (Cystic Fibrosis _ Genetic Fibrosis) follows from axioms

M1 and M2 as well as from axioms M1 and M3; α follows from axioms α

1

and M4.

Using inclusion α from (1) and axioms P1–P3 from ontology { we can now prove that

every instance of Cystic Fibrosis EUProject is also an instance of Genetic Disorder Project:

{ ∪ O [= β := (Cystic Fibrosis EUProject _ Genetic Disorder Project) (2)

This inclusion β, however, does not follow from { alone—that is, { [= β. The ontology

engineer might be not aware of Entailment (2), even though it concerns the terms of primary

scope in his projects ontology {.

It is natural to expect that entailments like α in (1) from an imported ontology O result

in new logical consequences, like β, in (2), over the terms deﬁned in the main ontology {.

One would not expect, however, that the meaning of the terms deﬁned in O changes as a

consequence of the import since these terms are supposed to be completely speciﬁed within

O. Such a side eﬀect would be highly undesirable for the modeling of ontology { since the

ontology engineer of { might not be an expert on the subject of O and is not supposed to

alter the meaning of the terms deﬁned in O not even implicitly.

The meaning of the reused terms, however, might change during the import, perhaps due

to modeling errors. In order to illustrate such a situation, suppose that the ontology engineer

has learned about the concepts Genetic Disorder and Cystic Fibrosis from the ontology O

(including the inclusion (1)) and has decided to introduce additional axioms formalizing

the following statements:

“Every instance of Project is diﬀerent from every instance of Genetic Disorder

:::

and every instance of Cystic Fibrosis.”

(3)

“

::::::

Every

::::::::

project that has Focus on Cystic Fibrosis, also has Focus on Genetic Disorder” (4)

Note that the statements (3) and (4) can be thought of as adding new information about

projects and, intuitively, they should not change or constrain the meaning of the medical

terms.

Suppose the ontology engineer has formalized the statements (3) and (4) in ontology

{ using axioms E1 and E2 respectively. At this point, the ontology engineer has intro-

duced modeling errors and, as a consequence, axioms E1 and E2 do not correspond to (3)

and (4): E1 actually formalizes the following statement: “Every instance of Project is diﬀe-

rent from every common instance of Genetic Disorder and Cystic Fibrosis”, and E2 expresses

279

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

that “Every object that either has Focus on nothing, or has Focus only on Cystic Fibrosis,

also has Focus on Genetic Disorder”. These kinds of modeling errors are diﬃcult to detect,

especially when they do not cause inconsistencies in the ontology.

Note that, although axiom E1 does not correspond to fact (3), it is still a consequence

of (3) which means that it should not constrain the meaning of the medical terms. On the

other hand, E2 is not a consequence of (4) and, in fact, it constrains the meaning of medical

terms. Indeed, the axioms E1 and E2 together with axioms P1-P4 from { imply new axioms

about the concepts Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder, namely their disjointness:

{ [= γ := (Genetic Disorder ¯ Cystic Fibrosis _ ⊥) (5)

The entailment (5) can be proved using axiom E2 which is equivalent to:

· _ ∃has Focus.(Genetic Disorder . Cystic Fibrosis) (6)

The inclusion (6) and P4 imply that every element in the domain must be a project—that

is, { [= (· _ Project). Now, together with axiom E1, this implies (5).

The axioms E1 and E2 not only imply new statements about the medical terms, but also

cause inconsistencies when used together with the imported axioms from O. Indeed, from

(1) and (5) we obtain { ∪O [= δ := (Cystic Fibrosis _ ⊥), which expresses the inconsistency

of the concept Cystic Fibrosis.

To summarize, we have seen that importing an external ontology can lead to undesirable

side eﬀects in our knowledge reuse scenario, like the entailment of new axioms or even incon-

sistencies involving the reused vocabulary. In the next section we discuss how to formalize

the eﬀects we consider undesirable.

3.2 Conservative Extensions and Safety for an Ontology

As argued in the previous section, an important requirement for the reuse of an ontology O

within an ontology { should be that { ∪O produces exactly the same logical consequences

over the vocabulary of O as O alone does. This requirement can be naturally formulated

using the well-known notion of a conservative extension, which has recently been investi-

gated in the context of ontologies (Ghilardi, Lutz, & Wolter, 2006; Lutz et al., 2007).

Deﬁnition 1 (Deductive Conservative Extension). Let O and O

1

⊆ O be two L-

ontologies, and S a signature over L. We say that O is a deductive S-conservative extension

of O

1

w.r.t. L, if for every axiom α over L with Sig(α) ⊆ S, we have O [= α iﬀ O

1

[= α.

We say that O is a deductive conservative extension of O

1

w.r.t. L if O is a deductive

S-conservative extension of O

1

w.r.t. L for S = Sig(O

1

). ♦

In other words, an ontology O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O

1

for a

signature S and language L if and only if every logical consequence α of O constructed

using the language L and symbols only from S, is already a logical consequence of O

1

; that

is, the additional axioms in O ` O

1

do not result into new logical consequences over the

vocabulary S. Note that if O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O

1

w.r.t. L, then

O is a deductive S

1

-conservative extension of O

1

w.r.t. L for every S

1

⊆ S.

The notion of a deductive conservative extension can be directly applied to our ontology

reuse scenario.

280

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Deﬁnition 2 (Safety for an Ontology). Given L-ontologies O and O

t

, we say that O

is safe for O

t

(or O imports O

t

in a safe way) w.r.t. L if O∪O

t

is a deductive conservative

extension of O

t

w.r.t. L. ♦

Hence, the ﬁrst reasoning task relevant for our ontology reuse scenario can be formulated

as follows:

T1. given L-ontologies O and O

t

, determine if O is safe for O

t

w.r.t. L.

We have shown in Section 3.1 that, given { consisting of axioms P1–P4, E1, E2, and O

consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1, there exists an axiom δ = (Cystic Fibrosis _ ⊥)

that uses only symbols in Sig(O) such that O [= δ but {∪O [= δ. According to Deﬁnition 1,

this means that { ∪ O is not a deductive conservative extension of O w.r.t. any language

L in which δ can be expressed (e.g. L = /L(). It is possible, however, to show that if the

axiom E2 is removed from { then for the resulting ontology {

1

= { ` ¦E2¦, {

1

∪ O is a

deductive conservative extension of O. The following notion is useful for proving deductive

conservative extensions:

Deﬁnition 3 (Model Conservative Extension, Lutz et al., 2007).

Let O and O

1

⊆ O be two L-ontologies and S a signature over L. We say that O is a model

S-conservative extension of O

1

, if for every model 1 of O

1

, there exists a model . of O

such that 1[

S

= .[

S

. We say that O is a model conservative extension of O

1

if O is a model

S-conservative extension of O

1

for S = Sig(O

1

). ♦

The notion of model conservative extension in Deﬁnition 3 can be seen as a semantic

counterpart for the notion of deductive conservative extension in Deﬁnition 1: the latter is

deﬁned in terms of logical entailment, whereas the former is deﬁned in terms of models.

Intuitively, an ontology O is a model S-conservative extension of O

1

if for every model of

O

1

one can ﬁnd a model of O over the same domain which interprets the symbols from S

in the same way. The notion of model conservative extension, however, does not provide

a complete characterization of deductive conservative extensions, as given in Deﬁnition 1;

that is, this notion can be used for proving that an ontology is a deductive conservative

extension of another, but not vice versa:

Proposition 4 (Model vs. Deductive Conservative Extensions, Lutz et al., 2007)

1. For every two L-ontologies O, O

1

⊆ O, and a signature S over L, if O is a model

S-conservative extension of O

1

then O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O

1

w.r.t. L;

2. There exist two /L( ontologies O and O

1

⊆ O such that O is a deductive conservative

extension of O

1

w.r.t. /L(, but O is not a model conservative extension of O

1

.

Example 5 Consider an ontology {

1

consisting of axioms P1–P4, and E1 and an ontology

O consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1. We demonstrate that {

1

∪ O is a deductive

conservative extension of O. According to proposition 4, it is suﬃcient to show that {

1

∪O

is a model conservative extension of O; that is, for every model 1 of O there exists a model

. of {

1

∪ O such that 1[

S

= .[

S

for S = Sig(O).

281

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

The required model . can be constructed from 1 as follows: take . to be identi-

cal to 1 except for the interpretations of the atomic concepts Genetic Disorder Project,

Cystic Fibrosis EUProject, Project, EUProject and the atomic role has Focus, all of which

we interpret in . as the empty set. It is easy to check that all the axioms P1–P4, E1 are

satisﬁed in .and hence . [= {

1

. Moreover, since the interpretation of the symbols in O

remains unchanged, we have 1[

Sig(O)

= .[

Sig(O)

and . [= O. Hence, {

1

∪ O is a model

conservative extension of O.

For an example of Statement 2 of the Proposition, we refer the interested reader to the

literature (Lutz et al., 2007, p. 455). ♦

3.3 Safety of an Ontology for a Signature

So far, in our ontology reuse scenario we have assumed that the reused ontology O is ﬁxed

and the axioms of O are just copied into { during the import. In practice, however, it

is often convenient to keep O separate from { and make its axioms available on demand

via a reference. This makes it possible to continue developing { and O independently. For

example, the ontology engineers of the project ontology { may not be willing to depend

on a particular version of O, or may even decide at a later time to reuse the medical terms

(Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder) from another medical ontology instead. Therefore, for

many application scenarios it is important to develop a stronger safety condition for {

which depends as little as possible on the particular ontology O to be reused. In order to

formulate such condition, we abstract from the particular ontology O to be imported and

focus instead on the symbols from O that are to be reused:

Deﬁnition 6 (Safety for a Signature). Let O be a L-ontology and S a signature over L.

We say that O is safe for S w.r.t. L, if for every L-ontology O

t

with Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S,

we have that O is safe for O

t

w.r.t. L; that is, O∪O

t

is a deductive conservative extension

of O

t

w.r.t. L. ♦

Intuitively, in our knowledge reuse scenario, an ontology O is safe for a signature S w.r.t.

a language L if and only if it imports in a safe way any ontology O

t

written in L that shares

only symbols from S with O. The associated reasoning problem is then formulated in the

following way:

T2. given an L-ontology O and a signature S over L,

determine if O is safe for S w.r.t. L.

As seen in Section 3.2, the ontology { consisting of axioms P1–P4, E1, E2 from Figure 1,

does not import O consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1 in a safe way for L = /L(.

According to Deﬁnition 6, since Sig({) ∩ Sig(O) ⊆ S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦,

the ontology { is not safe for S w.r.t. L.

In fact, it is possible to show a stronger result, namely, that any ontology O containing

axiom E2 is not safe for S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦ w.r.t. L = /L(. Consider an

ontology O

t

= ¦β

1

, β

2

¦, where β

1

= (· _ Cystic Fibrosis) and β

2

= (Genetic Disorder _ ⊥).

Since E2 is equivalent to axiom (6), it is easy to see that O∪O

t

is inconsistent. Indeed E2,

β

1

and β

2

imply the contradiction α = (· _ ⊥), which is not entailed by O

t

. Hence, O∪O

t

is not a deductive conservative extension of O

t

. By Deﬁnition 6, since Sig(O) ∩Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S,

this means that O is not safe for S.

282

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

It is clear how one could prove that an ontology O is not safe for a signature S: simply ﬁnd

an ontology O

t

with Sig(O) ∩Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S, such that O∪O

t

is not a deductive conservative

extension of O

t

. It is not so clear, however, how one could prove that O is safe for S. It

turns out that the notion of model conservative extensions can also be used for this purpose.

The following lemma introduces a property which relates the notion of model conservative

extension with the notion of safety for a signature. Intuitively, it says that the notion of

model conservative extension is stable under expansion with new axioms provided they

share only symbols from S with the original ontologies.

Lemma 7 Let O, O

1

⊆ O, and O

t

be L-ontologies and S a signature over L such that

O is a model S-conservative extension of O

1

and Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S. Then O ∪ O

t

is a

model S

t

-conservative extension of O

1

∪ O

t

for S

t

= S ∪ Sig(O

t

).

Proof. In order to show that O∪O

t

is a model S

t

-conservative extension of O

1

∪O

t

according

to Deﬁnition 3, let 1 be a model of O

1

∪ O

t

. We just construct a model . of O ∪ O

t

such

that 1[

S

= .[

S

. ()

Since O is a model S-conservative extension of O

1

, and 1 is a model of O

1

, by Deﬁnition 3

there exists a model .

1

of O such that 1[

S

= .

1

[

S

. Let . be an interpretation such

that .[

Sig(C)

= .

1

[

Sig(C)

and .[

S

= 1[

S

. Since Sig(O) ∩ S

t

= Sig(O) ∩ (S ∪ Sig(O

t

)) ⊆

S ∪ (Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O

t

)) ⊆ S and 1[

S

= .

1

[

S

, such interpretation . always exists. Since

.[

Sig(C)

= .

1

[

Sig(C)

and .

1

[= O, we have . [= O; since .[

S

= 1[

S

, Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S

t

, and

1 [= O

t

, we have . [= O

t

. Hence . [= O ∪ O

t

and 1[

S

= .[

S

, which proves ().

Lemma 7 allows us to identify a condition suﬃcient to ensure the safety of an ontology

for a signature:

Proposition 8 (Safety for a Signature vs. Model Conservative Extensions)

Let O be an L-ontology and S a signature over L such that O is a model S-conservative

extension of the empty ontology O

1

= ∅; that is, for every interpretation 1 there exists a

model . of O such that .[

S

= 1[

S

. Then O is safe for S w.r.t. L.

Proof. In order to prove that O is safe for S w.r.t. L according to Deﬁnition 6, take any

oHO1O ontology O

t

such that Sig(O) ∩Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S. We need to demonstrate that O∪O

t

is a deductive conservative extension of O

t

w.r.t. L. ()

Indeed, by Lemma 7, since O is a model S-conservative extension of O

1

= ∅, and

Sig(O)∩Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S, we have that O∪O

t

is a model S

t

-conservative extension of O

1

∪O

t

= O

t

for S

t

= S ∪ Sig(O

t

). In particular, since Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S

t

, we have that O ∪ O

t

is a deductive

conservative extension of O

t

, as was required to prove ().

Example 9 Let {

1

be the ontology consisting of axioms P1–P4, and E1 from Figure 1.

We show that {

1

is safe for S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦ w.r.t. L = oHO1O. By

Proposition 8, in order to prove safety for {

1

it is suﬃcient to demonstrate that {

1

is a

model S-conservative extension of the empty ontology, that is, for every S-interpretation 1

there exists a model . of {

1

such that 1[

S

= .[

S

.

Consider the model . obtained from 1 as in Example 5. As shown in Example 5, . is

a model of {

1

and 1[

Sig(O)

= .[

Sig(O)

where O consists of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1.

In particular, since S ⊆ Sig(O), we have 1[

S

= .[

S

. ♦

283

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

3.4 Extraction of Modules from Ontologies

In our example from Figure 1 the medical ontology O is very small. Well established medical

ontologies, however, can be very large and may describe subject matters in which the de-

signer of { is not interested. For example, the medical ontology O could contain information

about genes, anatomy, surgical techniques, etc.

Even if { imports O without changing the meaning of the reused symbols, processing—

that is, browsing, reasoning over, etc—the resulting ontology { ∪ O may be considerably

harder than processing { alone. Ideally, one would like to extract a (hopefully small) frag-

ment O

1

of the external medical ontology—a module—that describes just the concepts that

are reused in {.

Intuitively, when answering an arbitrary query over the signature of {, importing the

module O

1

should give exactly the same answers as if the whole ontology O had been

imported.

Deﬁnition 10 (Module for an Ontology). Let O, O

t

and O

t

1

⊆ O

t

be L-ontologies.

We say that O

t

1

is a module for O in O

t

w.r.t. L, if O ∪ O

t

is a deductive S-conservative

extension of O ∪ O

t

1

for S = Sig(O) w.r.t. L. ♦

The task of extracting modules from imported ontologies in our ontology reuse scenario

can be thus formulated as follows:

T3. given L-ontologies O, O

t

,

compute a module O

t

1

for O in O

t

w.r.t. L.

Example 11 Consider the ontology {

1

consisting of axioms P1–P4, E1 and the ontology O

consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1. Recall that the axiom α from (1) is a conse-

quence of axioms M1, M2 and M4 as well as of axioms M1, M3 and M4 from ontology O.

In fact, these sets of axioms are actually minimal subsets of O that imply α. In particular,

for the subset O

0

of O consisting of axioms M2, M3, M4 and M5, we have O

0

[= α. It can

be demonstrated that {

1

∪ O

0

is a deductive conservative extension of O

0

. In particular

{

1

∪ O

0

[= α. But then, according to Deﬁnition 10, O

0

is not a module for {

1

in O w.r.t.

L = /L( or its extensions, since {

1

∪ O is not an deductive S-conservative extension of

{

1

∪O

0

w.r.t. L = /L( for S = Sig({

1

). Indeed, {

1

∪O [= α, Sig(α) ⊆ S but {

1

∪O

0

[= α.

Similarly, one can show that any subset of O that does not imply α is not a module in O

w.r.t. {

1

.

On the other hand, it is possible to show that both subsets O

1

= ¦M1, M2, M4¦ and

O

2

= ¦M1, M3, M4¦ of O are modules for {

1

in O w.r.t. L = oHO1O. To do so, Deﬁ-

nition 10, we need to demonstrate that {

1

∪ O is a deductive S-conservative extension of

both {

1

∪ O

1

and {

1

∪ O

2

for S = Sig({

1

) w.r.t. L. As usual, we demonstrate a stronger

fact, that {

1

∪O is a model S-conservative extension of {

1

∪O

1

and of {

1

∪O

2

for S which

is suﬃcient by Claim 1 of Proposition 4.

In order to show that {

1

∪ O is a model S-conservative extension of {

1

∪ O

1

for S =

Sig({

1

), consider any model 1 of {

1

∪ O

1

. We need to construct a model . of {

1

∪ O

such that 1[

S

= .[

S

. Let . be deﬁned exactly as 1 except that the interpretations of the

atomic concepts Fibrosis, Pancreas, Genetic Fibrosis, and Genetic Origin are deﬁned as the

interpretation of Cystic Fibrosis in 1, and the interpretations of atomic roles located In and

284

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

has Origin are deﬁned as the identity relation. It is easy to see that axioms M1–M3 and M5

are satisﬁed in .. Since we do not modify the interpretation of the symbols in {

1

, . also

satisﬁes all axioms from {

1

. Moreover, . is a model of M4, because Genetic Fibrosis and

Genetic Disorder are interpreted in . like Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder in 1, and 1 is

a model of O

1

, which implies the concept inclusion α = (Cystic Fibrosis _ Genetic Disorder).

Hence we have constructed a model . of {

1

∪ O such that 1[

S

= .[

S

, thus {

1

∪ O is a

model S-conservative extension of {

1

∪ O

1

.

In fact, the construction above works if we replace O

1

with any subset of O that implies

α. In particular, {

1

∪O is also a model S-conservative extension of {

1

∪O

2

. In this way, we

have demonstrated that the modules for { in O are exactly those subsets of O that imply

α. ♦

An algorithm implementing the task T3 can be used for extracting a module from an

ontology O imported into { prior to performing reasoning over the terms in {. However,

when the ontology { is modiﬁed, the module has to be extracted again since a module O

1

for { in O might not necessarily be a module for the modiﬁed ontology. Since the extraction

of modules is potentially an expensive operation, it would be more convenient to extract a

module only once and reuse it for any version of the ontology { that reuses the speciﬁed

symbols from O. This idea motivates the following deﬁnition:

Deﬁnition 12 (Module for a Signature). Let O

t

and O

t

1

⊆ O

t

be L-ontologies and S

a signature over L. We say that O

t

1

is a module for S in O

t

(or an S-module in O

t

) w.r.t.

L, if for every L-ontology O with Sig(O) ∩Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S, we have that O

t

1

is a module for O

in O

t

w.r.t. L. ♦

Intuitively, the notion of a module for a signature is a uniform analog of the notion of a

module for an ontology, in a similar way as the notion of safety for a signature is a uniform

analog of safety for an ontology. The reasoning task corresponding to Deﬁnition 12 can be

formulated as follows:

T4. given a L-ontology O

t

and a signature S over L,

compute a module O

t

1

for S in O

t

.

Continuing Example 11, it is possible to demonstrate that any subset of O that implies

axiom α, is in fact a module for S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦ in O, that is, it can

be imported instead of O into every ontology O that shares with O only symbols from S. In

order to prove this, we use the following suﬃcient condition based on the notion of model

conservative extension:

Proposition 13 (Modules for a Signature vs. Model Conservative Extensions)

Let O

t

and O

t

1

⊆ O

t

be L-ontologies and S a signature over L such that O

t

is a model

S-conservative extension of O

t

1

. Then O

t

1

is a module for S in O

t

w.r.t. L.

Proof. In order to prove that O

t

1

is a module for S in O

t

w.r.t. L according to Deﬁnition 12,

take any oHO1O ontology O such that Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S. We need to demonstrate

that O

t

1

is a module for O in O

t

w.r.t. L, that is, according to Deﬁnition 10, O ∪ O

t

is a

deductive S

t

-conservative extension of O ∪ O

t

1

w.r.t. L for S

t

= Sig(O). ()

285

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

Indeed, by Lemma 7, since O

t

is a model S-conservative extension of O

t

1

, and Sig(O

t

) ∩

Sig(O) ⊆ S, we have that O

t

∪ O is a model S

tt

-conservative extension of O

t

1

∪ O for

S

tt

= S ∪ Sig(O). In particular, since S

t

= Sig(O) ⊆ S

tt

, we have that O

t

∪ O is a deductive

S

t

-conservative extension of O

t

1

∪ O w.r.t. L, as was required to prove ().

Example 14 Let O and α be as in Example 11. We demonstrate that any subset O

1

of O

which implies α is a module for S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦ in O. According to

Proposition 13, it is suﬃcient to demonstrate that O is a model S-conservative extension of

O

1

, that is, for every model 1 of O

1

there exists a model . of O such that 1[

S

= .[

S

. It is

easy to see that if the model . is constructed from 1 as in Example 11, then the required

property holds. ♦

Note that a module for a signature S in Odoes not necessarily contain all the axioms that

contain symbols from S. For example, the module O

1

consisting of the axiom M1, M2 and

M4 from O does not contain axiom M5 which mentions the atomic concept Cystic Fibrosis

from S. Also note that even in a minimal module like O

1

there might still be some axioms

like M2 that do not mention symbols from S at all.

3.5 Minimal Modules and Essential Axioms

One is usually not interested in extracting arbitrary modules from a reused ontology, but

in extracting modules that are easy to process afterwards. Ideally, the extracted modules

should be as small as possible. Hence it is reasonable to consider the problem of extracting

minimal modules; that is, modules that contain no other module as a subset.

Examples 11 and 14 demonstrate that a minimal module for an ontology or a signature

is not necessarily unique: the ontology O consisting of axioms M1–M5 has two minimal mo-

dules O

1

= ¦M1, M2, M4¦, and O

2

= ¦M1, M3, M4¦, for the ontology {

1

= ¦P1, P2, P3, E1¦

as well as for the signature S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦, since these are the min-

imal sets of axioms that imply axiom α = (Cystic Fibrosis _ Genetic Disorder). Depending

on the application scenario, one can consider several variations of tasks T3 and T4 for com-

puting minimal modules. In some applications it might be necessary to extract all minimal

modules, whereas in others any minimal module suﬃces.

Axioms that do not occur in a minimal module in O are not essential for { because

they can always be removed from every module of O, thus they never need not be imported

into {. This is not true for the axioms that occur in minimal modules of O. It might be

necessary to import such axioms into { in order not to lose essential information from O.

These arguments motivate the following notion:

Deﬁnition 15 (Essential Axiom). Let O and O

t

be L-ontologies, S a signature and α

an axiom over L. We say that α is essential for O in O

t

w.r.t. L if α is contained in any

minimal module in O

t

for O w.r.t. L. We say that α is an essential axiom for S in O

t

w.r.t.

L (or S-essential in O

t

) if α is contained in some minimal module for S in O

t

w.r.t. L. ♦

In our example above the axioms M1–M4 from O are essential for the ontology {

1

and

for the signature S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦, but the axiom M5 is not essential.

In certain situations one might be interested in computing the set of essential axioms of

an ontology, which can be done by computing the union of all minimal modules. Note that

286

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Notation Input Task

Checking Safety:

T1 O, O

t

, L Check if O is safe for O

t

w.r.t. L

T2 O, S, L Check if O is safe for S w.r.t. L

Extracting of [all / some / union of] [minimal] module(s):

T3[a,s,u][m] O, O

t

, L Extract modules in O

t

w.r.t. O and L

T4[a,s,u][m] O

t

, S, L Extract modules for S in O

t

w.r.t. L

where O, O

t

are ontologies and S a signature over L

Table 2: Summary of reasoning tasks relevant for ontology integration and reuse

computing the union of minimal modules might be easier than computing all the minimal

modules since one does not need to identify which axiom belongs to which minimal module.

In Table 2 we have summarized the reasoning tasks we found to be potentially relevant

for ontology reuse scenarios and have included the variants T3am, T3sm, and T3um of the

task T3 and T4am, T4sm, and T4um of the task T4 for computation of minimal modules

discussed in this section.

Further variants of the tasks T3 and T4 could be considered relevant to ontology reuse.

For example, instead of computing minimal modules, one might be interested in computing

modules with the smallest number of axioms, or modules of the smallest size measured in

the number of symbols, or in any other complexity measure of the ontology. The theoretical

results that we will present in this paper can easily be extended to many such reasoning

tasks.

3.6 Safety and Modules for General Ontology Languages

All the notions introduced in Section 3 are deﬁned with respect to an “ontology language”.

So far, however, we have implicitly assumed that the ontology languages are the description

logics deﬁned in Section 2—that is, the fragments of the DL oHO1O. The notions consid-

ered in Section 3 can be applied, however, to a much broader class of ontology languages.

Our deﬁnitions apply to any ontology language with a notion of entailment of axioms from

ontologies, and a mechanism for identifying their signatures.

Deﬁnition 16. An ontology language is a tuple L = (Sg, Ax, Sig, [=), where Sg is a set

of signature elements (or vocabulary) of L, Ax is a set of axioms in L, Sig is a function

that assigns to every axiom α ∈ Ax a ﬁnite set Sig(α) ⊆ Sg called the signature of α, and

[= is the entailment relation between sets of axioms O ⊆ Ax and axioms α ∈ Ax, written

O [= α. An ontology over L is a ﬁnite set of axioms O ⊆ Ax. We extend the function Sig

to ontologies O as follows: Sig(O) :=

α∈C

Sig(α). ♦

Deﬁnition 16 provides a very general notion of an ontology language. A language L is

given by a set of symbols (a signature), a set of formulae (axioms) that can be constructed

over those symbols, a function that assigns to each formula its signature, and an entailment

relation between sets of axioms. The ontology language OWL DL as well as all description

287

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

logics deﬁned in Section 2 are examples of ontology languages in accordance to Deﬁnition 16.

Other examples of ontology languages are First Order Logic, Second Order Logic, and Logic

Programs.

It is easy to see that the notions of deductive conservative extension (Deﬁnition 1), safety

(Deﬁnitions 2 and 6) and modules (Deﬁnitions 10 and 12), as well as all the reasoning tasks

from Table 2, are well-deﬁned for every ontology language L given by Deﬁnition 16. The

deﬁnition of model conservative extension (Deﬁnition 3) and the propositions involving

model conservative extensions (Propositions 4, 8, and 13) can be also extended to other

languages with a standard Tarski model-theoretic semantics, such as Higher Order Logic.

To simplify the presentation, however, we will not formulate general requirements on the

semantics of ontology languages, and assume that we deal with sublanguages of oHO1O

whenever semantics is taken into account.

In the remainder of this section, we establish the relationships between the diﬀerent

notions of safety and modules for arbitrary ontology languages.

Proposition 17 (Safety vs. Modules for an Ontology) Let L be an ontology language,

and let O, O

t

, and O

t

1

⊆ O

t

be ontologies over L. Then:

1. O

t

is safe for O w.r.t. L iﬀ the empty ontology is a module for O in O

t

w.r.t. L.

2. If O

t

` O

t

1

is safe for O ∪ O

t

1

then O

t

1

is a module for O in O

t

w.r.t. L.

Proof. 1. By Deﬁnition 2, O

t

is safe for O w.r.t. L iﬀ (a) O∪O

t

is a deductive conservative

extension of O w.r.t. L. By Deﬁnition 10, the empty ontology O

t

0

= ∅ is a module for O in

O

t

w.r.t. L iﬀ (b) O ∪ O

t

is a deductive S-conservative extension of O ∪ O

t

0

= O w.r.t. L

for S = Sig(O). It is easy to see that (a) is the same as (b).

2. By Deﬁnition 2, O

t

` O

t

1

is safe for O∪O

t

1

w.r.t. L iﬀ (c) O∪O

t

1

∪(O

t

` O

t

1

) = O∪O

t

is a deductive conservative extension of O∪O

t

1

w.r.t. L. In particular, O∪O

t

is a deductive

S-conservative extension of O∪O

t

1

w.r.t. L for S = Sig(O), which implies, by Deﬁnition 10,

that O

t

1

is a module for O in O

t

w.r.t. L.

We also provide the analog of Proposition 17 for the notions of safety and modules for

a signature:

Proposition 18 (Safety vs. Modules for a Signature) Let L be an ontology language,

O

t

and O

t

1

⊆ O

t

, ontologies over L, and S a subset of the signature of L. Then:

1. O

t

is safe for S w.r.t. L iﬀ the empty ontology O

t

0

= ∅ is an S-module in O

t

w.r.t. L.

2. If O

t

` O

t

1

is safe for S ∪ Sig(O

t

1

) w.r.t. L, then O

t

1

is an S-module in O

t

w.r.t. L.

Proof. 1. By Deﬁnition 6, O

t

is safe for S w.r.t. L iﬀ (a) for every O with Sig(O

t

)∩Sig(O) ⊆

S, it is the case that O

t

is safe for O w.r.t. L. By Deﬁnition 12, O

t

0

= ∅ is an S-module

in O

t

w.r.t. L iﬀ (b) for every O with Sig(O

t

) ∩ Sig(O) ⊆ S, it is the case that O

t

0

= ∅ is

a module for O in O

t

w.r.t. L. By Claim 1 of Proposition 17, it is easy to see that (a) is

equivalent to (b).

2. By Deﬁnition 6, O

t

` O

t

1

is safe for S ∪ Sig(O

t

1

) w.r.t. L iﬀ (c) for every O, with

Sig(O

t

` O

t

1

) ∩ Sig(O) ⊆ S ∪ Sig(O

t

1

), we have that O

t

` O

t

1

is safe for O w.r.t. L. By

288

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Deﬁnition 12, O

t

1

is an S-module in O

t

w.r.t. L iﬀ (d) for every O with Sig(O

t

)∩Sig(O) ⊆ S,

we have that O

t

1

is a module for O in O

t

w.r.t. L.

In order to prove that (c) implies (d), let O be such that Sig(O

t

) ∩Sig(O) ⊆ S. We need

to demonstrate that O

t

1

is a module for O in O

t

w.r.t. L. ()

Let

˜

O := O∪O

t

1

. Note that Sig(O

t

` O

t

1

) ∩Sig(

˜

O) = Sig(O

t

` O

t

1

) ∩(Sig(O) ∪Sig(O

t

1

)) ⊆

(Sig(O

t

` O

t

1

) ∩Sig(O)) ∪Sig(O

t

1

) ⊆ S∪Sig(O

t

1

). Hence, by (c) we have that O

t

` O

t

1

is safe

for

˜

O = O ∪ O

t

1

w.r.t. L which implies by Claim 2 of Proposition 17 that O

t

1

is a module

for O in O

t

w.r.t. L ().

4. Undecidability and Complexity Results

In this section we study the computational properties of the tasks in Table 2 for ontology

languages that correspond to fragments of the description logic oHO1O. We demonstrate

that most of these reasoning tasks are algorithmically unsolvable even for relatively inex-

pressive DLs, and are computationally hard for simple DLs.

Since the notions of modules and safety are deﬁned in Section 3 using the notion of

deductive conservative extension, it is reasonable to identify which (un)decidability and

complexity results for conservative extensions are applicable to the reasoning tasks in Ta-

ble 2. The computational properties of conservative extensions have recently been studied

in the context of description logics. Given O

1

⊆ O over a language L, the problem of

deciding whether O is a deductive conservative extension of O

1

w.r.t. L is 2-EXPTIME-

complete for L = /L( (Ghilardi et al., 2006). This result was extended by Lutz et al.

(2007), who showed that the problem is 2-EXPTIME-complete for L = /L(1O and unde-

cidable for L = /L(1OO. Recently, the problem has also been studied for simple DLs; it

has been shown that deciding deductive conservative extensions is EXPTIME-complete for

L = cL(Lutz & Wolter, 2007). These results can be immediately applied to the notions of

safety and modules for an ontology:

Proposition 19 Given ontologies O and O

t

over L, the problem of determining whether

O is safe for O

t

w.r.t. L is EXPTIME-complete for L = cL, 2-EXPTIME-complete for

L = /L( and L = /L(1O, and undecidable for L = /L(1OO. Given ontologies O, O

t

,

and O

t

1

⊆ O

t

over L, the problem of determining whether O

t

1

is a module for O in O

t

is

EXPTIME-complete for L = cL, 2-EXPTIME complete for L = /L( and L = /L(1O,

and undecidable for L = /L(1OO.

Proof. By Deﬁnition 2, an ontology O is safe for O

t

w.r.t. L iﬀ O ∪ O

t

is a deductive

conservative extension of O

t

w.r.t. L. By Deﬁnition 2, an ontology O

t

1

is a module for O in

O

t

w.r.t. L if O∪O

t

is a deductive S-conservative extension of O∪O

t

1

for S = Sig(O) w.r.t.

L. Hence, any algorithm for checking deductive conservative extensions can be reused for

checking safety and modules.

Conversely, we demonstrate that any algorithm for checking safety or modules can be

used for checking deductive conservative extensions. Indeed, O is a deductive conservative

extension of O

1

⊆ O w.r.t. L iﬀ O`O

1

is safe for O

1

w.r.t. L iﬀ, by Claim 1 of Proposition 17,

O

0

= ∅ is a module for O

1

in O ` O

1

w.r.t. L .

289

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

Corollary 20 There exist algorithms performing tasks T1, and T3[a,s,u]m from Table 2

for L = cL and L = /L(1O that run in EXPTIME and 2-EXPTIME respectively. There

is no algorithm performing tasks T1, or T3[a,s,u]m from Table 2 for L = /L(1OO.

Proof. The task T1 corresponds directly to the problem of checking the safety of an ontology,

as given in Deﬁnition 2.

Suppose that we have a 2-EXPTIME algorithm that, given ontologies O, O

t

and O

t

1

⊆

O

t

, determines whether O

t

1

is a module for O in O

t

w.r.t. L = /L(1O. We demonstrate

that this algorithm can be used to solve the reasoning tasks T3am, T3sm and T3um for

L = /L(1O in 2-EXPTIME. Indeed, given ontologies O and O

t

, one can enumerate all

subsets of O

t

and check in 2-EXPTIME which of these subsets are modules for O in O

t

w.r.t. L. Then we can determine which of these modules are minimal and return all of them,

one of them, or the union of them depending on the reasoning task.

Finally, we prove that solving any of the reasoning tasks T3am, T3sm and T3um is not

easier than checking the safety of an ontology. Indeed, by Claim 1 of Proposition 17, an

ontology O is safe for O

t

w.r.t. L iﬀ O

0

= ∅ is a module for O

t

in O w.r.t. L. Note that

the empty ontology O

0

= ∅ is a module for O

t

in O w.r.t. L iﬀ O

0

= ∅ is the only minimal

module for O

t

in O w.r.t. L.

We have demonstrated that the reasoning tasks T1 and T3[a,s,u]m are computationally

unsolvable for DLs that are as expressive as /L(O1O, and are 2-EXPTIME-hard for /L(.

In the remainder of this section, we focus on the computational properties of the reasoning

tasks T2 and T4[a,s,u]m related to the notions of safety and modules for a signature. We

demonstrate that all of these reasoning tasks are undecidable for DLs that are as expressive

as /L(O.

Theorem 21 (Undecidability of Safety for a Signature) The problem of checking

whether an ontology O consisting of a single /L(-axiom is safe for a signature S is unde-

cidable w.r.t. L = /L(O.

Proof. The proof is a variation of the construction for undecidability of deductive conser-

vative extensions in /L(O1O (Lutz et al., 2007), based on a reduction to a domino tiling

problem.

A domino system is a triple D = (T, H, V ) where T = ¦1, . . . , k¦ is a ﬁnite set of tiles

and H, V ⊆ T T are horizontal and vertical matching relations. A solution for a domino

system D is a mapping t

i,j

that assigns to every pair of integers i, j ≥ 1 an element of T,

such that 't

i,j

, t

i,j+1

` ∈ H and 't

i,j

, t

i+1,j

` ∈ V . A periodic solution for a domino system

D is a solution t

i,j

for which there exist integers m ≥ 1 , n ≥ 1 called periods such that

t

i+m,j

= t

i,j

and t

i,j+n

= t

i,j

for every i, j ≥ 1.

Let T be the set of all domino systems, T

s

be the subset of T that admit a solution and

T

ps

be the subset of T

s

that admit a periodic solution. It is well-known (B¨orger, Gr¨adel,

& Gurevich, 1997, Theorem 3.1.7) that the sets T` T

s

and T

ps

are recursively inseparable,

that is, there is no recursive (i.e. decidable) subset T

t

⊆ T of domino systems such that

T

ps

⊆ T

t

⊆ T

s

.

We use this property in our reduction. For each domino system D, we construct a

signature S = S(D), and an ontology O = O(D) which consists of a single /L(-axiom such

that:

290

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

(q

1

) · _ A

1

. . A

k

where T = ¦1, . . . , k¦

(q

2

) A

t

¯ A

t

_ ⊥ 1 ≤ t < t

t

≤ k

(q

3

) A

t

_ ∃r

H

.(

/t,t

)∈H

A

t

) 1 ≤ t ≤ k

(q

4

) A

t

_ ∃r

V

.(

/t,t

)∈V

A

t

) 1 ≤ t ≤ k

Figure 2: An ontology O

tile

= O

tile

(D) expressing tiling conditions for a domino system D

(a) if D does not have a solution then O = O(D) is safe for S = S(D) w.r.t. L = /L(O,

and

(b) if D has a periodic solution then O = O(D) is not safe for S = S(D) w.r.t. L = /L(O.

In other words, for the set T

t

consisting of the domino systems D such that O = O(D)

is not safe for S = S(D) w.r.t. L = /L(O, we have T

ps

⊆ T

t

⊆ T

s

. Since T ` T

s

and T

ps

are recursively inseparable, this implies undecidability for T

t

and hence for the problem of

checking if O is S-safe w.r.t. L = /L(O, because otherwise one can use this problem for

deciding membership in T

t

.

The signature S = S(D), and the ontology O = O(D) are constructed as follows. Given

a domino system D = (T, H, V ), let S consist of fresh atomic concepts A

t

for every t ∈ T and

two atomic roles r

H

and r

V

. Consider an ontology O

tile

in Figure 2 constructed for D. Note

that Sig(O

tile

) = S. The axioms of O

tile

express the tiling conditions for a domino system

D, namely (q

1

) and (q

2

) express that every domain element is assigned with a unique tile

t ∈ T; (q

3

) and (q

4

) express that every domain element has horizontal and vertical matching

successors.

Now let s be an atomic role and B an atomic concept such that s, B / ∈ S. Let O := ¦β¦

where:

β := · _ ∃s.

(C

i

¦D

i

)∈C

tile

(C

i

¯ D

i

) . (∃r

H

.∃r

V

.B ¯ ∃r

V

.∃r

H

.B)

**We say that r
**

H

and r

V

commute in an interpretation 1 = (∆

7

,

7

) if for all domain

elements a, b, c, d

1

and d

2

from ∆

7

such that 'a, b` ∈ r

H

7

, 'b, d

1

` ∈ r

V

7

, 'a, c` ∈ r

V

7

, and

'c, d

2

` ∈ r

H

7

, we have d

1

= d

2

. The following claims can be easily proved:

Claim 1. If O

tile

(D) has a model 1 in which r

H

and r

V

commute, then D has a solution.

Indeed a model 1 = (∆,

7

) of O

tile

(D) can be used to guide the construction of a solution

t

i,j

for D as follows. For every i, j ≥ 1, we construct t

i,j

inductively together with elements

a

i,j

∈ ∆

7

such that 'a

i,j

, a

i,j+1

` ∈ r

V

7

and 'a

i,j

, a

i+1,j

` ∈ r

H

7

. We set a

1,1

to any element

from ∆

7

.

Now suppose a

i,j

with i, j ≥ 1 is constructed. Since 1 is a model of axioms (q

1

) and

(q

2

) from Figure 2, we have a unique A

t

with 1 ≤ t ≤ k such that a

i,j

∈ A

t

7

. Then we set

t

i,j

:= t. Since 1 is a model of axioms (q

3

) and (q

4

) and a

i,j

∈ A

t

7

there exist b, c ∈ ∆

7

and t

t

, t

tt

∈ T such that 'a

i,j

, b` ∈ r

H

7

, 'a

i,j

, c` ∈ r

V

7

, 't, t

t

` ∈ H, 't, t

tt

` ∈ V , b ∈ A

t

7

,

and c ∈ A

t

7

. In this case we assign a

i,j+1

:= b, a

i+1,j

:= c, t

i,j+1

:= t

t

, and t

i+1,j

:= t

tt

.

Note that some values of a

i,j

and t

i,j

can be assigned two times: a

i+1,j+1

and t

i+1,j+1

are

constructed for a

i,j+1

and a

i,j+1

. However, since r

V

and r

H

commute in 1, the value for

291

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

a

i+1,j+1

is unique, and because of (q

2

), the value for t

i+1,j+1

is unique. It is easy to see that

t

i,j

is a solution for D.

Claim 2. If 1 is a model of O

tile

∪ O, then r

H

and r

V

do not commute in 1.

Indeed, it is easy to see that O

tile

∪ O [= (· _ ∃s.[∃r

H

.∃r

V

.B ¯ ∃r

V

.∃r

H

.B]). Hence, if

1 = (∆

7

,

7

) is a model of O

tile

∪O, then there exist a, b, c, d

1

and d

2

such that 'x, a` ∈ s

7

for every x ∈ ∆

7

, 'a, b` ∈ r

H

7

, 'b, d

1

` ∈ r

V

7

, d

1

∈ B

7

, 'a, c` ∈ r

V

7

, 'c, d

2

` ∈ r

H

7

, and

d

2

∈ (B)

7

. This implies that d

1

= d

2

, and so, r

h

and r

V

do not commute in 1.

Finally, we demonstrate that O = O(D) satisﬁes properties (a) and (b).

In order to prove property (a) we use the suﬃcient condition for safety given in Propo-

sition 8 and demonstrate that if D has no solution then for every interpretation 1 there

exists a model . of O such that .[

S

= 1[

S

. By Proposition 8, this will imply that O is safe

for S w.r.t. L.

Let 1 be an arbitrary interpretation. Since D has no solution, then by the contra-positive

of Claim 1 either (1) 1 is not a model of O

tile

, or (2) r

H

and r

V

do not commute in 1. We

demonstrate for both of these cases how to construct the required model . of O such that

.[

S

= 1[

S

.

Case (1). If 1 = (∆

7

,

7

) is not a model of O

tile

then there exists an axiom (C

i

_ D

i

) ∈

O

tile

such that 1 [= (C

i

_ D

i

). That is, there exists a domain element a ∈ ∆

7

such that

a ∈ C

7

i

but a ∈ D

7

i

. Let us deﬁne . to be identical to 1 except for the interpretation of the

atomic role s which we deﬁne in . as s

.

= ¦'x, a` [ x ∈ ∆¦. Since the interpretations of

the symbols in S have remained unchanged, we have a ∈ C

.

i

, a ∈ D

.

i

, and so . [= (· _

∃s.[C

i

¯D

j

]). This implies that . [= β, and so, we have constructed a model . of O such

that .[

S

= 1[

S

.

Case (2). Suppose that r

H

and r

V

do not commute in 1 = (∆

7

,

7

). This means that

there exist domain elements a, b, c, d

1

and d

2

from ∆

7

with 'a, b` ∈ r

H

7

, 'b, d

1

` ∈ r

V

7

,

'a, c` ∈ r

V

7

, and 'c, d

2

` ∈ r

H

7

, such that d

1

= d

2

. Let us deﬁne . to be identical to 1 except

for the interpretation of the atomic role s and the atomic concept B. We interpret s in . as

s

.

= ¦'x, a` [ x ∈ ∆¦. We interpret B in . as B

.

= ¦d

1

¦. Note that a ∈ (∃r

H

.∃r

V

.B)

.

and

a ∈ (∃r

V

.∃r

H

.B)

.

since d

1

= d

2

. So, we have . [= (· _ ∃s.[∃r

H

.∃r

V

.B ¯ ∃r

V

.∃r

H

.B])

which implies that . [= β, and thus, we have constructed a model . of O such that

.[

S

= 1[

S

.

In order to prove property (b), assume that D has a periodic solution t

i,j

with the

periods m, n ≥ 1. We demonstrate that O is not S-safe w.r.t. L. For this purpose we

construct an /L(O-ontology O

t

with Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O

t

) ⊆ S such that O ∪ O

t

[= (· _ ⊥),

but O

t

[= (· _ ⊥). This will imply that O is not safe for O

t

w.r.t. L = /L(O, and, hence,

is not safe for S w.r.t. L = /L(O.

We deﬁne O

t

such that every model of O

t

is a ﬁnite encoding of the periodic solution t

i,j

with the periods m and n. For every pair (i, j) with 1 ≤ i ≤ m and 1 ≤ j ≤ n we introduce

a fresh individual a

i,j

and deﬁne O

t

to be an extension of O

tile

with the following axioms:

(p

1

) ¦a

i

1

,j

¦ _ ∃r

V

.¦a

i

2

,j

¦ (p

2

) ¦a

i

1

,j

¦ _ ∀r

V

.¦a

i

2

,j

¦, i

2

= i

1

+ 1 mod m

(p

3

) ¦a

i,j

1

¦ _ ∃r

H

.¦a

i,j

2

¦ (p

4

) ¦a

i,j

1

¦ _ ∀r

H

.¦a

i,j

2

¦, j

2

= j

1

+ 1 mod n

(p

5

) · _

1≤i≤m, 1≤j≤n

¦a

i,j

¦

292

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

The purpose of axioms (p

1

)–(p

5

) is to ensure that r

H

and r

V

commute in every model of

O

t

. It is easy to see that O

t

has a model corresponding to every periodic solution for D with

periods m and n. Hence O

t

[= (· _ ⊥). On the other hand, by Claim 2, since O

t

contains

O

tile

, then in every model of O

t

∪ O, r

H

and r

V

do not commute. This is only possible if

O

t

∪ O have no models, so O

t

∪ O [= (· _ ⊥).

A direct consequence of Theorem 21 and Proposition 18 is the undecidability of the

problem of checking whether a subset of an ontology is a module for a signature:

Corollary 22 Given a signature S and /L(-ontologies O

t

and O

t

1

⊆ O

t

, the problem of

determining whether O

t

1

is an S-module in O

t

w.r.t. L = /L(O is undecidable.

Proof. By Claim 1 of Proposition 18, O is S-safe w.r.t. L if O

0

= ∅ is an S-module in O

w.r.t. L. Hence any algorithm for recognizing modules for a signature in L can be used for

checking if an ontology is safe for a signature in L.

Corollary 23 There is no algorithm that can perform tasks T2, or T4[a,s,u]m for L =

/L(O.

Proof. Theorem 21 directly implies that there is no algorithm for task T2, since this task

corresponds to the problem of checking safety for a signature.

Solving any of the reasoning tasks T4am, T4sm, or T4um for L is at least as hard as

checking the safety of an ontology, since, by Claim 1 of Proposition 18, an ontology O is

S-safe w.r.t. L iﬀ O

0

= ∅ is (the only minimal) S-module in O w.r.t. L.

5. Suﬃcient Conditions for Safety

Theorem 21 establishes the undecidability of checking whether an ontology expressed in

OWL DL is safe w.r.t. a signature. This undecidability result is discouraging and leaves

us with two alternatives: First, we could focus on simple DLs for which this problem is

decidable. Alternatively, we could look for suﬃcient conditions for the notion of safety—

that is, if an ontology satisﬁes our conditions, then we can guarantee that it is safe; the

converse, however, does not necessarily hold.

The remainder of this paper focuses on the latter approach. Before we go any further,

however, it is worth noting that Theorem 21 still leaves room for investigating the former

approach. Indeed, safety may still be decidable for weaker description logics, such as cL,

or even for very expressive logics such as oH1O. In the case of oH1O, however, existing

results (Lutz et al., 2007) strongly indicate that checking safety is likely to be exponentially

harder than reasoning and practical algorithms may be hard to design. This said, in what

follows we will focus on deﬁning suﬃcient conditions for safety that we can use in practice

and restrict ourselves to OWL DL—that is, oHO1O—ontologies.

5.1 Safety Classes

In general, any suﬃcient condition for safety can be deﬁned by giving, for each signature

S, the set of ontologies over a language that satisfy the condition for that signature. These

ontologies are then guaranteed to be safe for the signature under consideration. These

intuitions lead to the notion of a safety class.

293

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

Deﬁnition 24 (Class of Ontologies, Safety Class). A class of ontologies for a language

L is a function O() that assigns to every subset S of the signature of L, a subset O(S)

of ontologies in L. A class O() is anti-monotonic if S

1

⊆ S

2

implies O(S

2

) ⊆ O(S

1

); it is

compact when O ∈ O(S ∩ Sig(O)) for each O ∈ O(S); and it is subset-closed if O

1

⊆ O

2

and O

2

∈ O(S) implies O

1

∈ O(S); it is union-closed if O

1

∈ O(S) and O

2

∈ O(S) implies

(O

1

∪ O

2

) ∈ O(S).

A safety class (also called a suﬃcient condition to safety) for an ontology language L

is a class of ontologies O() for L such that for each S it is the case that (i) ∅ ∈ O(S), and

(ii) each ontology O ∈ O(S) is S-safe for L. ♦

Intuitively, a class of ontologies is a collection of sets of ontologies parameterized by a

signature. A safety class represents a suﬃcient condition for safety: each ontology in O(S)

should be safe for S. Also, w.l.o.g., we assume that the the empty ontology ∅ belongs to

every safety class for every signature. In what follows, whenever an ontology O belongs to

a safety class for a given signature and the safety class is clear from the context, we will

sometimes say that O passes the safety test for S.

Safety classes may admit many natural properties, as given in Deﬁnition 24. Anti-

monotonicity intuitively means that if an ontology O can be proved to be safe w.r.t. S

using the suﬃcient condition, then O can be proved to be safe w.r.t. every subset of S.

Compactness means that it is suﬃcient to consider only common elements of Sig(O) and S

for checking safety. Subset-closure (union closure) means that if O (O

1

and O

2

) satisfy the

suﬃcient condition for safety, then every subset of O (the union of O

1

and O

2

) also satisﬁes

this condition.

5.2 Locality

In this section we introduce a family of safety classes for L = oHO1O that is based on the

semantic properties underlying the notion of model conservative extensions. In Section 3,

we have seen that, according to Proposition 8, one way to prove that O is S-safe is to show

that O is a model S-conservative extension of the empty ontology.

The following deﬁnition formalizes the classes of ontologies, called local ontologies, for

which safety can be proved using Proposition 8.

Deﬁnition 25 (Class of Interpretations, Locality). Given a oHO1O signature S,

we say that a set of interpretations I is local w.r.t. S if for every oHO1O-interpretation 1

there exists an interpretation . ∈ I such that 1[

S

= .[

S

.

A class of interpretations is a function I() that given a oHO1Osignature S returns a set

of interpretations I(S); it is local if I(S) is local w.r.t. S for every S; it is monotonic if S

1

⊆ S

2

implies I(S

1

) ⊆ I(S

2

); it is compact if for every S

1

, S

2

and S such that (S

1

S

2

) ∩ S = ∅

we have that I(S

1

)[

S

= I(S

2

)[

S

, where S

1

S

2

is the symmetric diﬀerence of sets S

1

and

S

2

deﬁned by S

1

S

2

:= S

1

` S

2

∪ S

2

` S

1

.

Given a class of interpretations I(), we say that O() is the class of ontologies O() based

on I() if for every S, O(S) is the set of ontologies that are valid in I(S); if I() is local then

we say that O() is a class of local ontologies, and for every S and O ∈ O(S) and every

α ∈ O, we say that O and α are local (based on I()). ♦

294

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Example 26 Let I

r←∅

A←∅

() be a class of oHO1O interpretations deﬁned as follows. Given a

signature S, the set I

r←∅

A←∅

(S) consists of interpretations . such that r

.

= ∅ for every atomic

role r / ∈ S and A

.

= ∅ for every atomic concept A / ∈ S. It is easy to show that I

r←∅

A←∅

(S)

is local for every S, since for every interpretation 1 = (∆

7

,

7

) and the interpretation

. = (∆

.

,

.

) deﬁned by ∆

.

:= ∆

7

, r

.

= ∅ for r / ∈ S, A

.

= ∅ for A / ∈ S, and X

.

:= X

7

for the remaining symbols X, then . ∈ I

r←∅

A←∅

(S) and 1[

S

= .[

S

. Since I

r←∅

A←∅

(S

1

) ⊆ I

r←∅

A←∅

(S

2

)

for every S

1

⊆ S

2

, it is the case that I

r←∅

A←∅

() is monotonic; I

r←∅

A←∅

() is also compact, since for

every S

1

and S

2

the sets of interpretations I

r←∅

A←∅

(S

1

) and I

r←∅

A←∅

(S

2

) are deﬁned diﬀerently

only for elements in S

1

S

2

.

Given a signature S, the set Ax

r←∅

A←∅

(S) of axioms that are local w.r.t. S based on I

r←∅

A←∅

(S)

consists of all axioms α such for every . ∈ I

r←∅

A←∅

(S), it is the case that . [= α. Then the

class of local ontologies based on I

r←∅

A←∅

() is deﬁned by O ∈ O

r←∅

A←∅

(S) iﬀ O ⊆ Ax

r←∅

A←∅

(S).

♦

Proposition 27 (Locality Implies Safety) Let O() be a class of ontologies for oHO1O

based on a local class of interpretations I(). Then O() is a subset-closed and union-closed

safety class for L = oHO1O. Additionally, if I() is monotonic, then O() is anti-monotonic,

and if I() is compact then O() is also compact.

Proof. Assume that O() is a class of ontologies based on I(). Then by Deﬁnition 25 for

every oHO1O signature S, we have O ∈ O(S) iﬀ O is valid in I(S) iﬀ . [= O for every

interpretation . ∈ I(S). Since I() is a local class of interpretations, we have that for

every oHO1O-interpretation 1 there exists . ∈ I(S) such that .[

S

= 1[

S

. Hence for

every O ∈ I(S) and every oHO1O interpretation 1 there is a model . ∈ I(S) such that

.[

S

= 1[

S

, which implies by Proposition 8 that O is safe for S w.r.t. L = oHO1O. Thus

O() is a safety class.

The fact that O() is subset-closed and union-closed follows directly from Deﬁnition 25

since (O

1

∪ O

2

) ∈ O(S) iﬀ (O

1

∪ O

2

) is valid in I(S) iﬀ O

1

and O

2

are valid in I(S) iﬀ

O

1

∈ O(S) and O

2

∈ O(S). If I() is monotonic then I(S

1

) ⊆ I(S

2

) for every S

1

⊆ S

2

, and

so O ∈ O(S

2

) implies that O is valid in I(S

2

) which implies that O is valid in I(S

1

) which

implies that O ∈ O(S

1

). Hence O() is anti-monotonic.

If I() is compact then for every S

1

, S

2

and S such that (S

1

S

2

) ∩ S = ∅ we have

that I(S

1

)[

S

= I(S

2

)[

S

, hence for every O with Sig(O) ⊆ S we have that O is valid in

I(S

1

) iﬀ O is valid in I(S

2

), and so, O ∈ O(S

1

) iﬀ O ∈ O(S

2

). In particular, O ∈ O(S) iﬀ

O ∈ O(S ∩ Sig(O)) since (S (S ∩ Sig(O))) ∩ Sig(O) = (S ` Sig(O)) ∩ Sig(O) = ∅. Hence,

O() is compact.

Corollary 28 The class of ontologies O

r←∅

A←∅

(S) deﬁned in Example 26 is an anti-monotonic

compact subset-closed and union-closed safety class.

Example 29 Recall that in Example 5 from Section 3, we demonstrated that the ontology

{

1

∪ O given in Figure 1 with {

1

= ¦P1, . . . , P4, E1¦ is a deductive conservative extension

of O for S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦. This has been done by showing that every

S-interpretation 1 can be expanded to a model . of axioms P1–P4, E1 by interpreting

the symbols in Sig({

1

) ` S as the empty set. In terms of Example 26 this means that

295

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

{

1

∈ O

r←∅

A←∅

(S). Since O

r←∅

A←∅

() is a class of local ontologies, by Proposition 27, the ontology

{

1

is safe for S w.r.t. L = oHO1O. ♦

Proposition 27 and Example 29 suggest a particular way of proving the safety of on-

tologies. Given a oHO1O ontology O and a signature S it is suﬃcient to check whether

O ∈ O

r←∅

A←∅

(S); that is, whether every axiom α in O is satisﬁed by every interpretation from

I

r←∅

A←∅

(S). If this property holds, then O must be safe for S according to Proposition 27.

It turns out that this notion provides a powerful suﬃciency test for safety which works

surprisingly well for many real-world ontologies, as will be shown in Section 8. In the next

section we discuss how to perform this test in practice.

5.3 Testing Locality

In this section, we focus in more detail on the safety class O

r←∅

A←∅

(), introduced in Exam-

ple 26. When ambiguity does not arise, we refer to this safety class simply as locality.

2

From the deﬁnition of Ax

r←∅

A←∅

(S) given in Example 26 it is easy to see that an axiom α is

local w.r.t. S (based on I

r←∅

A←∅

(S)) if α is satisﬁed in every interpretation that ﬁxes the inter-

pretation of all atomic roles and concepts outside S to the empty set. Note that for deﬁning

locality we do not ﬁx the interpretation of the individuals outside S, but in principle, this

could be done. The reason is that there is no elegant way to describe such interpretations.

Namely, every individual needs to be interpreted as an element of the domain, and there is

no “canonical” element of every domain to choose.

In order to test the locality of α w.r.t. S, it is suﬃcient to interpret every atomic concept

and atomic role not in S as the empty set and then check if α is satisﬁed in all interpretations

of the remaining symbols. This observation suggests the following test for locality:

Proposition 30 (Testing Locality) Given a oHO1O signature S, concept C, axiom α

and ontology O let τ(C, S), τ(α, S) and τ(O, S) be deﬁned recursively as follows:

τ(C, S) ::= τ(·, S) = ·; (a)

[ τ(A, S) = ⊥ if A / ∈ S and otherwise = A; (b)

[ τ(¦a¦, S) = ¦a¦; (c)

[ τ(C

1

¯ C

2

, S) = τ(C

1

, S) ¯ τ(C

2

, S); (d)

[ τ(C

1

, S) = τ(C

1

, S); (e)

[ τ(∃R.C

1

, S) = ⊥ if Sig(R) S and otherwise = ∃R.τ(C

1

, S); (f)

[ τ(nR.C

1

, S) = ⊥ if Sig(R) S and otherwise = (nR.τ(C

1

, S)). (g)

τ(α, S) ::= τ(C

1

_ C

2

, S) = (τ(C

1

, S) _ τ(C

2

, S)); (h)

[ τ(R

1

_ R

2

, S) = (⊥ _ ⊥) if Sig(R

1

) S, otherwise

= ∃R

1

.· _ ⊥ if Sig(R

2

) S, otherwise = (R

1

_ R

2

); (i)

[ τ(a : C, S) = a : τ(C, S); (j)

[ τ(r(a, b), S) = · _ ⊥ if r / ∈ S and otherwise = r(a, b); (k)

[ τ(Trans(r), S) = ⊥ _ ⊥ if r / ∈ S and otherwise = Trans(r); (l)

[ τ(Funct(R), S) = ⊥ _ ⊥ if Sig(R) S and otherwise = Funct(R). (m)

τ(O, S) ::=

α∈C

τ(α, S) (n)

2. This notion of locality is exactly the one we used in our previous work (Cuenca Grau et al., 2007).

296

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Then, O ∈ O

r←∅

A←∅

(S) iﬀ every axiom in τ(O, S) is a tautology.

Proof. It is easy to check that for every atomic concept A and atomic role r from τ(C, S),

we have A ∈ S and r ∈ S, in other words, all atomic concepts and roles that are not in S

are eliminated by the transformation.

3

It is also easy to show by induction that for every

interpretation 1 ∈ I

r←∅

A←∅

(S), we have C

7

= (τ(C, S))

7

and that 1 [= α iﬀ 1 [= τ(α, S). Hence

an axiom α is local w.r.t. S iﬀ 1 [= α for every interpretation 1 ∈ I

r←∅

A←∅

(S) iﬀ 1 [= τ(α, S)

for every Sig(α)-interpretation 1 ∈ I

r←∅

A←∅

(S) iﬀ τ(α, S) is a tautology.

Example 31 Let O = ¦α¦ be the ontology consisting of axiom α = M2 from Figure 1. We

demonstrate using Proposition 30 that O is local w.r.t. S

1

= ¦Fibrosis, Genetic Origin¦, but

not local w.r.t. S

2

= ¦Genetic Fibrosis, has Origin¦.

Indeed, according to Proposition 30, in order to check whether O is local w.r.t. S

1

it is

suﬃcient to perform the following replacements in α (the symbols from S

1

are underlined):

M2

⊥ [by (b)]

Genetic Fibrosis ≡ Fibrosis ¯

⊥ [by (f)]

∃has Origin.Genetic Origin (7)

Similarly, in order to check whether O is local w.r.t. S

2

, it is suﬃcient to perform the

following replacements in α (the symbols from S

2

are underlined):

M2 Genetic Fibrosis ≡

⊥ [by (b)]

Fibrosis ¯ ∃has Origin.

⊥ [by (b)]

Genetic Origin (8)

In the ﬁrst case we obtain τ(M2, S

1

) = (⊥ ≡ Fibrosis ¯ ⊥) which is a oHO1O-tautology.

Hence O is local w.r.t. S

1

and hence by Proposition 8 is S

1

-safe w.r.t. oHO1O. In the

second case τ(M2, S

2

) = (Genetic Fibrosis ≡ ⊥ ¯ ∃has Origin.⊥) which is not a oHO1O

tautology, hence O is not local w.r.t. S

2

. ♦

5.4 A Tractable Approximation to Locality

One of the important conclusions of Proposition 30 is that one can use the standard ca-

pabilities of available DL-reasoners such as FaCT++ (Tsarkov & Horrocks, 2006), RACER

(M¨oller & Haarslev, 2003), Pellet (Sirin & Parsia, 2004) or KAON2 (Motik, 2006) for testing

locality since these reasoners, among other things, allow testing for DL-tautologies. Che-

cking for tautologies in description logics is, theoretically, a diﬃcult problem (e.g. for the

DL oHO1O it is known to be NEXPTIME-complete, Tobies, 2000). There are, however,

several reasons to believe that the locality test would perform well in practice. The primary

reason is that the sizes of the axioms which need to be tested for tautologies are usually

relatively small compared to the sizes of ontologies. Secondly, modern DL reasoners are

highly optimized for standard reasoning tasks and behave well for most realistic ontologies.

In case reasoning is too costly, it is possible to formulate a tractable approximation to the

locality conditions for oHO1O:

3. Recall that the constructors ⊥, C1 C2, ∀R.C, and (nR.C) are assumed to be expressed using ,

C1 C2, ∃R.C and (nR.C), hence, in particular, every role R

∅

with Sig(R

∅

) S occurs in O as either

∃R

∅

.C, (nR

∅

.C), R

∅

R, R R

∅

, Trans(R

∅

), or Funct(R

∅

), and hence will be eliminated. All atomic

concepts A

∅

/ ∈ S will be eliminated likewise. Note that it is not necessarily the case that Sig(τ(α, S)) ⊆ S,

since τ(α, S) may still contain individuals that do not occur in S.

297

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

Deﬁnition 32 (Syntactic Locality for oHO1O). Let S be a signature. The following

grammar recursively deﬁnes two sets of concepts Con

∅

(S) and Con

∆

(S) for a signature S:

Con

∅

(S) ::= A

∅

[ C

∆

[ C ¯ C

∅

[ C

∅

¯ C [ ∃R

∅

.C [ ∃R.C

∅

[ (nR

∅

.C) [ (nR.C

∅

) .

Con

∆

(S) ::= · [ C

∅

[ C

∆

1

¯ C

∆

2

.

where A

∅

/ ∈ S is an atomic concept, R

∅

(possibly the inverse of) an atomic role r

∅

/ ∈ S, C

any concept, R any role, C

∅

∈ Con

∅

(S), C

∆

(i)

∈ Con

∆

(S), and i ∈ ¦1, 2¦.

An axiom α is syntactically local w.r.t. S if it is of one of the following forms: (1) R

∅

_ R,

or (2) Trans(r

∅

), or (3) Funct(R

∅

), or (4) C

∅

_ C, or (5) C _ C

∆

, or (6) a : C

∆

. We denote

by A

˜

x

r←∅

A←∅

(S) the set of all oHO1O-axioms that are syntactically local w.r.t. S.

A oHO1O-ontology O is syntactically local w.r.t. S if O ⊆ A

˜

x

r←∅

A←∅

(S). We denote by

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

(S) the set of all oHO1O ontologies that are syntactically local w.r.t. S. ♦

Intuitively, syntactic locality provides a simple syntactic test to ensure that an axiom is

satisﬁed in every interpretation from I

r←∅

A←∅

(S). It is easy to see from the inductive deﬁnitions

of Con

∅

(S) and Con

∆

(S) in Deﬁnition 32 that for every interpretation 1 = (∆

7

,

7

) from

I

r←∅

A←∅

(S) it is the case that (C

∅

)

7

= ∅ and (C

∆

)

7

= ∆

7

for every C

∅

∈ Con

∅

(S) and

C

∆

∈ Con

∆

(S). Hence, every syntactically local axiom is satisﬁed in every interpretation

1 from I

r←∅

A←∅

(S), and so we obtain the following conclusion:

Proposition 33 A

˜

x

r←∅

A←∅

(S) ⊆ Ax

r←∅

A←∅

(S).

Further, it can be shown that the safety class for oHO1O based on syntactic locality

enjoys all of the properties from Deﬁnition 24:

Proposition 34 The class of syntactically local ontologies

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

() given in Deﬁnition 32

is an anti-monotonic, compact, subset-closed, and union-closed safety class.

Proof.

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

() is a safety class by Proposition 33. Anti-monotonicity for

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

() can

be shown by induction, by proving that Con

∅

(S

2

) ⊆ Con

∅

(S

1

), Con

∆

(S

2

) ⊆ Con

∆

(S

1

)

and A

˜

x

r←∅

A←∅

(S

2

) ⊆ A

˜

x

r←∅

A←∅

(S

1

) when S

1

⊆ S

2

. Also one can show by induction that

α ∈ A

˜

x

r←∅

A←∅

(S) iﬀ α ∈ A

˜

x

r←∅

A←∅

(S ∩ Sig(α)), so

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

() is compact. Since O ∈

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

(S)

iﬀ O ⊆ A

˜

x

r←∅

A←∅

(S), we have that

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

() is subset-closed and union-closed.

Example 35 (Example 31 continued) It is easy to see that axiom M2 from Figure 1 is

syntactically local w.r.t. S

1

= ¦Fibrosis, Genetic Origin¦. Below we indicate sub-concepts in

α from Con

∅

(S

1

):

M2

∈ Con

∅

(S

1

) [matches A

∅

]

Genetic Fibrosis ≡ Fibrosis ¯

∈ Con

∅

(S

1

) [matches ∃R

∅

.C]

∃has Origin.Genetic Origin

∈ Con

∅

(S

1

) [matches C ¯ C

∅

]

(9)

It is easy to show in a similar way that axioms P

1

—P4, and E1 from Figure 1 are syn-

tactically local w.r.t. S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦. Hence the ontology {

1

=

¦P1, . . . , P4, E1¦ considered in Example 29 is syntactically local w.r.t. S. ♦

298

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

I

r←∗

A←∗

(S) r, A ∈ S : r

.

A

.

I

r←∅

A←∅

(S) ∅ ∅

I

r←∆∆

A←∅

(S) ∆

.

∆

.

∅

I

r←id

A←∅

(S) ¦'x, x` [ x ∈ ∆

.

¦ ∅

I

r←∗

A←∗

(S) r, A ∈ S : r

.

A

.

I

r←∅

A←∆

(S) ∅ ∆

.

I

r←∆∆

A←∆

(S) ∆

.

∆

.

∆

.

I

r←id

A←∆

(S) ¦'x, x` [ x ∈ ∆

.

¦ ∆

.

Table 3: Examples for Diﬀerent Local Classes of Interpretations

The converse of Proposition 33 does not hold in general since there are semantically

local axioms that are not syntactically local. For example, the axiom α = (A _ A . B) is

local w.r.t. every S since it is a tautology (and hence true in every interpretation). On the

other hand, it is easy to see that α is not syntactically local w.r.t. S = ¦A, B¦ according to

Deﬁnition 32 since it involves symbols in S only. Another example, which is not a tautology,

is a GCI α = (∃r.A _ ∃r.B). The axiom α is semantically local w.r.t. S = ¦r¦, since

τ(α, S) = (∃r.⊥ _ ∃r.⊥) is a tautology, but not syntactically local. These examples show

that the limitation of our syntactic notion of locality is its inability to “compare” diﬀerent

occurrences of concepts from the given signature S. As a result, syntactic locality does not

detect all tautological axioms. It is reasonable to assume, however, that tautological axioms

do not occur often in realistic ontologies. Furthermore, syntactic locality checking can be

performed in polynomial time by matching an axiom according to Deﬁnition 32.

Proposition 36 There exists an algorithm that given a oHO1O ontology O and a sig-

nature S, determines whether O ∈

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

(S), and whose running time is polynomial in

[O[ +[S[, where [O[ and [S[ are the number of symbols occurring in O and S respectively.

4

5.5 Other Locality Classes

The locality condition given in Example 26 based on a class of local interpretations I

r←∅

A←∅

()

is just a particular example of locality which can be used for testing safety. Other classes

of local interpretations can be constructed in a similar way by ﬁxing the interpretations

of elements outside S to diﬀerent values. In Table 3 we have listed several such classes of

local interpretations where we ﬁx the interpretation of atomic roles outside S to be either

the empty set ∅, the universal relation ∆∆, or the identity relation id on ∆, and the

interpretation of atomic concepts outside S to either the empty set ∅ or the set ∆ of all

elements.

Each local class of interpretations in Table 3 deﬁnes a corresponding class of local

ontologies analogously to Example 26. In Table 4 we have listed all of these classes together

with examples of typical types of axioms used in ontologies. These axioms are assumed

to be an extension of our project ontology from Figure 1. We indicate which axioms are

local w.r.t. S for which locality conditions assuming, as usual, that the symbols from S are

underlined.

It can be seen from Table 4 that diﬀerent types of locality conditions are appropriate

for diﬀerent types of axioms. The locality condition based on I

r←∅

A←∅

(S) captures the domain

axiom P4, deﬁnition P5, the disjointness axiom P6, and the functionality axiom P7 but

4. We assume that the numbers in number restrictions are written down using binary coding.

299

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

α Axiom ? α ∈ Ax

r←∅

A←∅

r←∆∆

A←∅

r←id

A←∅

r←∅

A←∆

r←∆∆

A←∆

r←id

A←∆

P4 ∃has Focus.· _ Project

P5

BioMedical Project ≡ Project ¯

¯ ∃has Focus.Bio Medicine

P6 Project ¯ Bio Medicine _ ⊥

P7 Funct(has Focus)

P8 Human Genome : Project

P9 has Focus(Human Genome, Gene)

E2

∀has Focus.Cystic Fibrosis _

_ ∃has Focus.Cystic Fibrosis

Table 4: A Comparison between Diﬀerent Types of Locality Conditions

neither of the assertions P8 or P9, since the individuals Human Genome and Gene prevent

us from interpreting the atomic role has Focus and atomic concept Project with the empty

set. The locality condition based on I

r←∆∆

A←∆

(S), where the atomic roles and concepts outside

S are interpreted as the largest possible sets, can capture such assertions but are generally

poor for other types of axioms. For example, the functionality axiom P7 is not captured

by this locality condition since the atomic role has Focus is interpreted as the universal

relation ∆∆, which is not necessarily functional. In order to capture such functionality

axioms, one can use locality based on I

r←id

A←∅

(S) or I

r←id

A←∆

(S), where every atomic role outside

S is interpreted with the identity relation id on the interpretation domain. Note that the

modeling error E2 is not local for any of the given locality conditions. Note also that it is

not possible to come up with a locality condition that captures all the axioms P4–P9, since

in P6 and P8 together imply axiom β = (¦Human Genome¦ ¯ Bio Medicine _ ⊥) which

uses the symbols from S only. Hence, every subset of { containing P6 and P8 is not safe

w.r.t. S, and so cannot be local w.r.t. S.

It might be possible to come up with algorithms for testing locality conditions for the

classes of interpretation in Table 3 similar to the ones presented in Proposition 30. For

example, locality based on the class I

r←∅

A←∆

(S) can be tested as in Proposition 30, where the

case (a) of the deﬁnition for τ(C, S) is replaced with the following:

τ(A, S) = · if A / ∈ S and otherwise = A (a

t

)

For the remaining classes of interpretations, that is for I

r←∆∆

A←∗

(S) and I

r←id

A←∗

(S), checking

locality, however, is not that straightforward, since it is not clear how to eliminate the

universal roles and identity roles from the axioms and preserve validity in the respective

classes of interpretations.

Still, it is easy to come up with tractable syntactic approximations for all the locality

conditions considered in this section in a similar manner to what has been done in Sec-

tion 5.4. The idea is the same as that used in Deﬁnition 32, namely to deﬁne two sets

Con

∅

(S) and Con

∆

(S) of concepts for a signature S which are interpreted as the empty

300

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Con

∅

(S) ::= C

∆

[ C ¯ C

∅

[ C

∅

¯ C

[ ∃R.C

∅

[ nR.C

∅

for I

r←∗

A←∅

(): [ A

∅

for I

r←∅

A←∗

(): [ ∃R

∅

.C [ nR

∅

.C

for I

r←id

A←∗

(): [ (mR

id

.C), m ≥ 2 .

Con

∆

(S) ::= · [ C

∅

[ C

∆

1

¯ C

∆

2

for I

r←∗

A←∆

(): [ A

∆

for I

r←∆∆

A←∗

(): [ ∃R

∆∆

.C

∆

[ (nR

∆∆

.C

∆

)

for I

r←id

A←∗

(): [ ∃R

id

.C

∆

[ (1 R

id

.C

∆

) .

A

˜

x

r←∗

A←∗

(S) ::= C

∅

_ C [ C _ C

∆

[ a : C

∆

for I

r←∅

A←∗

(): [ R

∅

_ R [ Trans(r

∅

) [ Funct(R

∅

)

for I

r←∆∆

A←∗

(): [ R _ R

∆∆

[ Trans(r

∆∆

) [ r

∆∆

(a, b)

for I

r←id

A←∗

(): [ Trans(r

id

) [ Funct(R

id

)

Where:

A

∅

, A

∆

, r

∅

, r

∆∆

, r

id

∈ S;

Sig(R

∅

), Sig(R

∆∆

), Sig(R

id

) S;

C

∅

∈ Con

∅

(S), C

∆

(i)

∈ Con

∆

(S);

C is any concept, R is any role

Figure 3: Syntactic Locality Conditions for the Classes of Interpretations in Table 3

set and, respectively, as ∆

7

in every interpretation 1 from the class and see in which situa-

tions DL-constructors produce the elements from these sets. In Figure 3 we gave recursive

deﬁnitions for syntactically local axioms A

˜

x

r←∗

A←∗

(S) that correspond to classes I

r←∗

A←∗

(S) of

interpretations from Table 3, where some cases in the recursive deﬁnitions are present only

for the indicated classes of interpretations.

5.6 Combining and Extending Safety Classes

In the previous section we gave examples of several safety classes based on diﬀerent local

classes of interpretations and demonstrated that diﬀerent classes are suitable for diﬀerent

types of axioms. In order to check safety of ontologies in practice, one may try to apply

diﬀerent suﬃcient tests and check if any of them succeeds. Obviously, this gives a more

powerful suﬃcient condition for safety, which can be seen as the union of the safety classes

used in the tests.

Formally, given two classes of ontologies O

1

() and O

2

(), their union (O

1

∪ O

2

)() is a

class of ontologies deﬁned by (O

1

∪O

2

)(S) = O

1

(S)∪O

2

(S). It is easy to see by Deﬁnition 24

that if both O

1

() and O

2

() are safety classes then their union (O

1

∪ O

2

)() is a safety

class. Moreover, if each of the safety classes is also anti-monotonic or subset-closed, then

the union is anti-monotonic, or respectively, subset-closed as well. Unfortunately the union-

closure property for safety classes is not preserved under unions, as demonstrated in the

following example:

Example 37 Consider the union (O

r←∅

A←∅

∪ O

r←∆∆

A←∆

)() of two classes of local ontologies

O

r←∅

A←∅

() and O

r←∆∆

A←∆

() deﬁned in Section 5.5. This safety class is not union-closed since,

for example, the ontology O

1

consisting of axioms P4–P7 from Table 4 satisﬁes the ﬁrst

locality condition, the ontology O

2

consisting of axioms P8–P9 satisﬁes the second locality

condition, but their union O

1

∪O

2

satisﬁes neither the ﬁrst nor the second locality condition

and, in fact, is not even safe for S as we have shown in Section 5.5. ♦

As shown in Proposition 33, every locality condition gives a union-closed safety class;

however, as seen in Example 37, the union of such safety classes might be no longer union-

closed. One may wonder if locality classes already provide the most powerful suﬃcient

301

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

conditions for safety that satisfy all the desirable properties from Deﬁnition 24. Surprisingly

this is the case to a certain extent for some locality classes considered in Section 5.5.

Deﬁnition 38 (Maximal Union-Closed Safety Class). A safety class O

2

() extends

a safety class O

1

() if O

1

(S) ⊆ O

2

(S) for every S. A safety class O

1

() is maximal union-

closed for a language L if O

1

() is union-closed and for every union-closed safety class O

2

()

that extends O

1

() and every O over L we have that O ∈ O

2

(S) implies O ∈ O

1

(S). ♦

Proposition 39 The classes of local ontologies O

r←∅

A←∅

() and O

r←∅

A←∆

() deﬁned in Section 5.5

are maximal union-closed safety classes for L = oH1O.

Proof. According to Deﬁnition 38, if a safety class O() is not maximal union-closed for a

language L, then there exists a signature S and an ontology O over L, such that (i) O / ∈

O(S), (ii) O is safe w.r.t. S in L, and (iii) for every { ∈ O(S), it is the case that O∪ { is

safe w.r.t. S in L; that is, for every ontology O over L with Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O ∪ {) ⊆ S it is

the case that O ∪ { ∪ O is a deductive conservative extension of O. We demonstrate that

this is not possible for O() = O

r←∅

A←∅

() or O() = O

r←∅

A←∆

()

We ﬁrst consider the case O() = O

r←∅

A←∅

() and then show how to modify the proof for

the case O() = O

r←∅

A←∆

().

Let O be an ontology over L that satisﬁes conditions (i)–(iii) above. We deﬁne ontologies

{ and O as follows. Take { to consist of the axioms A _ ⊥ and ∃r.· _ ⊥ for every atomic

concept A and atomic role r from Sig(O) ` S. It is easy to see that { ∈ O

r←∅

A←∅

(S). Take O

to consist of all tautologies of form ⊥ _ A and ⊥ _ ∃r.· for every A, r ∈ S. Note that

Sig(O ∪ {) ∩ Sig(O) ⊆ S. We claim that O ∪ { ∪ O is not a deductive Sig(O)-conservative

extension of O. ()

Intuitively, the ontology { is chosen in such a way that { ∈ O

r←∅

A←∅

(S) and O ∪ { ∪ O

has only models from I

r←∅

A←∅

(S). O is an ontology which implies nothing but tautologies and

uses all the atomic concepts and roles from S.

Since O / ∈ O

r←∅

A←∅

(S), there exists an axiom α ∈ O such that α / ∈ Ax

r←∅

A←∅

(S). Let

β := τ(α, S) where τ(, ) is deﬁned as in Proposition 30. As has been shown in the proof of

this proposition, 1 [= α iﬀ 1 [= β for every 1 ∈ I

r←∅

A←∅

(S). Now, since O [= α and O ∪ { ∪ O

has only models from I

r←∅

A←∅

(S), it is the case that O∪{∪O [= β. By Proposition 30, since β

does not contain individuals, we have that Sig(β) ⊆ S = Sig(O) and, since α / ∈ Ax

r←∅

A←∅

(S),

β is not a tautology, thus O [= β. Hence, by Deﬁnition 1, O ∪ { ∪ O is not a deductive

Sig(O)-conservative extension of O ().

For O() = O

r←∅

A←∆

() the proof can be repeated by taking { to consist of axioms · _ A

and ∃r.· _ ⊥ for all A, r ∈ Sig(O) ` S, and modifying τ(, ) as has been discussed in

Section 5.5.

There are some diﬃculties in extending the proof of Proposition 39 to other locality

classes considered in Section 5.5. First, it is not clear how to force interpretations of roles

to be the universal or identity relation using oHO1O axioms. Second, it is not clear how

to deﬁne the function τ(, ) in these cases (see a related discussion in Section 5.5). Note

also that the proof of Proposition 39 does not work in the presence of nominals, since

this will not guarantee that β = τ(α, S) contains symbols from S only (see Footnote 3 on

p. 297). Hence there is probably room to extend the locality classes O

r←∅

A←∅

() and O

r←∅

A←∆

()

for L = oHO1O while preserving union-closure.

302

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

6. Extracting Modules Using Safety Classes

In this section we revisit the problem of extracting modules from ontologies. As shown in

Corollary 23 in Section 4, there exists no general procedure that can recognize or extract

all the (minimal) modules for a signature in an ontology in ﬁnite time.

The techniques described in Section 5, however, can be reused for extracting particular

families of modules that satisfy certain suﬃcient conditions. Proposition 18 establishes the

relationship between the notions of safety and module; more precisely, a subset O

1

of O is

an S-module in O provided that O ` O

1

is safe for S ∪ Sig(O

1

). Therefore, any safety class

O() can provide a suﬃcient condition for testing modules—that is, in order to prove that

O

1

is a S-module in O, it is suﬃcient to show that O ` O

1

∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

1

)). A notion of

modules based on this property can be deﬁned as follows.

Deﬁnition 40 (Modules Based on Safety Class).

Let L be an ontology language and O() be a safety class for L. Given an ontology O and

a signature S over L, we say that O

m

⊆ O is an O()-based S-module in O if O ` O

m

∈

O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)). ♦

Remark 41 Note that for every safety class O(), ontology O and signature S, there exists

at least one O()-based S-module in O, namely O itself; indeed, by Deﬁnition 24, the empty

ontology ∅ = O ` O also belongs to O(S) for every O() and S.

Note also that it follows from Deﬁnition 40 that O

m

is an O()-based S-module in O iﬀ

O

m

is an O()-based S

t

-module in O for every S

t

with S ⊆ S

t

⊆ (S ∪ Sig(O

m

)). ♦

It is clear that, according to Deﬁnition 40, any procedure for checking membership of a

safety class O() can be used directly for checking whether O

m

is a module based on O().

In order to extract an O()-module, it is suﬃcient to enumerate all possible subsets of the

ontology and check if any of these subsets is a module based on O().

In practice, however, it is possible to avoid checking all the possible subsets of the

input ontology. Figure 4 presents an optimized version of the module-extraction algorithm.

The procedure manipulates conﬁgurations of the form O

m

[ O

u

[ O

s

, which represent a

partitioning of the ontology O into three disjoint subsets O

m

, O

u

and O

s

. The set O

m

accumulates the axioms of the extracted module; the set O

s

is intended to be safe w.r.t.

S∪Sig(O

m

). The set O

u

, which is initialized to O, contains the unprocessed axioms. These

axioms are distributed among O

m

and O

s

according to rules R1 and R2. Given an axiom α

from O

u

, rule R1 moves α into O

s

provided O

s

remains safe w.r.t. S ∪ Sig(O

m

) according

to the safety class O(). Otherwise, rule R2 moves α into O

m

and moves all axioms from

O

s

back into O

u

, since Sig(O

m

) might expand and axioms from O

s

might become no longer

safe w.r.t. S ∪ Sig(O

m

). At the end of this process, when no axioms are left in in O

u

, the

set O

m

is an O()-based module in O.

The rewrite rules R1 and R2 preserve invariants I1–I3 given in Figure 4. Invariant I1

states that the three sets O

m

, O

u

and O

s

form a partitioning of O; I2 states that the set O

s

satisﬁes the safety test for S ∪ Sig(O

m

) w.r.t. O(); ﬁnally, I3 establishes that the rewrite

rules either add elements to O

m

, or they add elements to O

s

without changing O

m

; in other

words, the pair ([O

m

[, [O

s

[) consisting of the sizes for these sets increases in lexicographical

order.

303

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

Input: an ontology O, a signature S, a safety class O()

Output: a module O

m

in O based on O()

Conﬁguration: O

m

↑

module

[

unprocessed

↓

O

u

[ O

s

↑

safe

;

Initial Conﬁguration = ∅ [ O [ ∅

Termination Condition: O

u

= ∅

Rewrite rules:

R1. O

m

[ O

u

∪ ¦α¦ [ O

s

=⇒ O

m

[ O

u

[ O

s

∪ ¦α¦ if (O

s

∪ ¦α¦) ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

))

R2. O

m

[ O

u

∪ ¦α¦ [ O

s

=⇒ O

m

∪ ¦α¦ [ O

u

∪ O

s

[ ∅ if (O

s

∪ ¦α¦) ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

))

Invariants for O

m

[ O

u

[ O

s

:

I1. O = O

m

¬ O

u

¬ O

s

I2. O

s

∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

))

Invariant for O

m

[ O

u

[ O

s

=⇒ O

t

m

[ O

t

u

[ O

t

s

:

I3. ([O

m

[, [O

s

[) <

lex

([O

t

m

[, [O

t

s

[)

Figure 4: A Procedure for Computing Modules Based on a Safety Class O()

Proposition 42 (Correctness of the Procedure from Figure 4) Let O() be a safety

class for an ontology language L, O an ontology over L, and S a signature over L. Then:

(1) The procedure in Figure 4 with input O, S, O() terminates and returns an O()-

based S-module O

m

in O; and

(2) If, additionally, O() is anti-monotonic, subset-closed and union-closed, then there

is a unique minimal O()-based S-module in O, and the procedure returns precisely this

minimal module.

Proof. (1) The procedure based on the rewrite rules from Figure 4 always terminates for

the following reasons: (i) for every conﬁguration derived by the rewrite rules, the sets O

m

,

O

u

and O

s

form a partitioning of O (see invariant I1 in Figure 4), and therefore the size

of every set is bounded; (ii) at each rewrite step, ([O

m

[, [O

s

[) increases in lexicographical

order (see invariant I3 in Figure 4). Additionally, if O

u

= ∅ then it is always possible to

apply one of the rewrite rules R1 or R2, and hence the procedure always terminates with

O

u

= ∅. Upon termination, by invariant I1 from Figure 4, O is partitioned into O

m

and O

s

and by invariant I2, O

s

∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)), which implies, by Deﬁnition 40, that O

m

is an

O()-based S-module in O.

(2) Now, suppose that, in addition, O() is an anti-monotonic, subset-closed, and union-

closed safety class, and suppose that O

t

m

is an O()-based S-module in O. We demonstrate

by induction that for every conﬁguration O

m

[ O

u

[ O

s

derivable from ∅ [ O [ ∅ by rewrite

rules R1 and R2, it is the case that O

m

⊆ O

t

m

. This will prove that the module computed

by the procedure is a subset of every O()-based S-module in O, and hence, is the smallest

O()-based S-module in O.

Indeed, for the base case we have O

m

= ∅ ⊆ O

t

m

. The rewrite rule R1 does not change

the set O

m

. For the rewrite rule R2 we have: O

m

[ O

u

∪¦α¦ [ O

s

=⇒ O

m

∪¦α¦ [ O

u

∪O

s

[ ∅

if (O

s

∪ ¦α¦) ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)). ()

304

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Input: an ontology O, a signature S, a safety class O()

Output: a module O

m

in O based on O()

Initial Conﬁguration = ∅ [ O [ ∅ Termination Condition: O

u

= ∅

Rewrite rules:

R1. O

m

[ O

u

∪ ¦α¦ [ O

s

=⇒ O

m

[ O

u

[ O

s

∪ ¦α¦ if ¦α¦ ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

))

R2. O

m

[ O

u

∪ ¦α¦ [ O

α

s

∪ O

s

=⇒ O

m

∪ ¦α¦ [ O

u

∪ O

α

s

[ O

s

if ¦α¦ ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)), and

Sig(O

s

) ∩ Sig(α) ⊆ Sig(O

m

)

Figure 5: An Optimized Procedure for Computing Modules Based on a Compact Subset-

Closed Union-Closed Safety Class O()

Suppose, to the contrary, that O

m

⊆ O

t

m

but O

m

∪¦α¦ O

t

m

. Then α ∈ O

t

s

:= O`O

t

m

.

Since O

t

m

is an O()-based S-module in O, we have that O

t

s

∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

t

m

)). Since O()

is subset-closed, ¦α¦ ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

t

m

)). Since O

m

⊆ O

t

m

and O() is anti-monotonic, we

have ¦α¦ ∈ O(S∪Sig(O

m

)). Since by invariant I2 from Figure 4, O

s

∈ O(S∪Sig(O

m

)) and

O() is union-closed, O

s

∪¦α¦ ∈ O(S∪Sig(O

m

)), which contradicts (). This contradiction

implies that the rule R2 also preserves property O

m

⊆ O

t

m

.

Claim (1) of Proposition 42 establishes that the procedure from Figure 4 terminates for

every input and produces a module based on a given safety class. Moreover, it is possible

to show that this procedure runs in polynomial time assuming that the safety test can be

also performed in polynomial time.

If the safety class O() satisﬁes additional desirable properties, like those based on classes

of local interpretations described in Section 5.2, the procedure, in fact, produces the smallest

possible module based on the safety class, as stated in claim (2) of Proposition 42. In this

case, it is possible to optimize the procedure shown in Figure 4. If O() is union closed,

then, instead of checking whether (O

s

∪ ¦α¦) ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)) in the conditions of rules

R1 and R2, it is suﬃcient to check if ¦α¦ ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)) since it is already known that

O

s

∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)). If O() is compact and subset closed, then instead of moving all the

axioms in O

s

to O

u

in rule R2, it is suﬃcient to move only those axioms O

α

s

that contain

at least one symbol from α which did not occur in O

m

before, since the set of remaining

axioms will stay in O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)). In Figure 5 we present an optimized version of the

algorithm from Figure 4 for such locality classes.

Example 43 In Table 5 we present a trace of the algorithm from Figure 5 for the ontology O

consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1, signature S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦

and safety class O() = O

r←∅

A←∅

() deﬁned in Example 26. The ﬁrst column of the table lists

the conﬁgurations obtained from the initial conﬁguration ∅ [ O [ ∅ by applying the rewrite

rules R1 and R2 from Figure 5; in each row, the underlined axiom α is the one that is being

tested for safety. The second column of the table shows the elements of S ∪ Sig(O

m

) that

have appeared for the current conﬁguration but have not been present for the preceding

conﬁgurations. In the last column we indicate whether the ﬁrst conditions of the rules R1

and R2 are fulﬁlled for the selected axiom α from O

u

—that is, whether α is local for I

r←∅

A←∅

().

The rewrite rule corresponding to the result of this test is applied to the conﬁguration.

305

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

O

m

[ O

u

, α [ O

s

New elements in S ∪ Sig(O

m

) ¦α¦ ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

))?

1 − [ M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 [ − Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder Yes ⇒ R1

2 − [ M1, M3, M4, M5 [ M2 − Yes ⇒ R1

3 − [ M1, M4, M5 [ M2, M3 − No ⇒ R2

4 M1 [ M2, M3, M4, M5 [ − Fibrosis, located In, Pancreas,

has Origin, Genetic Origin No ⇒ R2

5 M1, M3 [ M2, M4, M5 [ − Genetic Fibrosis No ⇒ R2

6 M1, M3, M4 [ M2, M5 [ − − Yes ⇒ R1

7 M1, M3, M4 [ M2 [ M5 − No ⇒ R2

8 M1, M2, M3, M4 [ − [ M5 −

Table 5: A trace of the Procedure in Figure 5 for the input O = ¦M1, . . . , M5¦ from Figure 1

and S = ¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦

Note that some axioms α are tested for safety several times for diﬀerent conﬁgurations,

because the set O

u

may increase after applications of rule R2; for example, the axiom

α = M2 is tested for safety in both conﬁgurations 1 and 7, and α = M3 in conﬁgurations

2 and 4. Note also that diﬀerent results for the locality tests are obtained in these cases:

both M2 and M3 were local w.r.t. S ∪ Sig(O

m

) when O

m

= ∅, but became non-local when

new axioms were added to O

m

. It is also easy to see that, in our case, syntactic locality

produces the same results for the tests.

In our example, the rewrite procedure produces a module O

m

consisting of axioms M1–

M4. Note that it is possible to apply the rewrite rules for diﬀerent choices of the axiom

α in O

u

, which results in a diﬀerent computation. In other words, the procedure from

Figure 5 has implicit non-determinism. According to Claim (2) of Proposition 42 all such

computations should produce the same module O

m

, which is the smallest O

r←∅

A←∅

()-based

S-module in O; that is, the implicit non-determinism in the procedure from Figure 5 does

not have any impact on the result of the procedure. However, alternative choices for α

may result in shorter computations: in our example we could have selected axiom M1 in

the ﬁrst conﬁguration instead of M2 which would have led to a shorter trace consisting of

conﬁgurations 1, and 4–8 only. ♦

It is worth examining the connection between the S-modules in an ontology O based on

a particular safety class O() and the actual minimal S-modules in O. It turns out that any

O()-based module O

m

is guaranteed to cover the set of minimal modules, provided that

O() is anti-monotonic and subset-closed. In other words, given O and S, O

m

contains all

the S-essential axioms in O. The following Lemma provides the main technical argument

underlying this result.

Lemma 44 Let O() be an anti-monotonic subset-closed safety class for an ontology lan-

guage L, O an ontology, and S a signature over L. Let O

1

be an S-module in O w.r.t. L

and O

m

an O()-based S-module in O. Then O

2

:= O

1

∩O

m

is an S-module in O w.r.t. L.

306

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Proof. By Deﬁnition 40, since O

m

is an O()-based S-module in O, we have that O` O

m

∈

O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)). Since O

1

`O

2

= O

1

`O

m

⊆ O`O

m

and O() is subset-closed, it is the case

that O

1

` O

2

∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

m

)). Since O() is anti-monotonic, and O

2

⊆ O

m

, we have that

O

1

` O

2

∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

2

)), hence, O

2

is an O()-based S-module in O

1

. In particular O

2

is

an S-module in O

1

w.r.t. L. Since O

1

is an S-module in O w.r.t. L, O

2

is an S-module in

O w.r.t. L.

Corollary 45 Let O() be an anti-monotonic, subset-closed safety class for L and O

m

be

an O()-based S-module in O. Then O

m

contains all S-essential axioms in O w.r.t. L.

Proof. Let O

1

be a minimal S-module in O w.r.t. L. We demonstrate that O

1

⊆ O

m

. Indeed,

otherwise, by Lemma 44, O

1

∩O

m

is an S-module in O w.r.t. L which is strictly contained

in O

1

. Hence O

m

is a superset of every minimal S-module in O and hence, contains all

S-essential axioms in O w.r.t. L.

As shown in Section 3.4, all the axioms M1–M4 are essential for the ontology O and

signature S considered in Example 43. We have seen in this example that the locality-based

S-module extracted from O contains all of these axioms, in accordance to Corollary 45. In

our case, the extracted module contains only essential axioms; in general, however, locality-

based modules might contain non-essential axioms.

An interesting application of modules is the pruning of irrelevant axioms when checking

if an axiom α is implied by an ontology O. Indeed, in order to check whether O [= α

it suﬃces to retrieve the module for Sig(α) and verify if the implication holds w.r.t. this

module. In some cases, it is suﬃcient to extract a module for a subset of the signature of

α which, in general, leads to smaller modules. In particular, in order to test subsumption

between a pair of atomic concepts, if the safety class being used enjoys some nice properties

then it suﬃces to extract a module for one of them, as given by the following proposition:

Proposition 46 Let O() be a compact union-closed safety class for an ontology language

L, O an ontology and A, B atomic concepts. Let O

A

be an O()-based module in O for

S = ¦A¦ in O. Then:

1 If O [= α := (A _ B) and ¦B _ ⊥¦ ∈ O(∅) then O

A

[= α;

2 If O [= α := (B _ A) and ¦· _ B¦ ∈ O(∅) then O

A

[= α;

Proof. 1. Consider two cases: (a) B ∈ Sig(O

A

) and (b) B / ∈ Sig(O

A

).

(a) By Remark 41 it is the case that O

A

is an O()-based module in O for S = ¦A, B¦.

Since Sig(α) ⊆ S, by Deﬁnition 12 and Deﬁnition 1, it is the case that O [= α implies

O

A

[= α.

(b) Consider O

t

= O∪¦B _ ⊥¦. Since Sig(B _ ⊥) = ¦B¦ and B / ∈ Sig(O

A

), ¦B _ ⊥¦ ∈

O(∅) and O() is compact, by Deﬁnition 24 it is the case that ¦B _ ⊥¦ ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

A

)).

Since O

A

is an O()-based S-module in O, by Deﬁnition 40, then O`O

A

∈ O(S∪Sig(O

A

)).

Since O() is union-closed, it is the case that (O ` O

A

) ∪ ¦B _ ⊥¦ ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O

A

)). Note

that B _ ⊥ ∈ O

A

, since B ∈ Sig(O

A

), hence (O ` O

A

) ∪ ¦B _ ⊥¦ = O

t

` O

A

, and, by

Deﬁnition 40, we have that O

A

is an O()-based S-module in O

t

. Now, since O [= (A _ B),

it is the case that O

t

[= (A _ ⊥), and hence, since O

A

is a module in O

t

for S = ¦A¦, we

have that O

A

[= (A _ ⊥) which implies O

A

[= (A _ B).

307

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

2. The proof of this case is analogous to that for Case 1: Case (a) is applicable without

changes; in Case (b) we show that O

A

is an O()-based module for S = ¦A¦ in O

t

=

O ∪ ¦· _ B¦, and, hence, since O

t

[= (· _ A), it is the case that O

B

[= (· _ A), which

implies O

t

[= (B _ A).

Corollary 47 Let O be a oHO1O ontology and A, B atomic concepts. Let O

r←∗

A←∅

() and

O

r←∗

A←∆

() be locality classes based on local classes of interpretations of form I

r←∗

A←∅

() and

I

r←∗

A←∆

(), respectively, from Table 3. Let O

A

be a module for S = ¦A¦ based on O

r←∗

A←∅

() and

O

B

be a module for S = ¦B¦ based on O

r←∗

A←∆

(). Then O [= (A _ B) iﬀ O

A

[= (A _ B) iﬀ

O

B

[= (A _ B).

Proof. It is easy to see that ¦B _ ⊥¦ ∈ O

r←∗

A←∅

(∅) and ¦· _ A¦ ∈ O

r←∗

A←∆

(∆).

Proposition 46 implies that a module based on a safety class for a single atomic concept

A can be used for capturing either the super-concepts (Case 1), or the sub-concepts (Case

2) B of A, provided that the safety class captures, when applied to the empty signature,

axioms of the form B _ ⊥ (Case 1) or (· _ B) (Case 2). That is, B is a super-concept or

a sub-concept of A in the ontology if and only if it is such in the module. This property

can be used, for example, to optimize the classiﬁcation of ontologies. In order to check if

the subsumption A _ B holds in an ontology O, it is suﬃcient to extract a module in

O for S = ¦A¦ using a modularization algorithm based on a safety class in which the

ontology ¦B _ ⊥¦ is local w.r.t. the empty signature, and check whether this subsumption

holds w.r.t. the module. For this purpose, it is convenient to use a syntactically tractable

approximation of the safety class in use; for example, one could use the syntactic locality

conditions given in Figure 3 instead of their semantic counterparts.

It is possible to combine modularization procedures to obtain modules that are smaller

than the ones obtained using these procedures individually. For example, in order to check

the subsumption O [= (A _ B) one could ﬁrst extract a O

r←∗

A←∅

()-based module ´

1

for

S = ¦A¦ in O; by Corollary 47 this module is complete for all the super-concepts of A in

O, including B—that is, if an atomic concept is a super-concept of A in O, then it is also a

super-concept of A in ´

1

. One could extract a O

r←∗

A←∆

()-based module ´

2

for S = ¦B¦ in

´

1

which, by Corollary 47, is complete for all the sub-concepts of B in ´

1

, including A.

Indeed, ´

2

is an S-module in ´

1

for S = ¦A, B¦ and ´

1

is an S-module in the original

ontology O. By Proposition 46, therefore, it is the case that ´

2

is also an S-module in O.

7. Related Work

We have seen in Section 3 that the notion of conservative extension is valuable in the forma-

lization of ontology reuse tasks. The problem of deciding conservative extensions has been

recently investigated in the context of ontologies (Ghilardi et al., 2006; Lutz et al., 2007;

Lutz & Wolter, 2007). The problem of deciding whether {∪O is a deductive S-conservative

extension of O is EXPTIME-complete for cL (Lutz & Wolter, 2007), 2-EXPTIME-complete

w.r.t. /L(1O (Lutz et al., 2007) (roughly OWL-Lite), and undecidable w.r.t. /L(1OO

(roughly OWL DL). Furthermore, checking model conservative extensions is already un-

decidable for cL (Lutz & Wolter, 2007), and for /L( it is even not semi-decidable (Lutz

et al., 2007).

308

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

In the last few years, a rapidly growing body of work has been developed under the

headings of Ontology Mapping and Alignment, Ontology Merging, Ontology Integration,

and Ontology Segmentation (Kalfoglou & Schorlemmer, 2003; Noy, 2004a, 2004b). This ﬁeld

is rather diverse and has roots in several communities.

In particular, numerous techniques for extracting fragments of ontologies for the pur-

poses of knowledge reuse have been proposed. Most of these techniques rely on syntactically

traversing the axioms in the ontology and employing various heuristics to determine which

axioms are relevant and which are not.

An example of such a procedure is the algorithm implemented in the Prompt-Factor

tool (Noy & Musen, 2003). Given a signature S and an ontology O, the algorithm re-

trieves a fragment O

1

⊆ O as follows: ﬁrst, the axioms in O that mention any of the

symbols in S are added to O

1

; second, S is expanded with the symbols in Sig(O

1

). These

steps are repeated until a ﬁxpoint is reached. For our example in Section 3, when S =

¦Cystic Fibrosis, Genetic Disorder¦, and O consists of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1, the al-

gorithm ﬁrst retrieves axioms M1, M4, and M5 containing these terms, then expands S with

the symbols mentioned in these axioms, such that S contains all the symbols of O. After

this step, all the remaining axioms of O are retrieved. Hence, the fragment extracted by

the Prompt-Factor algorithm consists of all the axioms M1-M5. In this case, the Prompt-

Factor algorithm extracts a module (though not a minimal one). In general, however, the

extracted fragment is not guaranteed to be a module. For example, consider an ontology

O = ¦A ≡ A, B _ C¦ and α = (C _ B). The ontology O is inconsistent due to the

axiom A ≡ A: any axiom (and α in particular) is thus a logical consequence of O. Given

S = ¦B, C¦, the Prompt-Factor algorithm extracts O

2

= ¦B _ C¦; however, O

2

[= α, and

so O

2

is not a module in O. In general, the Prompt-Factor algorithm may fail even if O is

consistent. For example, consider an ontology O = ¦· _ ¦a¦, A _ B¦, α = (A _ ∀r.A),

and S = ¦A¦. It is easy to see that O is consistent, admits only single element models,

and α is satisﬁed in every such a model; that is, O [= α. In this case, the Prompt-Factor

algorithm extracts O

1

= ¦A _ B¦, which does not imply α.

Another example is Seidenberg’s segmentation algorithm (Seidenberg & Rector, 2006),

which was used for segmentation of the medical ontology GALEN (Rector & Rogers, 1999).

Currently, the full version of GALEN cannot be processed by reasoners, so the authors

investigate the possibility of splitting GALEN into small “segments” which can be processed

by reasoners separately. The authors describe a segmentation procedure which, given a set

of atomic concepts S, computes a “segment” for S in the ontology. The description of

the procedure is very high-level. The authors discuss which concepts and roles should be

included in the segment and which should not. In particular, the segment should contain

all “super-” and “sub-” concepts of the input concepts, concepts that are “linked” from the

input concepts (via existential restrictions) and their “super-concepts”, but not their “sub-

concepts”; for the included concepts, also “their restrictions”, “intersection”, “union”, and

“equivalent concepts” should be considered by including the roles and concepts they contain,

together with their “super-concepts” and “super-roles” but not their “sub-concepts” and

“sub-roles”. From the description of the procedure it is not entirely clear whether it works

with a classiﬁed ontology (which is unlikely in the case of GALEN since the full version of

GALEN has not been classiﬁed by any existing reasoner), or, otherwise, how the “super-”

and “sub-” concepts are computed. It is also not clear which axioms should be included in

309

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

the segment in the end, since the procedure talks only about the inclusion of concepts and

roles.

A diﬀerent approach to module extraction proposed in the literature (Stuckenschmidt

& Klein, 2004) consists of partitioning the concepts in an ontology to facilitate visualization

of and navigation through an ontology. The algorithm uses a set of heuristics for measuring

the degree of dependency between the concepts in the ontology and outputs a graphical

representation of these dependencies. The algorithm is intended as a visualization technique,

and does not establish a correspondence between the nodes of the graph and sets of axioms

in the ontology.

What is common between the modularization procedures we have mentioned is the lack

of a formal treatment for the notion of module. The papers describing these modularization

procedures do not attempt to formally specify the intended outputs of the procedures, but

rather argue what should be in the modules and what not based on intuitive notions. In

particular, they do not take the semantics of the ontology languages into account. It might

be possible to formalize these algorithms and identify ontologies for which the “intuition-

based” modularization procedures work correctly. Such studies are beyond the scope of this

paper.

Module extraction in ontologies has also been investigated from a formal point of view

(Cuenca Grau et al., 2006b). Cuenca Grau et al. (2006) deﬁne a notion of a module O

A

in an

ontology Ofor an atomic concept A. One of the requirements for the module is that Oshould

be a conservative extension of O

A

(in the paper O

A

is called a logical module in O). The

paper imposes an additional requirement on modules, namely that the module O

A

should

entail all the subsumptions in the original ontology between atomic concepts involving A and

other atomic concepts in O

A

. The authors present an algorithm for partitioning an ontology

into disjoint modules and proved that the algorithm is correct provided that certain safety

requirements for the input ontology hold: the ontology should be consistent, should not

contain unsatisﬁable atomic concepts, and should have only “safe” axioms (which in our

terms means that they are local for the empty signature). In contrast, the algorithm we

present here works for any ontology, including those containing “non-safe” axioms.

The growing interest in the notion of “modularity” in ontologies has been recently

reﬂected in a workshop on modular ontologies

5

held in conjunction with the International

Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2006). Concerning the problem of ontology reuse, there

have been various proposals for “safely” combining modules; most of these proposals, such

as c-connections (Cuenca Grau, Parsia, & Sirin, 2006a), Distributed Description Logics

(Borgida & Seraﬁni, 2003) and Package-based Description Logics (Bao, Caragea, & Honavar,

2006) propose a specialized semantics for controlling the interaction between the importing

and the imported modules to avoid side-eﬀects. In contrast to these works, we assume here

that reuse is performed by simply building the logical union of the axioms in the modules

under the standard semantics, and we establish a collection of reasoning services, such as

safety testing, to check for side-eﬀects. The interested reader can ﬁnd in the literature a

detailed comparison between the diﬀerent approaches for combining ontologies (Cuenca

Grau & Kutz, 2007).

5. for information see the homepage of the workshop http://www.cild.iastate.edu/events/womo.html

310

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

8. Implementation and Proof of Concept

In this section, we provide empirical evidence of the appropriateness of locality for safety

testing and module extraction. For this purpose, we have implemented a syntactic loca-

lity checker for the locality classes

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

() and

˜

O

r←∆∆

A←∆

() as well as the algorithm for

extracting modules given in Figure 5 from Section 6.

First, we show that the locality class

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

() provides a powerful suﬃciency test for

safety which works for many real-world ontologies. Second, we show that

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

()-based

modules are typically very small compared to both the size of the ontology and the modules

extracted using other techniques. Third, we report on our implementation in the ontology

editor Swoop (Kalyanpur, Parsia, Sirin, Cuenca Grau, & Hendler, 2006) and illustrate the

combination of the modularization procedures based on the classes

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

() and

˜

O

r←∆∆

A←∆

().

8.1 Locality for Testing Safety

We have run our syntactic locality checker for the class

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

() over the ontologies from a

library of 300 ontologies of various sizes and complexity some of which import each other

(Gardiner, Tsarkov, & Horrocks, 2006).

6

For all ontologies { that import an ontology O,

we check if { belongs to the locality class for S = Sig({) ∩ Sig(O).

It turned out that from the 96 ontologies in the library that import other ontologies, all

but 11 were syntactically local for S (and hence also semantically local for S). From the 11

non-local ontologies, 7 are written in the OWL-Full species of OWL (Patel-Schneider et al.,

2004) to which our framework does not yet apply. The remaining 4 non-localities are due

to the presence of so-called mapping axioms of the form A ≡ B

t

, where A / ∈ S and B

t

∈ S.

Note that these axioms simply indicate that the atomic concepts A, B

t

in the two ontologies

under consideration are synonyms. Indeed, we were able to easily repair these non-localities

as follows: we replace every occurrence of A in { with B

t

and then remove this axiom from

the ontology. After this transformation, all 4 non-local ontologies turned out to be local.

8.2 Extraction of Modules

In this section, we compare three modularization

7

algorithms that we have implemented

using Manchester’s OWL API:

8

A1: The Prompt-Factor algorithm (Noy & Musen, 2003);

A2: The segmentation algorithm proposed by Cuenca Grau et al. (2006);

A3: Our modularisation algorithm (Algorithm 5), based on the locality class

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

().

The aim of the experiments described in this section is not to provide a throughout com-

parison of the quality of existing modularization algorithms since each algorithm extracts

“modules” according to its own requirements, but rather to give an idea of the typical size

of the modules extracted from real ontologies by each of the algorithms.

6. The library is available at http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/

~

horrocks/testing/

7. In this section by “module” we understand the result of the considered modularization procedures which

may not necessarily be a module according to Deﬁnition 10 or 12

8. http://sourceforge.net/projects/owlapi

311

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

(a) Modularization of NCI (a) Modularization of NCI (b) Modularization of GALEN-Small (b) Modularization of GALEN-Small

(c) Modularization of SNOMED (c) Modularization of SNOMED (d) Modularization of GALEN-Full (d) Modularization of GALEN-Full

(e) Small modules of GALEN-Full (e) Small modules of GALEN-Full (f) Large modules of GALEN-Full (f) Large modules of GALEN-Full

Figure 6: Distribution for the sizes of syntactic locality-based modules: the X-Axis gives the

number of concepts in the modules and the Y-Axis the number of modules extracted for

each size range.

312

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Ontology Atomic A1: Prompt-Factor A2: Segmentation A3: Loc.-based mod.

Concepts Max.(%) Avg.(%) Max.(%) Avg.(%) Max.(%) Avg.(%)

NCI 27772 87.6 75.84 55 30.8 0.8 0.08

SNOMED 255318 100 100 100 100 0.5 0.05

GO 22357 1 0.1 1 0.1 0.4 0.05

SUMO 869 100 100 100 100 2 0.09

GALEN-Small 2749 100 100 100 100 10 1.7

GALEN-Full 24089 100 100 100 100 29.8 3.5

SWEET 1816 96.4 88.7 83.3 51.5 1.9 0.1

DOLCE-Lite 499 100 100 100 100 37.3 24.6

Table 6: Comparison of Diﬀerent Modularization Algorithms

As a test suite, we have collected a set of well-known ontologies available on the Web,

which we divided into two groups:

Simple. In this group, we have included the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Ontology,

9

the SUMO Upper Ontology,

10

the Gene Ontology (GO),

11

and the SNOMED Ontology

12

.

These ontologies are expressed in a simple ontology language and are of a simple structure;

in particular, they do not contain GCIs, but only deﬁnitions.

Complex. This group contains the well-known GALEN ontology (GALEN-Full),

13

the

DOLCE upper ontology (DOLCE-Lite),

14

and NASA’s Semantic Web for Earth and En-

vironmental Terminology (SWEET)

15

. These ontologies are complex since they use many

constructors from OWL DL and/or include a signiﬁcant number of GCIs. In the case of

GALEN, we have also considered a version GALEN-Small that has commonly been used as

a benchmark for OWL reasoners. This ontology is almost 10 times smaller than the original

GALEN-Full ontology, yet similar in structure.

Since there is no benchmark for ontology modularization and only a few use cases are

available, there is no systematic way of evaluating modularization procedures. Therefore

we have designed a simple experiment setup which, even if it may not necessarily reﬂect

an actual ontology reuse scenario, it should give an idea of typical module sizes. For each

ontology, we took the set of its atomic concepts and extracted modules for every atomic

concept. We compare the maximal and average sizes of the extracted modules.

It is worth emphasizing here that our algorithm A3 does not just extract a module for

the input atomic concept: the extracted fragment is also a module for its whole signature,

which typically includes a fair amount of other concepts and roles.

9. http://www.mindswap.org/2003/CancerOntology/nciOncology.owl

10. http://ontology.teknowledge.com/

11. http://www.geneontology.org

12. http://www.snomed.org

13. http://www.openclinical.org/prj_galen.html

14. http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html

15. http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/ontology/

313

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

(a) Concepts DNA Sequence and

Microanatomy in NCI

(b)

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

(S)-based module for

DNA Sequence in NCI

(c)

˜

O

r←∆×∆

A←∆

(S)-based module for

Micro Anatomy in the fragment 7b

Figure 7: The Module Extraction Functionality in Swoop

The results we have obtained are summarized in Table 6. The table provides the size

of the largest module and the average size of the modules obtained using each of these

algorithms. In the table, we can clearly see that locality-based modules are signiﬁcantly

smaller than the ones obtained using the other methods; in particular, in the case of SUMO,

DOLCE, GALEN and SNOMED, the algorithms A1 and A2 retrieve the whole ontology as

the module for each input signature. In contrast, the modules we obtain using our algorithm

are signiﬁcantly smaller than the size of the input ontology.

For NCI, SNOMED, GO and SUMO, we have obtained very small locality-based mo-

dules. This can be explained by the fact that these ontologies, even if large, are simple

in structure and logical expressivity. For example, in SNOMED, the largest locality-based

module obtained is approximately 0.5% of the size of the ontology, and the average size of

the modules is 1/10 of the size of the largest module. In fact, most of the modules we have

obtained for these ontologies contain less than 40 atomic concepts.

For GALEN, SWEET and DOLCE, the locality-based modules are larger. Indeed, the

largest module in GALEN-Small is 1/10 of the size of the ontology, as opposed to 1/200

in the case of SNOMED. For DOLCE, the modules are even bigger—1/3 of the size of

the ontology—which indicates that the dependencies between the diﬀerent concepts in the

ontology are very strong and complicated. The SWEET ontology is an exception: even

though the ontology uses most of the constructors available in OWL, the ontology is heavily

underspeciﬁed, which yields small modules.

In Figure 6, we have a more detailed analysis of the modules for NCI, SNOMED,

GALEN-Small and GALEN-Full. Here, the X-axis represents the size ranges of the ob-

314

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

tained modules and the Y-axis the number of modules whose size is within the given range.

The plots thus give an idea of the distribution for the sizes of the diﬀerent modules.

For SNOMED, NCI and GALEN-Small, we can observe that the size of the modules

follows a smooth distribution. In contrast, for GALEN-Full, we have obtained a large number

of small modules and a signiﬁcant number of very big ones, but no medium-sized modules

in-between. This abrupt distribution indicates the presence of a big cycle of dependencies in

the ontology. The presence of this cycle can be spotted more clearly in Figure 6(f); the ﬁgure

shows that there is a large number of modules of size in between 6515 and 6535 concepts.

This cycle does not occur in the simpliﬁed version of GALEN and thus we obtain a smooth

distribution for that case. In contrast, in Figure 6(e) we can see that the distribution for

the “small” modules in GALEN-Full is smooth and much more similar to the one for the

simpliﬁed version of GALEN.

The considerable diﬀerences in the size of the modules extracted by algorithms A1 –

A3 are due to the fact that these algorithms extract modules according to diﬀerent require-

ments. Algorithm A1 produces a fragment of the ontology that contains the input atomic

concept and is syntactically separated from the rest of the axioms—that is, the fragment

and the rest of the ontology have disjoint signatures. Algorithm A2 extracts a fragment of

the ontology that is a module for the input atomic concept and is additionally semantically

separated from the rest of the ontology: no entailment between an atomic concept in the

module and an atomic concept not in the module should hold in the original ontology. Since

our algorithm is based on weaker requirements, it is to be expected that it extracts smaller

modules. What is surprising is that the diﬀerence in the size of modules is so signiﬁcant.

In order to explore the use of our results for ontology design and analysis, we have

integrated our algorithm for extracting modules in the ontology editor Swoop (Kalyanpur

et al., 2006). The user interface of Swoop allows for the selection of an input signature and

the retrieval of the corresponding module.

16

Figure 7a shows the classiﬁcation of the concepts DNA Sequence and Microanatomy in

the NCI ontology. Figure 7b shows the minimal

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

()-based module for DNA Sequence,

as obtained in Swoop. Recall that, according to Corollary 47, a

˜

O

r←∅

A←∅

()-based module for an

atomic concept contains all necessary axioms for, at least, all its (entailed) super-concepts

in O. Thus this module can be seen as the “upper ontology” for A in O. In fact, Figure 7

shows that this module contains only the concepts in the “path” from DNA Sequence to

the top level concept Anatomy Kind. This suggests that the knowledge in NCI about the

particular concept DNA Sequence is very shallow in the sense that NCI only “knows” that a

DNA Sequence is a macromolecular structure, which, in the end, is an anatomy kind. If one

wants to reﬁne the module by only including the information in the ontology necessary to

entail the “path” from DNA Sequence to Micro Anatomy, one could extract the

˜

O

r←∆∆

A←∆

()-

based module for Micro Anatomy in the fragment 7b. By Corollary 47, this module contains

all the sub-concepts of Micro Anatomy in the previously extracted module. The resulting

module is shown in Figure 7b.

16. The tool can be downloaded at http://code.google.com/p/swoop/

315

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

9. Conclusion

In this paper, we have proposed a set of reasoning problems that are relevant for ontology

reuse. We have established the relationships between these problems and studied their com-

putability. Using existing results (Lutz et al., 2007) and the results obtained in Section 4, we

have shown that these problems are undecidable or algorithmically unsolvable for the logic

underlying OWL DL. We have dealt with these problems by deﬁning suﬃcient conditions

for a solution to exist, which can be computed in practice. We have introduced and studied

the notion of a safety class, which characterizes any suﬃciency condition for safety of an

ontology w.r.t. a signature. In addition, we have used safety classes to extract modules from

ontologies.

For future work, we would like to study other approximations which can produce small

modules in complex ontologies like GALEN, and exploit modules to optimize ontology

reasoning.

References

Baader, F., Brandt, S., & Lutz, C. (2005). Pushing the cL envelope. In IJCAI-05, Pro-

ceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence,

Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 30-August 5, 2005, pp. 364–370. Professional Book

Center.

Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. L., Nardi, D., & Patel-Schneider, P. F. (Eds.).

(2003). The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications.

Cambridge University Press.

Bao, J., Caragea, D., & Honavar, V. (2006). On the semantics of linking and importing in

modular ontologies. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference

(ISWC-2006), Athens, GA, USA, November 5-9, 2006, Vol. 4273 of Lecture Notes in

Computer Science, pp. 72–86.

B¨orger, E., Gr¨adel, E., & Gurevich, Y. (1997). The Classical Decision Problem. Perspectives

of Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag. Second printing (Universitext) 2001.

Borgida, A., & Seraﬁni, L. (2003). Distributed description logics: Assimilating information

from peer sources. J. Data Semantics, 1, 153–184.

Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., & Sattler, U. (2007). A logical framework

for modularity of ontologies. In IJCAI-07, Proceedings of the Twentieth International

Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January 2007, pp. 298–

304. AAAI.

Cuenca Grau, B., & Kutz, O. (2007). Modular ontology languages revisited. In Proceedings

of the Workshop on Semantic Web for Collaborative Knowledge Acquisition, Hyder-

abad, India, January 5, 2007.

Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., & Sirin, E. (2006a). Combining OWL ontologies using c-

connections. J. Web Sem., 4(1), 40–59.

Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., & Kalyanpur, A. (2006b). Modularity and web ontolo-

gies. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge

316

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Representation and Reasoning (KR-2006), Lake District of the United Kingdom, June

2-5, 2006, pp. 198–209. AAAI Press.

Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., & Sattler, U. (2007). Just the right amount:

extracting modules from ontologies. In Proceedings of the 16th International Confe-

rence on World Wide Web (WWW-2007), Banﬀ, Alberta, Canada, May 8-12, 2007,

pp. 717–726. ACM.

Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., & Sattler, U. (2006). Will my ontologies ﬁt

together?. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Description Logics

(DL-2006), Windermere, Lake District, UK, May 30 - June 1, 2006, Vol. 189 of CEUR

Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org.

Gardiner, T., Tsarkov, D., & Horrocks, I. (2006). Framework for an automated compari-

son of description logic reasoners. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic

Web Conference (ISWC-2006), Athens, GA, USA, November 5-9, 2006, Vol. 4273 of

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 654–667. Springer.

Ghilardi, S., Lutz, C., & Wolter, F. (2006). Did I damage my ontology? a case for con-

servative extensions in description logics. In Proceedings of the Tenth International

Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2006),

Lake District of the United Kingdom, June 2-5, 2006, pp. 187–197. AAAI Press.

Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & van Harmelen, F. (2003). From SHIQ and RDF to

OWL: the making of a web ontology language. J. Web Sem., 1(1), 7–26.

Horrocks, I., & Sattler, U. (2005). A tableaux decision procedure for oHO1O. In Proceedings

of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence (IJCAI-05),

Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 30-August 5, 2005, pp. 448–453. Professional Book

Center.

Kalfoglou, Y., & Schorlemmer, M. (2003). Ontology mapping: The state of the art. The

Knowledge Engineering Review, 18, 1–31.

Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca Grau, B., & Hendler, J. A. (2006). Swoop: A

web ontology editing browser. J. Web Sem., 4(2), 144–153.

Lutz, C., Walther, D., & Wolter, F. (2007). Conservative extensions in expressive description

logics. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial

Intelligence (IJCAI-07), Hyderabad, India, January 2007, pp. 453–459. AAAI.

Lutz, C., & Wolter, F. (2007). Conservative extensions in the lightweight description logic

cL. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Automated Deduction

(CADE-21), Bremen, Germany, July 17-20, 2007, Vol. 4603 of Lecture Notes in Com-

puter Science, pp. 84–99. Springer.

M¨oller, R., & Haarslev, V. (2003). Description logic systems. In The Description Logic

Handbook, chap. 8, pp. 282–305. Cambridge University Press.

Motik, B. (2006). Reasoning in Description Logics using Resolution and Deductive

Databases. Ph.D. thesis, Univesit¨at Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany.

Noy, N. F. (2004a). Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches. SIGMOD

Record, 33(4), 65–70.

317

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

Noy, N. F. (2004b). Tools for mapping and merging ontologies. In Staab, & Studer (Staab

& Studer, 2004), pp. 365–384.

Noy, N., & Musen, M. (2003). The PROMPT suite: Interactive tools for ontology mapping

and merging. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Elsevier, 6(59).

Patel-Schneider, P., Hayes, P., & Horrocks, I. (2004). Web ontology language OWL Abstract

Syntax and Semantics. W3C Recommendation.

Rector, A., & Rogers, J. (1999). Ontological issues in using a description logic to represent

medical concepts: Experience from GALEN. In IMIA WG6 Workshop, Proceedings.

Schmidt-Schauß, M., & Smolka, G. (1991). Attributive concept descriptions with comple-

ments. Artiﬁcial Intelligence, Elsevier, 48(1), 1–26.

Seidenberg, J., & Rector, A. L. (2006). Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classiﬁcation

and use. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web

(WWW-2006), Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, May 23-26, 2006, pp. 13–22. ACM.

Sirin, E., & Parsia, B. (2004). Pellet system description. In Proceedings of the 2004 In-

ternational Workshop on Description Logics (DL2004), Whistler, British Columbia,

Canada, June 6-8, 2004, Vol. 104 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org.

Staab, S., & Studer, R. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks

on Information Systems. Springer.

Stuckenschmidt, H., & Klein, M. (2004). Structure-based partitioning of large class hier-

archies. In Proceedings of the Third International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-

2004), Hiroshima, Japan, November 7-11, 2004, Vol. 3298 of Lecture Notes in Com-

puter Science, pp. 289–303. Springer.

Tobies, S. (2000). The complexity of reasoning with cardinality restrictions and nominals

in expressive description logics. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 12, 199–217.

Tsarkov, D., & Horrocks, I. (2006). FaCT++ description logic reasoner: System description.

In Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning

(IJCAR 2006), Seattle, WA, USA, August 17-20, 2006, Vol. 4130 of Lecture Notes in

Computer Science, pp. 292–297. Springer.

318

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

2007), which has been motivated by the above-mentioned application needs. In this paper, we focus on the use of modularity to support the partial reuse of ontologies. In particular, we consider the scenario in which we are developing an ontology P and want to reuse a set S of symbols from a “foreign” ontology Q without changing their meaning. For example, suppose that an ontology engineer is building an ontology about research projects, which speciﬁes diﬀerent types of projects according to the research topic they focus on. The ontology engineer in charge of the projects ontology P may use terms such as Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder in his descriptions of medical research projects. The ontology engineer is an expert on research projects; he may be unfamiliar, however, with most of the topics the projects cover and, in particular, with the terms Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder. In order to complete the projects ontology with suitable deﬁnitions for these medical terms, he decides to reuse the knowledge about these subjects from a wellestablished medical ontology Q. The most straightforward way to reuse these concepts is to construct the logical union P ∪ Q of the axioms in P and Q. It is reasonable to assume that the additional knowledge about the medical terms used in both P and Q will have implications on the meaning of the projects deﬁned in P; indeed, the additional knowledge about the reused terms provides new information about medical research projects which are deﬁned using these medical terms. Less intuitive is the fact that importing Q may also result in new entailments concerning the reused symbols, namely Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder. Since the ontology engineer of the projects ontology is not an expert in medicine and relies on the designers of Q, it is to be expected that the meaning of the reused symbols is completely speciﬁed in Q; that is, the fact that these symbols are used in the projects ontology P should not imply that their original “meaning” in Q changes. If P does not change the meaning of these symbols in Q, we say that P ∪ Q is a conservative extension of Q In realistic application scenarios, it is often unreasonable to assume the foreign ontology Q to be ﬁxed; that is, Q may evolve beyond the control of the modelers of P. The ontology engineers in charge of P may not be authorized to access all the information in Q or, most importantly, they may decide at a later time to reuse the symbols Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder from a medical ontology other than Q. For application scenarios in which the external ontology Q may change, it is reasonable to “abstract” from the particular Q under consideration. In particular, given a set S of “external symbols”, the fact that the axioms in P do not change the meaning of any symbol in S should be independent of the particular meaning ascribed to these symbols by Q. In that case, we will say that P is safe for S. Moreover, even if P “safely” reuses a set of symbols from an ontology Q, it may still be the case that Q is a large ontology. In particular, in our example, the foreign medical ontology may be huge, and importing the whole ontology would make the consequences of the additional information costly to compute and diﬃcult for our ontology engineers in charge of the projects ontology (who are not medical experts) to understand. In practice, therefore, one may need to extract a module Q1 of Q that includes only the relevant information. Ideally, this module should be as small as possible while still guarantee to capture the meaning of the terms used; that is, when answering queries against the research projects ontology, importing the module Q1 would give exactly the same answers as if the whole medical ontology Q had been imported. In this case, importing the module will have the

274

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

same observable eﬀect on the projects ontology as importing the entire ontology. Furthermore, the fact that Q1 is a module in Q should be independent of the particular P under consideration. The contributions of this paper are as follows: 1. We propose a set of tasks that are relevant to ontology reuse and formalize them as reasoning problems. To this end, we introduce the notions of conservative extension, safety and module for a very general class of logic-based ontology languages. 2. We investigate the general properties of and relationships between the notions of conservative extension, safety, and module and use these properties to study the relationships between the relevant reasoning problems we have previously identiﬁed. 3. We consider Description Logics (DLs), which provide the formal underpinning of the W3C Web Ontology Language (OWL), and study the computability of our tasks. We show that all the tasks we consider are undecidable or algorithmically unsolvable for the description logic underlying OWL DL—the most expressive dialect of OWL that has a direct correspondence to description logics. 4. We consider the problem of deciding safety of an ontology for a signature. Given that this problem is undecidable for OWL DL, we identify suﬃcient conditions for safety, which are decidable for OWL DL—that is, if an ontology satisﬁes our conditions then it is safe; the converse, however, does not necessarily hold. We propose the notion of a safety class, which characterizes any suﬃciency condition for safety, and identify a family of safety classes–called locality—which enjoys a collection of desirable properties. 5. We next apply the notion of a safety class to the task of extracting modules from ontologies; we provide various modularization algorithms that are appropriate to the properties of the particular safety class in use. 6. We present empirical evidence of the practical beneﬁts of our techniques for safety checking and module extraction. This paper extends the results in our previous work (Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kutz, & Sattler, 2006; Cuenca Grau et al., 2007; Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler, 2007).

2. Preliminaries

In this section we introduce description logics (DLs) (Baader, Calvanese, McGuinness, Nardi, & Patel-Schneider, 2003), a family of knowledge representation formalisms which underlie modern ontology languages, such as OWL DL (Patel-Schneider, Hayes, & Horrocks, 2004). A hierarchy of commonly-used description logics is summarized in Table 1. The syntax of a description logic L is given by a signature and a set of constructors. A signature (or vocabulary) Sg of a DL is the (disjoint) union of countably inﬁnite sets AC of atomic concepts (A, B, . . . ) representing sets of elements, AR of atomic roles (r, s, . . . ) representing binary relations between elements, and Ind of individuals (a, b, c, . . . ) representing constants. We assume the signature to be ﬁxed for every DL.

275

Cuenca Grau, Horrocks, Kazakov, & Sattler

Rol RBox EL r ALC – – S – – Trans(r) + I r− + H R 1 R2 + F Funct(R) + N ( n S) + Q ( n S.C) + O {i} Here r ∈ AR, A ∈ AC, a, b ∈ Ind, R(i) ∈ Rol, C(i) ∈ Con, n ≥ 1 and S ∈ Rol is a simple role (see (Horrocks & Sattler, 2005)). Table 1: The hierarchy of standard description logics

DLs

Constructors Con , A, C1 C2 , ∃R.C – –, ¬C – –

Axioms [ Ax ] TBox ABox A ≡ C, C1 C2 a : C, r(a, b) – – – – – – – –

Every DL provides constructors for deﬁning the set Rol of (general) roles (R, S, . . . ), the set Con of (general) concepts (C, D, . . . ), and the set Ax of axioms (α, β, . . . ) which is a union of role axioms (RBox), terminological axioms (TBox) and assertions (ABox). EL (Baader, Brandt, & Lutz, 2005) is a simple description logic which allows one to construct complex concepts using conjunction C1 C2 and existential restriction ∃R.C starting from atomic concepts A, roles R and the top concept . EL provides no role constructors and no role axioms; thus, every role R in EL is atomic. The TBox axioms of EL can be either concept deﬁnitions A ≡ C or general concept inclusion axioms (GCIs) C1 C2 . EL assertions are either concept assertions a : C or role assertions r(a, b). In this paper we assume the concept deﬁnition A ≡ C is an abbreviation for two GCIs A C and C A. The basic description logic ALC (Schmidt-Schauß & Smolka, 1991) is obtained from EL by adding the concept negation constructor ¬C. We introduce some additional constructors as abbreviations: the bottom concept ⊥ is a shortcut for ¬ , the concept disjunction C1 C2 stands for ¬(¬C1 ¬C2 ), and the value restriction ∀R.C stands for ¬(∃R.¬C). In contrast to EL, ALC can express contradiction axioms like ⊥. The logic S is an extension of ALC where, additionally, some atomic roles can be declared to be transitive using a role axiom Trans(r). Further extensions of description logics add features such as inverse roles r− (indicated by appending a letter I to the name of the logic), role inclusion axioms (RIs) R1 R2 (+H), functional roles Funct(R) (+F), number restrictions ( n S), with n ≥ 1, (+N ), qualiﬁed number restrictions ( n S.C), with n ≥ 1, (+Q)1 , and nominals {a} (+O). Nominals make it possible to construct a concept representing a singleton set {a} (a nominal concept) from an individual a. These extensions can be used in diﬀerent combinations; for example ALCO is an extension of ALC with nominals; SHIQ is an extension of S with role hierarchies,

1. the dual constructors ( n S) and ( n S.C) are abbreviations for ¬( n + 1 S) and ¬( n + 1 S.¬C), respectively

276

are syntactic variants thereof. & van Harmelen. x ∈ rI } ( n R)I = { x ∈ ∆I | {y ∈ ∆I | x. and to every a ∈ Ind an element aI ∈ ∆I . x. The main reasoning task for ontologies is entailment: given an ontology O and an axiom α. y ∈ RI ∧ y ∈ C I } ∆I \ C I { x. ·I ). y ∈ RI } ≥ n } ( n R. y | y. An interpretation I is a pair I = (∆I . b) iﬀ aI . Patel-Schneider. to every r ∈ AR a binary relation rI ⊆ ∆I × ∆I . is implied by the empty ontology). y. z ∈ ∆I [ x. and SHOIQ is the DL that uses all the constructors and axiom types we have presented. to a certain extent. We say that two sets of interpretations I and J are equal modulo S (notation: I|S = J|S ) if for every I ∈ I there exits J ∈ J such that J |S = I|S and for every J ∈ J there exists I ∈ I such that I|S = J |S .C)I (¬C)I (r− )I = = = = = ∆ C I ∩ DI {x ∈ ∆I | ∃y. called the domain of the interpretation. y ∈ RI ∧ x. equivalently. Note that the sets AC. I |= a : C iﬀ aI ∈ C I . Modern ontology languages. and ·I is the interpretation function that assigns: to every A ∈ AC a subset AI ⊆ ∆I . check if O implies α. ·J ) coincide on the subset S of the signature (notation: I|S = J |S ) if ∆I = ∆J and X I = X J for every X ∈ S. An ontology O implies an axiom α (written O |= α) if I |= α for every model I of O. An axiom α is a tautology if it is valid in the set of all interpretations (or. In particular. Given a set I of interpretations. or I is a model of α) is deﬁned as follows: I |= C1 I |= R1 I I C2 iﬀ C1 ⊆ C2 . z ∈ RI ⇒ y = z ]. z ∈ ∆I [ x. y ∈ RI ∧ y ∈ C I } ≥ n } {a}I = {aI } The satisfaction relation I |= α between an interpretation I and a DL axiom α (read as I satisﬁes α. z ∈ rI ]. are based on description logics and. where ∆I is a non-empty set. The signature of an ontology O (of an axiom α) is the set Sig(O) (Sig(α)) of atomic concepts. The logical entailment |= is deﬁned using the usual Tarski-style set-theoretic semantics for description logics as follows. In this paper. I I R2 iﬀ R1 ⊆ R2 . atomic roles and individuals that occur in O (respectively in α). An interpretation I is a model of an ontology O if I satisﬁes all axioms in O. I |= r(a. The interpretation function ·I is extended to complex roles and concepts via DLconstructors as follows: ( )I (C D)I (∃R. I |= Funct(R) iﬀ ∀x. y. ·I ) and J = (∆J . we assume an ontology O based on a description logic L to be a ﬁnite set of axioms in L. such as OWL. y ∈ rI ∧ y. z ∈ rI ⇒ x. AR and Ind are not deﬁned by the interpretation I but assumed to be ﬁxed for the ontology language (DL). We say that two interpretations I = (∆I .Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice inverse roles and qualiﬁed number restrictions. we say that an axiom α (an ontology O) is valid in I if every interpretation I ∈ I is a model of α (respectively O). OWL DL corresponds to SHOIN (Horrocks.C)I = { x ∈ ∆I | {y ∈ ∆I | x. I |= Trans(r) iﬀ ∀x. bI ∈ rI . 277 . 2003).

we elaborate on the ontology reuse scenario sketched in Section 1. which speciﬁes diﬀerent types of projects according to the research topic they are concerned with. These notions are deﬁned relative to a language L. we will deﬁne formally the class of ontology languages for which the given deﬁnitions of conservative extensions. safety (Sections 3. the second one describes European projects about cystic ﬁbrosis.2 and 3. our tasks are based on the notions of a conservative extension (Section 3. Based on this application scenario. The ontology engineer is an expert on research projects: he knows. In particular.Pancreas Genetic Disorder Immuno Protein Gene Figure 1: Reusing medical terminology in an ontology on research projects 3. we motivate and deﬁne the reasoning tasks to be investigated in the remainder of the paper. Ontology Integration and Knowledge Reuse In this section. as given by the axioms P1 and P2 in Figure 1.Cuenca Grau.Genetic Disorder Ontology of medical terms Q: M1 Cystic Fibrosis ≡ Fibrosis M2 Genetic Fibrosis ≡ Fibrosis M3 Fibrosis M4 Genetic Fibrosis M5 DEFBI Gene ∃located In. with the terms Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder mentioned in P1 and P2.3) and module (Section 3. all the tasks we consider in this paper are summarized in Table 2. In order to complete the projects ontology with suitable deﬁnitions 278 . Assume that the ontology engineer deﬁnes two concepts—Genetic Disorder Project and Cystic Fibrosis EUProject—in his ontology P.Pancreas Genetic Fibrosis ∃associated With. in Section 3. safety and modules apply. Within this section.6. For the convenience of the reader.Cystic Fibrosis Cystic Fibrosis EUProject ≡ EUProject Project Project (Genetic Disorder :: Cystic Fibrosis) ⊥ ∀ has Focus.Cystic Fibrosis ∃has Origin. in particular.1 A Motivating Example Suppose that an ontology engineer is in charge of a SHOIQ ontology on research projects. He may be unfamiliar. The ﬁrst one describes projects about genetic disorders. Project :: ∃has Focus.4). Kazakov.Cystic Fibrosis ∃has Focus. we assume that L is an ontology language based on a description logic. with most of the topics the projects cover and. for example. however. Horrocks.2).Genetic Origin ∃located In. 3. that every instance of EUProject must be an instance of Project (the concept-inclusion axiom P3) and that the role has Focus can be applied only to instances of Project (the domain axiom P4).Genetic Origin ∃has Origin.Genetic Disorder ∃has Focus. & Sattler Ontology of medical research projects P: P1 P2 P3 P4 E1 E2 Genetic Disorder Project ≡ Project EUProject ∃has Focus.

P |= β. the concept inclusion α1 := (Cystic Fibrosis Genetic Fibrosis) follows from axioms M1 and M2 as well as from axioms M1 and M3. however. they should not change or constrain the meaning of the medical terms. Such a side eﬀect would be highly undesirable for the modeling of ontology P since the ontology engineer of P might not be an expert on the subject of Q and is not supposed to alter the meaning of the terms deﬁned in Q not even implicitly. as a consequence. like β. The most straightforward way to reuse these concepts is to import in P the ontology Q—that is. it is easy to see that axioms M1–M4 in Q imply that every instance of Cystic Fibrosis is an instance of Genetic Disorder: Q |= α := (Cystic Fibrosis Genetic Disorder) (1) Indeed. It is natural to expect that entailments like α in (1) from an imported ontology Q result in new logical consequences. might change during the import. that the meaning of the terms deﬁned in Q changes as a consequence of the import since these terms are supposed to be completely speciﬁed within Q. perhaps due to modeling errors. however. however. At this point. For example. suppose that the ontology engineer has learned about the concepts Genetic Disorder and Cystic Fibrosis from the ontology Q (including the inclusion (1)) and has decided to introduce additional axioms formalizing the following statements: “Every instance of Project is diﬀerent from every instance of Genetic Disorder and every instance of Cystic Fibrosis. In order to illustrate such a situation. over the terms deﬁned in the main ontology P. The meaning of the reused terms.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice for these medical terms. to add the axioms from Q to the axioms in P and work with the extended ontology P ∪ Q. α follows from axioms α1 and M4. and E2 expresses 279 . Importing additional axioms into an ontology may result in new logical consequences. the ontology engineer has introduced modeling errors and. axioms E1 and E2 do not correspond to (3) and (4): E1 actually formalizes the following statement: “Every instance of Project is diﬀerent from every common instance of Genetic Disorder and Cystic Fibrosis”. even though it concerns the terms of primary scope in his projects ontology P. also has Focus on Genetic Disorder” Every project (3) (4) Note that the statements (3) and (4) can be thought of as adding new information about projects and. Suppose that Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder are described in an ontology Q containing the axioms M1-M5 in Figure 1. Suppose the ontology engineer has formalized the statements (3) and (4) in ontology P using axioms E1 and E2 respectively. The ontology engineer might be not aware of Entailment (2). One would not expect. does not follow from P alone—that is. intuitively.” ::: “:::::::::::::: that has Focus on Cystic Fibrosis. in (2). he decides to reuse the knowledge about these subjects from a wellestablished and widely-used medical ontology. Using inclusion α from (1) and axioms P1–P3 from ontology P we can now prove that every instance of Cystic Fibrosis EUProject is also an instance of Genetic Disorder Project: P ∪ Q |= β := (Cystic Fibrosis EUProject Genetic Disorder Project) (2) This inclusion β.

or has Focus only on Cystic Fibrosis. 280 . Deﬁnition 1 (Deductive Conservative Extension). Lutz. On the other hand.t. namely their disjointness: P |= γ := (Genetic Disorder Cystic Fibrosis ⊥) (5) The entailment (5) can be proved using axiom E2 which is equivalent to: ∃has Focus. then O is a deductive S1 -conservative extension of O1 w. & Sattler that “Every object that either has Focus on nothing. and S a signature over L. Note that. the additional axioms in O \ O1 do not result into new logical consequences over the vocabulary S. The axioms E1 and E2 not only imply new statements about the medical terms. Lutz et al. from (1) and (5) we obtain P ∪ Q |= δ := (Cystic Fibrosis ⊥). which has recently been investigated in the context of ontologies (Ghilardi. The notion of a deductive conservative extension can be directly applied to our ontology reuse scenario. L.t. but also cause inconsistencies when used together with the imported axioms from Q. E2 is not a consequence of (4) and. the axioms E1 and E2 together with axioms P1-P4 from P imply new axioms about the concepts Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder.r. P |= ( Project).r.t. ♦ In other words. especially when they do not cause inconsistencies in the ontology. 2007).t. is already a logical consequence of O1 . L if O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O1 w. 3. an ontology O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O1 for a signature S and language L if and only if every logical consequence α of O constructed using the language L and symbols only from S. In the next section we discuss how to formalize the eﬀects we consider undesirable.r. L for S = Sig(O1 ). Now. Kazakov. that is. we have O |= α iﬀ O1 |= α. This requirement can be naturally formulated using the well-known notion of a conservative extension. it is still a consequence of (3) which means that it should not constrain the meaning of the medical terms. like the entailment of new axioms or even inconsistencies involving the reused vocabulary. Horrocks. Note that if O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O1 w. L for every S1 ⊆ S. Let O and O1 ⊆ O be two Lontologies.t. which expresses the inconsistency of the concept Cystic Fibrosis. We say that O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O1 w. & Wolter. an important requirement for the reuse of an ontology Q within an ontology P should be that P ∪ Q produces exactly the same logical consequences over the vocabulary of Q as Q alone does.2 Conservative Extensions and Safety for an Ontology As argued in the previous section. if for every axiom α over L with Sig(α) ⊆ S.(Genetic Disorder ¬Cystic Fibrosis) (6) The inclusion (6) and P4 imply that every element in the domain must be a project—that is. although axiom E1 does not correspond to fact (3). also has Focus on Genetic Disorder”. To summarize. it constrains the meaning of medical terms. this implies (5). L. 2006. These kinds of modeling errors are diﬃcult to detect. together with axiom E1..r. We say that O is a deductive conservative extension of O1 w. in fact.Cuenca Grau. Indeed. we have seen that importing an external ontology can lead to undesirable side eﬀects in our knowledge reuse scenario. Indeed.r.

if O is a model S-conservative extension of O1 then O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O1 w. L. that is. does not provide a complete characterization of deductive conservative extensions. ALC. The notion of model conservative extension. for every model I of Q there exists a model J of P1 ∪ Q such that I|S = J |S for S = Sig(Q). and a signature S over L.r. ♦ Hence. given L-ontologies O and O . the ﬁrst reasoning task relevant for our ontology reuse scenario can be formulated as follows: T1. It is possible. We have shown in Section 3. we say that O is safe for O (or O imports O in a safe way) w. 281 . ♦ The notion of model conservative extension in Deﬁnition 3 can be seen as a semantic counterpart for the notion of deductive conservative extension in Deﬁnition 1: the latter is deﬁned in terms of logical entailment. there exists a model J of O such that I|S = J |S . Deductive Conservative Extensions. We say that O is a model conservative extension of O1 if O is a model S-conservative extension of O1 for S = Sig(O1 ).t.t. and E1 and an ontology Q consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1. L if O ∪ O is a deductive conservative extension of O w. it is suﬃcient to show that P1 ∪ Q is a model conservative extension of Q.r. Lutz et al. 2007) 1. L = ALC). There exist two ALC ontologies O and O1 ⊆ O such that O is a deductive conservative extension of O1 w. E1. According to Deﬁnition 1. and Q consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1.. For every two L-ontologies O. Example 5 Consider an ontology P1 consisting of axioms P1–P4.t. 2007). According to proposition 4.r. E2.g. We say that O is a model S-conservative extension of O1 . given P consisting of axioms P1–P4. however.t. Intuitively. O1 ⊆ O. but O is not a model conservative extension of O1 . this notion can be used for proving that an ontology is a deductive conservative extension of another.1 that. Lutz et al. whereas the former is deﬁned in terms of models. We demonstrate that P1 ∪ Q is a deductive conservative extension of Q. any language L in which δ can be expressed (e.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice Deﬁnition 2 (Safety for an Ontology). there exists an axiom δ = (Cystic Fibrosis ⊥) that uses only symbols in Sig(Q) such that Q |= δ but P ∪ Q |= δ. L. that is. 2. as given in Deﬁnition 1. The following notion is useful for proving deductive conservative extensions: Deﬁnition 3 (Model Conservative Extension. an ontology O is a model S-conservative extension of O1 if for every model of O1 one can ﬁnd a model of O over the same domain which interprets the symbols from S in the same way.r. this means that P ∪ Q is not a deductive conservative extension of Q w. Given L-ontologies O and O .. to show that if the axiom E2 is removed from P then for the resulting ontology P1 = P \ {E2}.r. Let O and O1 ⊆ O be two L-ontologies and S a signature over L.t. L. determine if O is safe for O w. but not vice versa: Proposition 4 (Model vs.t. however. if for every model I of O1 .r. P1 ∪ Q is a deductive conservative extension of Q.

it is often convenient to keep Q separate from P and make its axioms available on demand via a reference. or may even decide at a later time to reuse the medical terms (Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder) from another medical ontology instead. EUProject and the atomic role has Focus. L. In fact.r. the ontology engineers of the project ontology P may not be willing to depend on a particular version of Q. It is easy to check that all the axioms P1–P4.2. 455). For example. By Deﬁnition 6. E2 from Figure 1. the ontology P is not safe for S w. Genetic Disorder} w. Hence.t. where β1 = ( Cystic Fibrosis) and β2 = (Genetic Disorder ⊥). Consider an ontology O = {β1 .3 Safety of an Ontology for a Signature So far.r. given an L-ontology O and a signature S over L. if for every L-ontology O with Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O ) ⊆ S. a language L if and only if it imports in a safe way any ontology O written in L that shares only symbols from S with O. Moreover. According to Deﬁnition 6.t. In order to formulate such condition. Project. Horrocks. the ontology P consisting of axioms P1–P4. Since E2 is equivalent to axiom (6). L. since Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O ) ⊆ S. since the interpretation of the symbols in Q remains unchanged. it is possible to show a stronger result. Indeed E2. This makes it possible to continue developing P and Q independently. As seen in Section 3. O ∪ O is a deductive conservative extension of O w. it is easy to see that O ∪ O is inconsistent.r. 2007.r. We say that O is safe for S w.t. 282 .Cuenca Grau. for many application scenarios it is important to develop a stronger safety condition for P which depends as little as possible on the particular ontology Q to be reused. since Sig(P) ∩ Sig(Q) ⊆ S = {Cystic Fibrosis. an ontology O is safe for a signature S w. Kazakov. Let O be a L-ontology and S a signature over L.t. β1 and β2 imply the contradiction α = ( ⊥). however. that is.t. we have that O is safe for O w.r. ♦ 3. O ∪ O is not a deductive conservative extension of O .. Genetic Disorder}.t. we abstract from the particular ontology Q to be imported and focus instead on the symbols from Q that are to be reused: Deﬁnition 6 (Safety for a Signature). P1 ∪ Q is a model conservative extension of Q. that any ontology O containing axiom E2 is not safe for S = {Cystic Fibrosis.t. E1 are satisﬁed in J and hence J |= P1 . The associated reasoning problem is then formulated in the following way: T2. we have I|Sig(Q) = J |Sig(Q) and J |= Q. in our knowledge reuse scenario.r. this means that O is not safe for S. For an example of Statement 2 of the Proposition. L. determine if O is safe for S w. in our ontology reuse scenario we have assumed that the reused ontology Q is ﬁxed and the axioms of Q are just copied into P during the import. L = ALC. all of which we interpret in J as the empty set. In practice. Hence. p.r. Cystic Fibrosis EUProject. L. L. β2 }. which is not entailed by O . ♦ Intuitively. & Sattler The required model J can be constructed from I as follows: take J to be identical to I except for the interpretations of the atomic concepts Genetic Disorder Project. namely. does not import Q consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1 in a safe way for L = ALC. E1. we refer the interested reader to the literature (Lutz et al. Therefore.

It is not so clear. We need to demonstrate that O ∪ O is a deductive conservative extension of O w. and I is a model of O1 . Model Conservative Extensions) Let O be an L-ontology and S a signature over L such that O is a model S-conservative extension of the empty ontology O1 = ∅. Example 9 Let P1 be the ontology consisting of axioms P1–P4. for every interpretation I there exists a model J of O such that J |S = I|S . Proof. As shown in Example 5. for every S-interpretation I there exists a model J of P1 such that I|S = J |S . In particular. We just construct a model J of O ∪ O such that I|S = J |S . let I be a model of O1 ∪ O .r. Hence J |= O ∪ O and I|S = J |S . L according to Deﬁnition 6. () Since O is a model S-conservative extension of O1 . it says that the notion of model conservative extension is stable under expansion with new axioms provided they share only symbols from S with the original ontologies. It turns out that the notion of model conservative extensions can also be used for this purpose. L. which proves ( ). We show that P1 is safe for S = {Cystic Fibrosis. since O is a model S-conservative extension of O1 = ∅. we have that O∪O is a model S -conservative extension of O1 ∪O = O for S = S ∪ Sig(O ).t.t. L = SHOIQ. The following lemma introduces a property which relates the notion of model conservative extension with the notion of safety for a signature. by Deﬁnition 3 there exists a model J1 of O such that I|S = J1 |S . and Sig(O)∩Sig(O ) ⊆ S. ♦ 283 . Then O ∪ O is a model S -conservative extension of O1 ∪ O for S = S ∪ Sig(O ). such that O ∪ O is not a deductive conservative extension of O . such interpretation J always exists. Consider the model J obtained from I as in Example 5. that is.r. in order to prove safety for P1 it is suﬃcient to demonstrate that P1 is a model S-conservative extension of the empty ontology. we have J |= O .t. Then O is safe for S w. since J |S = I|S . however. O1 ⊆ O. Lemma 7 allows us to identify a condition suﬃcient to ensure the safety of an ontology for a signature: Proposition 8 (Safety for a Signature vs. Sig(O ) ⊆ S . as was required to prove ( ).r.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice It is clear how one could prove that an ontology O is not safe for a signature S: simply ﬁnd an ontology O with Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O ) ⊆ S. Since Sig(O) ∩ S = Sig(O) ∩ (S ∪ Sig(O )) ⊆ S ∪ (Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O )) ⊆ S and I|S = J1 |S . that is. J is a model of P1 and I|Sig(Q) = J |Sig(Q) where Q consists of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1. since Sig(O ) ⊆ S . and I |= O . Proof. In particular. In order to prove that O is safe for S w. since S ⊆ Sig(Q). we have that O ∪ O is a deductive conservative extension of O . L. Intuitively. and E1 from Figure 1. we have I|S = J |S . Let J be an interpretation such that J |Sig(O) = J1 |Sig(O) and J |S = I|S . In order to show that O∪O is a model S -conservative extension of O1 ∪O according to Deﬁnition 3. take any SHOIQ ontology O such that Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O ) ⊆ S. Since J |Sig(O) = J1 |Sig(O) and J1 |= O. () Indeed. and O be L-ontologies and S a signature over L such that O is a model S-conservative extension of O1 and Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O ) ⊆ S. By Proposition 8. we have J |= O. how one could prove that O is safe for S. Lemma 7 Let O.t. by Lemma 7.r. Genetic Disorder} w.

We need to construct a model J of P1 ∪ Q such that I|S = J |S . P1 ∪ Q |= α. Deﬁnition 10. Deﬁnition 10 (Module for an Ontology). Pancreas.t. ♦ The task of extracting modules from imported ontologies in our ontology reuse scenario can be thus formulated as follows: T3. Q0 is not a module for P1 in Q w.4 Extraction of Modules from Ontologies In our example from Figure 1 the medical ontology Q is very small. In particular. L = ALC or its extensions. L.t.r. For example.t. anatomy. reasoning over. L = ALC for S = Sig(P1 ). etc. if O ∪ O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O ∪ O1 for S = Sig(O) w. compute a module O1 for O in O w.r.r. Even if P imports Q without changing the meaning of the reused symbols. As usual. E1 and the ontology Q consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1. surgical techniques.r. Intuitively. L. M3.t. since P1 ∪ Q is not an deductive S-conservative extension of P1 ∪ Q0 w. and the interpretations of atomic roles located In and 284 . We say that O1 is a module for O in O w. Example 11 Consider the ontology P1 consisting of axioms P1–P4. we have Q0 |= α.r. M2.r. when answering an arbitrary query over the signature of P. It can be demonstrated that P1 ∪ Q0 is a deductive conservative extension of Q0 . these sets of axioms are actually minimal subsets of Q that imply α. according to Deﬁnition 10. Let J be deﬁned exactly as I except that the interpretations of the atomic concepts Fibrosis. Let O. Indeed. importing the module Q1 should give exactly the same answers as if the whole ontology Q had been imported. we demonstrate a stronger fact. Sig(α) ⊆ S but P1 ∪ Q0 |= α. Recall that the axiom α from (1) is a consequence of axioms M1.t. But then.t. Similarly. Well established medical ontologies. and Genetic Origin are deﬁned as the interpretation of Cystic Fibrosis in I. O and O1 ⊆ O be L-ontologies. P1 .t.t.r. for the subset Q0 of Q consisting of axioms M2. To do so. In order to show that P1 ∪ Q is a model S-conservative extension of P1 ∪ Q1 for S = Sig(P1 ). O . we need to demonstrate that P1 ∪ Q is a deductive S-conservative extension of both P1 ∪ Q1 and P1 ∪ Q2 for S = Sig(P1 ) w. In particular P1 ∪ Q0 |= α. processing— that is.Cuenca Grau. L = SHOIQ. Ideally. Kazakov. it is possible to show that both subsets Q1 = {M1. M4 and M5. L. L. M3 and M4 from ontology Q. M3. Genetic Fibrosis. however. given L-ontologies O. In fact. one can show that any subset of Q that does not imply α is not a module in Q w. browsing.r. can be very large and may describe subject matters in which the designer of P is not interested. one would like to extract a (hopefully small) fragment Q1 of the external medical ontology—a module—that describes just the concepts that are reused in P. that P1 ∪ Q is a model S-conservative extension of P1 ∪ Q1 and of P1 ∪ Q2 for S which is suﬃcient by Claim 1 of Proposition 4. M4} and Q2 = {M1. etc—the resulting ontology P ∪ Q may be considerably harder than processing P alone. Horrocks. & Sattler 3. the medical ontology Q could contain information about genes. M4} of Q are modules for P1 in Q w. On the other hand. consider any model I of P1 ∪ Q1 . M2 and M4 as well as of axioms M1.

It is easy to see that axioms M1–M3 and M5 are satisﬁed in J . it is possible to demonstrate that any subset of Q that implies axiom α. In fact.r. compute a module O1 for S in O . is in fact a module for S = {Cystic Fibrosis. Hence we have constructed a model J of P1 ∪ Q such that I|S = J |S . Let O and O1 ⊆ O be L-ontologies and S a signature over L. given a L-ontology O and a signature S over L. according to Deﬁnition 10. L. L. thus P1 ∪ Q is a model S-conservative extension of P1 ∪ Q1 . Since we do not modify the interpretation of the symbols in P1 . that is. L. In particular. We say that O1 is a module for S in O (or an S-module in O ) w.t. and I is a model of Q1 . L according to Deﬁnition 12. Model Conservative Extensions) Let O and O1 ⊆ O be L-ontologies and S a signature over L such that O is a model S-conservative extension of O1 .t. Moreover. Since the extraction of modules is potentially an expensive operation. it would be more convenient to extract a module only once and reuse it for any version of the ontology P that reuses the speciﬁed symbols from Q.r. that is. when the ontology P is modiﬁed. in a similar way as the notion of safety for a signature is a uniform analog of safety for an ontology. In order to prove this. which implies the concept inclusion α = (Cystic Fibrosis Genetic Disorder). take any SHOIQ ontology O such that Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O ) ⊆ S. L. Continuing Example 11. J is a model of M4. This idea motivates the following deﬁnition: Deﬁnition 12 (Module for a Signature).r.t. J also satisﬁes all axioms from P1 . the module has to be extracted again since a module Q1 for P in Q might not necessarily be a module for the modiﬁed ontology. The reasoning task corresponding to Deﬁnition 12 can be formulated as follows: T4.t. However. we use the following suﬃcient condition based on the notion of model conservative extension: Proposition 13 (Modules for a Signature vs. Proof. P1 ∪ Q is also a model S-conservative extension of P1 ∪ Q2 . ♦ Intuitively. the construction above works if we replace Q1 with any subset of Q that implies α. Then O1 is a module for S in O w. if for every L-ontology O with Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O ) ⊆ S.t. ♦ An algorithm implementing the task T3 can be used for extracting a module from an ontology Q imported into P prior to performing reasoning over the terms in P. the notion of a module for a signature is a uniform analog of the notion of a module for an ontology. because Genetic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder are interpreted in J like Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorder in I. In this way. () 285 . O ∪ O is a deductive S -conservative extension of O ∪ O1 w. L for S = Sig(O).Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice has Origin are deﬁned as the identity relation. we have demonstrated that the modules for P in Q are exactly those subsets of Q that imply α. we have that O1 is a module for O in O w.r. In order to prove that O1 is a module for S in O w.t.r. We need to demonstrate that O1 is a module for O in O w. Genetic Disorder} in Q.r. it can be imported instead of Q into every ontology O that shares with Q only symbols from S.

since O is a model S-conservative extension of O1 . In certain situations one might be interested in computing the set of essential axioms of an ontology. M4}. M4}. modules that contain no other module as a subset. then the required property holds. by Lemma 7. we have that O ∪ O is a model S -conservative extension of O1 ∪ O for S = S ∪ Sig(O). for the ontology P1 = {P1. Horrocks. Hence it is reasonable to consider the problem of extracting minimal modules. that is. Let O and O be L-ontologies.r. thus they never need not be imported into P. Note that 286 .t. since these are the minimal sets of axioms that imply axiom α = (Cystic Fibrosis Genetic Disorder). and Sig(O ) ∩ Sig(O) ⊆ S. 3. L (or S-essential in O ) if α is contained in some minimal module for S in O w.r. Genetic Disorder}. Genetic Disorder}.t. We say that α is an essential axiom for S in O w.t. Depending on the application scenario. M2. whereas in others any minimal module suﬃces. and Q2 = {M1. which can be done by computing the union of all minimal modules. This is not true for the axioms that occur in minimal modules of Q. it is suﬃcient to demonstrate that Q is a model S-conservative extension of Q1 .5 Minimal Modules and Essential Axioms One is usually not interested in extracting arbitrary modules from a reused ontology. Axioms that do not occur in a minimal module in Q are not essential for P because they can always be removed from every module of Q. In particular. Example 14 Let Q and α be as in Example 11. L. Examples 11 and 14 demonstrate that a minimal module for an ontology or a signature is not necessarily unique: the ontology Q consisting of axioms M1–M5 has two minimal modules Q1 = {M1. E1} as well as for the signature S = {Cystic Fibrosis.r.t. as was required to prove ( ). ♦ Note that a module for a signature S in Q does not necessarily contain all the axioms that contain symbols from S. Ideally. that is. the module Q1 consisting of the axiom M1.t. In some applications it might be necessary to extract all minimal modules.Cuenca Grau. M2 and M4 from Q does not contain axiom M5 which mentions the atomic concept Cystic Fibrosis from S. Genetic Disorder} in Q. L. & Sattler Indeed. Also note that even in a minimal module like Q1 there might still be some axioms like M2 that do not mention symbols from S at all. for every model I of Q1 there exists a model J of Q such that I|S = J |S . but in extracting modules that are easy to process afterwards. We demonstrate that any subset Q1 of Q which implies α is a module for S = {Cystic Fibrosis. Kazakov. P2. For example. we have that O ∪ O is a deductive S -conservative extension of O1 ∪ O w. L. These arguments motivate the following notion: Deﬁnition 15 (Essential Axiom). S a signature and α an axiom over L. We say that α is essential for O in O w.r. It might be necessary to import such axioms into P in order not to lose essential information from Q. one can consider several variations of tasks T3 and T4 for computing minimal modules. L if α is contained in any minimal module in O for O w. According to Proposition 13.r. M3. P3. It is easy to see that if the model J is constructed from I as in Example 11. but the axiom M5 is not essential. ♦ In our example above the axioms M1–M4 from Q are essential for the ontology P1 and for the signature S = {Cystic Fibrosis. since S = Sig(O) ⊆ S . the extracted modules should be as small as possible.

s. 3. T4sm.t. one might be interested in computing modules with the smallest number of axioms. written O |= α. Sig is a function that assigns to every axiom α ∈ Ax a ﬁnite set Sig(α) ⊆ Sg called the signature of α.r.t. a function that assigns to each formula its signature. Our deﬁnitions apply to any ontology language with a notion of entailment of axioms from ontologies. An ontology over L is a ﬁnite set of axioms O ⊆ Ax. and |= is the entailment relation between sets of axioms O ⊆ Ax and axioms α ∈ Ax. O and L Extract modules for S in O w. S.s. Ax is a set of axioms in L. Deﬁnition 16. Further variants of the tasks T3 and T4 could be considered relevant to ontology reuse.u][m] Input O. or modules of the smallest size measured in the number of symbols. Ax. to a much broader class of ontology languages. L Extract modules in O w.r. ♦ Deﬁnition 16 provides a very general notion of an ontology language. In Table 2 we have summarized the reasoning tasks we found to be potentially relevant for ontology reuse scenarios and have included the variants T3am. L Task Check if O is safe for O w. L O. L O. O . An ontology language is a tuple L = (Sg. O are ontologies and S a signature over L Table 2: Summary of reasoning tasks relevant for ontology integration and reuse computing the union of minimal modules might be easier than computing all the minimal modules since one does not need to identify which axiom belongs to which minimal module.t. O .r. We extend the function Sig to ontologies O as follows: Sig(O) := α∈O Sig(α). The theoretical results that we will present in this paper can easily be extended to many such reasoning tasks. and an entailment relation between sets of axioms. and T3um of the task T3 and T4am. or in any other complexity measure of the ontology. a set of formulae (axioms) that can be constructed over those symbols. Sig. T3sm. we have implicitly assumed that the ontology languages are the description logics deﬁned in Section 2—that is.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice Notation T1 T2 T3[a. The notions considered in Section 3 can be applied.t. A language L is given by a set of symbols (a signature). however. S. instead of computing minimal modules. and T4um of the task T4 for computation of minimal modules discussed in this section. and a mechanism for identifying their signatures. L O . where Sg is a set of signature elements (or vocabulary) of L. L Check if O is safe for S w. the fragments of the DL SHOIQ. So far. |=). For example.r.u][m] T4[a.6 Safety and Modules for General Ontology Languages All the notions introduced in Section 3 are deﬁned with respect to an “ontology language”. The ontology language OWL DL as well as all description 287 . however. L Checking Safety: Extracting of [all / some / union of] [minimal] module(s): where O.

and O1 ⊆ O be ontologies over L. 2.t.r.r. L iﬀ the empty ontology O0 = ∅ is an S-module in O w. O is safe for O w. and S a subset of the signature of L.r. we have that O \ O1 is safe for O w. L. then O1 is an S-module in O w. it is the case that O is safe for O w. L. and assume that we deal with sublanguages of SHOIQ whenever semantics is taken into account. O . The deﬁnition of model conservative extension (Deﬁnition 3) and the propositions involving model conservative extensions (Propositions 4.t.r. safety (Deﬁnitions 2 and 6) and modules (Deﬁnitions 10 and 12). O is safe for O w.t. as well as all the reasoning tasks from Table 2.t. L for S = Sig(O). Proposition 17 (Safety vs. It is easy to see that the notions of deductive conservative extension (Deﬁnition 1).r.t. and let O.t.t. L iﬀ the empty ontology is a module for O in O w. If O \ O1 is safe for O ∪ O1 then O1 is a module for O in O w. the empty ontology O0 = ∅ is a module for O in O w. O and O1 ⊆ O . by Deﬁnition 10. we establish the relationships between the diﬀerent notions of safety and modules for arbitrary ontology languages. L iﬀ (b) for every O with Sig(O ) ∩ Sig(O) ⊆ S.r. O ∪ O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O ∪ O1 w. L iﬀ (c) for every O. We also provide the analog of Proposition 17 for the notions of safety and modules for a signature: Proposition 18 (Safety vs.r.r. Modules for a Signature) Let L be an ontology language.r.t. By Deﬁnition 10.t. O \ O1 is safe for O ∪ O1 w.t.t. By Deﬁnition 12. L. By Deﬁnition 2. however.t. L for S = Sig(O).r. L iﬀ (a) for every O with Sig(O ) ∩ Sig(O) ⊆ S.r. with Sig(O \ O1 ) ∩ Sig(O) ⊆ S ∪ Sig(O1 ).t.t. O0 = ∅ is an S-module in O w. 8. L.t. By Claim 1 of Proposition 17. we will not formulate general requirements on the semantics of ontology languages. In particular. it is easy to see that (a) is equivalent to (b).r.r. O is safe for S w. Proof. are well-deﬁned for every ontology language L given by Deﬁnition 16. L.r. and 13) can be also extended to other languages with a standard Tarski model-theoretic semantics. L. Then: 1.t. ontologies over L. In the remainder of this section. Other examples of ontology languages are First Order Logic. 2.t.r. Proof. By 288 . L iﬀ (b) O ∪ O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O ∪ O0 = O w. 1. It is easy to see that (a) is the same as (b). Modules for an Ontology) Let L be an ontology language. Horrocks. 1. 2. To simplify the presentation.r. which implies.r. L. O \ O1 is safe for S ∪ Sig(O1 ) w.t. O is safe for S w.t. L iﬀ (a) O ∪ O is a deductive conservative extension of O w. By Deﬁnition 6.Cuenca Grau. L iﬀ (c) O ∪ O1 ∪ (O \ O1 ) = O ∪ O is a deductive conservative extension of O ∪ O1 w. If O \ O1 is safe for S ∪ Sig(O1 ) w. L. 2. By Deﬁnition 2.r.r.t.t. By Deﬁnition 6. L. and Logic Programs. & Sattler logics deﬁned in Section 2 are examples of ontology languages in accordance to Deﬁnition 16. L. that O1 is a module for O in O w. Kazakov. such as Higher Order Logic. Second Order Logic.r. it is the case that O0 = ∅ is a module for O in O w. L.r. Then: 1.

we demonstrate that any algorithm for checking safety or modules can be used for checking deductive conservative extensions. We need to demonstrate that O1 is a module for O in O w. it is reasonable to identify which (un)decidability and complexity results for conservative extensions are applicable to the reasoning tasks in Table 2. Conversely. ( ) ˜ := O ∪ O .r. and undecidable for L = ALCIQO.t. any algorithm for checking deductive conservative extensions can be reused for checking safety and modules. Given ontologies O. O . O1 is an S-module in O w.r. the problem of determining whether O is safe for O w.t. 2007). and are computationally hard for simple DLs. (2007).. By Deﬁnition 2. Undecidability and Complexity Results In this section we study the computational properties of the tasks in Table 2 for ontology languages that correspond to fragments of the description logic SHOIQ.t. Given O1 ⊆ O over a language L. These results can be immediately applied to the notions of safety and modules for an ontology: Proposition 19 Given ontologies O and O over L. L which implies by Claim 2 of Proposition 17 that O1 is a module for O in O w. O is a deductive conservative extension of O1 ⊆ O w.t.r. an ontology O1 is a module for O in O w. O0 = ∅ is a module for O1 in O \ O1 w.t.r.r.r.t. The computational properties of conservative extensions have recently been studied in the context of description logics.r. L iﬀ O\O1 is safe for O1 w. L if O ∪ O is a deductive S-conservative extension of O ∪ O1 for S = Sig(O) w.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice Deﬁnition 12.t. By Deﬁnition 2.t. and undecidable for L = ALCIQO. Hence. L iﬀ. Indeed.r. This result was extended by Lutz et al. an ontology O is safe for O w.t. it has been shown that deciding deductive conservative extensions is EXPTIME-complete for L = EL(Lutz & Wolter. L is 2-EXPTIMEcomplete for L = ALC (Ghilardi et al. In order to prove that (c) implies (d). by Claim 1 of Proposition 17. L. 2006). L. 2-EXPTIME-complete for L = ALC and L = ALCIQ.t. we have that O1 is a module for O in O w. L is EXPTIME-complete for L = EL.t.t. the problem has also been studied for simple DLs. L iﬀ (d) for every O with Sig(O )∩Sig(O) ⊆ S.r. who showed that the problem is 2-EXPTIME-complete for L = ALCIQ and undecidable for L = ALCIQO. Proof. L. L . let O be such that Sig(O ) ∩ Sig(O) ⊆ S.r.t. L ( ). the problem of deciding whether O is a deductive conservative extension of O1 w. L iﬀ O ∪ O is a deductive conservative extension of O w. 4. 289 . and O1 ⊆ O over L. 2-EXPTIME complete for L = ALC and L = ALCIQ. Since the notions of modules and safety are deﬁned in Section 3 using the notion of deductive conservative extension.r.r.t. L. Recently. We demonstrate that most of these reasoning tasks are algorithmically unsolvable even for relatively inexpressive DLs.r. Hence.r. the problem of determining whether O1 is a module for O in O is EXPTIME-complete for L = EL. by (c) we have that O \ O1 is safe ˜ for O = O ∪ O1 w. Note that Sig(O \ O ) ∩ Sig(O) = Sig(O \ O ) ∩ (Sig(O) ∪ Sig(O )) ⊆ ˜ Let O 1 1 1 1 (Sig(O \ O1 ) ∩ Sig(O)) ∪ Sig(O1 ) ⊆ S ∪ Sig(O1 ).

r.s. Theorem 21 (Undecidability of Safety for a Signature) The problem of checking whether an ontology O consisting of a single ALC-axiom is safe for a signature S is undecidable w. 1997. Ds be the subset of D that admit a solution and Dps be the subset of Ds that admit a periodic solution.r. Let D be the set of all domino systems. We use this property in our reduction. A domino system is a triple D = (T.7) that the sets D \ Ds and Dps are recursively inseparable. .t.j .j+n = ti.j ∈ V .t. we prove that solving any of the reasoning tasks T3am. by Claim 1 of Proposition 17. one of them. based on a reduction to a domino tiling problem. that is. We have demonstrated that the reasoning tasks T1 and T3[a. Proof. O and O1 ⊆ O . and are 2-EXPTIME-hard for ALC. L = ALCO. Note that the empty ontology O0 = ∅ is a module for O in O w. and an ontology O = O(D) which consists of a single ALC-axiom such that: 290 . Finally. o a & Gurevich. j ≥ 1 an element of T .u]m from Table 2 for L = ALCIQO.u]m related to the notions of safety and modules for a signature. . It is well-known (B¨rger. The proof is a variation of the construction for undecidability of deductive conservative extensions in ALCQIO (Lutz et al. Indeed.j and ti. Horrocks. L. L. an ontology O is safe for O w. determines whether O1 is a module for O in O w.j for every i.s. or T3[a. L. Gr¨del.u]m from Table 2 for L = EL and L = ALCIQ that run in EXPTIME and 2-EXPTIME respectively. n ≥ 1 called periods such that ti+m. 2007).t. Then we can determine which of these modules are minimal and return all of them. and T3[a. given ontologies O and O . V ⊆ T × T are horizontal and vertical matching relations. as given in Deﬁnition 2. such that ti. ti. A solution for a domino system D is a mapping ti.r. T3sm and T3um is not easier than checking the safety of an ontology. ti+1.j = ti. decidable) subset D ⊆ D of domino systems such that Dps ⊆ D ⊆ Ds . We demonstrate that all of these reasoning tasks are undecidable for DLs that are as expressive as ALCO.t. or the union of them depending on the reasoning task. H. j ≥ 1.j+1 ∈ H and ti.j .1.t. We demonstrate that this algorithm can be used to solve the reasoning tasks T3am.j that assigns to every pair of integers i. Proof.t. The task T1 corresponds directly to the problem of checking the safety of an ontology. In the remainder of this section.s.r. L iﬀ O0 = ∅ is a module for O in O w. we focus on the computational properties of the reasoning tasks T2 and T4[a. For each domino system D. . T3sm and T3um for L = ALCIQ in 2-EXPTIME. given ontologies O. Indeed. Kazakov. V ) where T = {1. k} is a ﬁnite set of tiles and H.s.Cuenca Grau. Theorem 3. Suppose that we have a 2-EXPTIME algorithm that.t. . one can enumerate all subsets of O and check in 2-EXPTIME which of these subsets are modules for O in O w.u]m are computationally unsolvable for DLs that are as expressive as ALCQIO.e. A periodic solution for a domino system D is a solution ti. L = ALCIQ.r..r. & Sattler Corollary 20 There exist algorithms performing tasks T1. there is no recursive (i.j for which there exist integers m ≥ 1 . L iﬀ O0 = ∅ is the only minimal module for O in O w. we construct a signature S = S(D). There is no algorithm performing tasks T1.r.

c ∈ rV I . .j+1 := b.j ∈ ∆I such that ai. L = ALCO. ai+1. since rV and rH commute in I. Note that Sig(Otile ) = S. b ∈ rH I . L = ALCO. t. namely (q1 ) and (q2 ) express that every domain element is assigned with a unique tile t ∈ T . Since I is a model of axioms (q3 ) and (q4 ) and ai. ai. L = ALCO. We set a1. The signature S = S(D).Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice (q1 ) (q2 ) (q3 ) (q4 ) At At At A1 At ··· ⊥ Ak t. j ≥ 1 is constructed.j and ti.r. Then we set ti. the value for 291 . we have a unique At with 1 ≤ t ≤ k such that ai. Consider an ontology Otile in Figure 2 constructed for D. t ∈ H.j := c.j with i. let S consist of fresh atomic concepts At for every t ∈ T and two atomic roles rH and rV .j+1 := t . t ∈ V .j ∈ At I . d2 ∈ rH I .j ∈ rH I . b ∈ rH I .r.∃rH .B ∃rV .t. t. ·I ) of Otile (D) can be used to guide the construction of a solution ti. b ∈ At I . a. Given a domino system D = (T. we construct ti. B ∈ S. b.t ∈H t. Now let s be an atomic role and B an atomic concept such that s. d1 and d2 from ∆I such that a. we have Dps ⊆ D ⊆ Ds . t ∈ T such that ai. Since D \ Ds and Dps are recursively inseparable.j := t . Since I is a model of axioms (q1 ) and (q2 ) from Figure 2.t. c ∈ rV I . and ti+1. . . Now suppose ai.j . ·I ) if for all domain elements a.r.j+1 ∈ rV I and ai.r.j inductively together with elements ai.j for D as follows. k} 1≤t<t ≤k At ) At ) 1≤t≤k 1≤t≤k ∃rH . and the ontology O = O(D) are constructed as follows.j+1 and ai. c. If Otile (D) has a model I in which rH and rV commute.t ∈V where T = {1. c ∈ ∆I and t . and (b) if D has a periodic solution then O = O(D) is not safe for S = S(D) w.j . Note that some values of ai.j+1 and ti+1. Indeed a model I = (∆.j .( ∃rV . d1 ∈ rV I . ti. for the set D consisting of the domino systems D such that O = O(D) is not safe for S = S(D) w. and c.j . In this case we assign ai. and c ∈ At I .j can be assigned two times: ai+1. because otherwise one can use this problem for deciding membership in D . (q3 ) and (q4 ) express that every domain element has horizontal and vertical matching successors.( Figure 2: An ontology Otile = Otile (D) expressing tiling conditions for a domino system D (a) if D does not have a solution then O = O(D) is safe for S = S(D) w.t.j+1 . j ≥ 1. H.1 to any element from ∆I . (Ci Di )∈Otile (Ci ¬Di ) (∃rH . then D has a solution. L = ALCO. The following claims can be easily proved: Claim 1. In other words.¬B) We say that rH and rV commute in an interpretation I = (∆I . V ). this implies undecidability for D and hence for the problem of checking if O is S-safe w. . Let O := {β} / where: β := ∃s.∃rV .j := t.j ∈ At I there exist b. b.t. ai+1. ai. For every i. However. The axioms of Otile express the tiling conditions for a domino system D.j+1 are constructed for ai. we have d1 = d2 .

c. d I .B ∃rV . For every pair (i.{ai2 . is not safe for S w. If I = (∆I . there exists a domain element a ∈ ∆I such that I but a ∈ D I . and thus.t.∃rH .j2 } (p2 ) {ai1 .[∃rH .j and deﬁne O to be an extension of Otile with the following axioms: (p1 ) {ai1 . a ∈ ¬Di . So. We interpret s in J as sJ = { x.{ai.j } (p3 ) {ai. Indeed. and so J |= ( ∃s.∃rV .∃rV . This means that there exist domain elements a. Horrocks. Claim 2. That is. assume that D has a periodic solution ti. L = ALCO. it is easy to see that Otile ∪ O |= ( ∃s. d1 and d2 from ∆I with a. We demonstrate that O is not S-safe w. and c. b.r.∃rH . n ≥ 1.r. Finally. d1 ∈ rV I . Suppose that rH and rV do not commute in I = (∆I . Case (1). In order to prove property (a) we use the suﬃcient condition for safety given in Proposition 8 and demonstrate that if D has no solution then for every interpretation I there exists a model J of O such that J |S = I|S . d ∈ B I . b. or (2) rH and rV do not commute in I. we have constructed a model J of O such that J |S = I|S . We demonstrate for both of these cases how to construct the required model J of O such that J |S = I|S .¬B]) which implies that J |= β.∃rV . c.B ∃rV .[Ci ¬Dj ]). This implies that J |= β. d for every x ∈ ∆ 2 ∈ rH 1 1 ∈ rV V H d2 ∈ (¬B)I . d1 and d2 such that x. Let us deﬁne J to be identical to I except for the interpretation of the a ∈ Ci i atomic role s which we deﬁne in J as sJ = { x. if I .t. a ∈ s I . we have J |= ( ∃s.j with the periods m.j+1 is unique. This implies that d1 = d2 .r. Kazakov. j) with 1 ≤ i ≤ m and 1 ≤ j ≤ n we introduce a fresh individual ai.¬B]). c.j2 }. then rH and rV do not commute in I. rh and rV do not commute in I. this will imply that O is safe for S w.j is a solution for D. we have constructed a model J of O such that J |S = I|S . the value for ti+1.{ai2 .¬B)J since d1 = d2 .j }.j } i2 = i1 + 1 mod m j2 = j1 + 1 mod n 292 . we demonstrate that O = O(D) satisﬁes properties (a) and (b).j1 } ∃rV . We deﬁne O such that every model of O is a ﬁnite encoding of the periodic solution ti. and I .r. ·I ) is a model of O I I = (∆ tile ∪ O. c ∈ rV I .j } (p4 ) {ai. c ∈ r I .j+1 is unique. d2 ∈ rH I . It is easy to see that ti. hence. Let us deﬁne J to be identical to I except for the interpretation of the atomic role s and the atomic concept B. we have a ∈ CiJ .{ai.Cuenca Grau.j } ∃rH . then by the contra-positive of Claim 1 either (1) I is not a model of Otile . Since the interpretations of J the symbols in S have remained unchanged.t. and because of (q2 ). & Sattler ai+1. ·I ). and so. and so. and. b. such that d1 = d2 . For this purpose we construct an ALCO-ontology O with Sig(O) ∩ Sig(O ) ⊆ S such that O ∪ O |= ( ⊥). L = ALCO. 1≤i≤m. a. Hence. but O |= ( ⊥).j1 } (p5 ) ∀rV . L. By Proposition 8. b ∈ rH I . If I is a model of Otile ∪ O. This will imply that O is not safe for O w.[∃rH . a | x ∈ ∆}.B)J and a ∈ (∃rV . a. b ∈ r I . Note that a ∈ (∃rH . a | x ∈ ∆}. then there exist a. ∀rH .j with the periods m and n. Case (2). 1≤j≤n {ai. We interpret B in J as B J = {d1 }. L. b. Let I be an arbitrary interpretation. Since D has no solution. a. In order to prove property (b). ·I ) is not a model of Otile then there exists an axiom (Ci Di ) ∈ Otile such that I |= (Ci Di ).∃rH .t.

since. by Claim 1 of Proposition 18.r. it is worth noting that Theorem 21 still leaves room for investigating the former approach.1 Safety Classes In general. the converse.r. Hence any algorithm for recognizing modules for a signature in L can be used for checking if an ontology is safe for a signature in L. This said. does not necessarily hold.t. or T4um for L is at least as hard as checking the safety of an ontology. T4sm. an ontology O is S-safe w. L.t. L if O0 = ∅ is an S-module in O w. Corollary 23 There is no algorithm that can perform tasks T2. 5. A direct consequence of Theorem 21 and Proposition 18 is the undecidability of the problem of checking whether a subset of an ontology is a module for a signature: Corollary 22 Given a signature S and ALC-ontologies O and O1 ⊆ O . in what follows we will focus on deﬁning suﬃcient conditions for safety that we can use in practice and restrict ourselves to OWL DL—that is. the set of ontologies over a language that satisfy the condition for that signature. rH and rV do not commute. 2007) strongly indicate that checking safety is likely to be exponentially harder than reasoning and practical algorithms may be hard to design. we could look for suﬃcient conditions for the notion of safety— that is. In the case of SHIQ. It is easy to see that O has a model corresponding to every periodic solution for D with periods m and n.. L iﬀ O0 = ∅ is (the only minimal) S-module in O w. however. any suﬃcient condition for safety can be deﬁned by giving. 5. Proof. Hence O |= ( ⊥). if an ontology satisﬁes our conditions.t. Theorem 21 directly implies that there is no algorithm for task T2. or even for very expressive logics such as SHIQ. These ontologies are then guaranteed to be safe for the signature under consideration.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice The purpose of axioms (p1 )–(p5 ) is to ensure that rH and rV commute in every model of O . the problem of determining whether O1 is an S-module in O w.r.s. Before we go any further. L = ALCO is undecidable. then we can guarantee that it is safe. By Claim 1 of Proposition 18.r. however.u]m for L = ALCO. Proof. a signature.t. however. since this task corresponds to the problem of checking safety for a signature. such as EL. This is only possible if O ∪ O have no models. then in every model of O ∪ O. These intuitions lead to the notion of a safety class. This undecidability result is discouraging and leaves us with two alternatives: First.t. Solving any of the reasoning tasks T4am. safety may still be decidable for weaker description logics. 293 . so O ∪ O |= ( ⊥). SHOIQ—ontologies. by Claim 2. On the other hand. since O contains Otile .r. O is S-safe w.t. The remainder of this paper focuses on the latter approach. Indeed. Alternatively. for each signature S. we could focus on simple DLs for which this problem is decidable. or T4[a. Suﬃcient Conditions for Safety Theorem 21 establishes the undecidability of checking whether an ontology expressed in OWL DL is safe w.r. existing results (Lutz et al. L.

then every subset of O (the union of O1 and O2 ) also satisﬁes this condition.t. S using the suﬃcient condition. Horrocks. and (ii) each ontology O ∈ O(S) is S-safe for L. where S1 S2 is the symmetric diﬀerence of sets S1 and S2 deﬁned by S1 S2 := S1 \ S2 ∪ S2 \ S1 . and it is subset-closed if O1 ⊆ O2 and O2 ∈ O(S) implies O1 ∈ O(S). Safety Class). A class O(·) is anti-monotonic if S1 ⊆ S2 implies O(S2 ) ⊆ O(S1 ). called local ontologies. The following deﬁnition formalizes the classes of ontologies. we say that O and α are local (based on I(·)). we assume that the the empty ontology ∅ belongs to every safety class for every signature. A safety class represents a suﬃcient condition for safety: each ontology in O(S) should be safe for S. A class of ontologies for a language L is a function O(·) that assigns to every subset S of the signature of L. ♦ Intuitively. it is compact when O ∈ O(S ∩ Sig(O)) for each O ∈ O(S). then O can be proved to be safe w. it is monotonic if S1 ⊆ S2 implies I(S1 ) ⊆ I(S2 ).r.t.g. for which safety can be proved using Proposition 8. Kazakov. it is compact if for every S1 . a class of ontologies is a collection of sets of ontologies parameterized by a signature. we have seen that.o. O(S) is the set of ontologies that are valid in I(S). we will sometimes say that O passes the safety test for S. Subset-closure (union closure) means that if O (O1 and O2 ) satisfy the suﬃcient condition for safety. A class of interpretations is a function I(·) that given a SHOIQ signature S returns a set of interpretations I(S).2 Locality In this section we introduce a family of safety classes for L = SHOIQ that is based on the semantic properties underlying the notion of model conservative extensions. S if for every SHOIQ-interpretation I there exists an interpretation J ∈ I such that I|S = J |S . we say that O(·) is the class of ontologies O(·) based on I(·) if for every S. one way to prove that O is S-safe is to show that O is a model S-conservative extension of the empty ontology.r..t. it is union-closed if O1 ∈ O(S) and O2 ∈ O(S) implies (O1 ∪ O2 ) ∈ O(S). if I(·) is local then we say that O(·) is a class of local ontologies. ♦ 294 .r. In what follows. a subset O(S) of ontologies in L. Compactness means that it is suﬃcient to consider only common elements of Sig(O) and S for checking safety.Cuenca Grau.r. In Section 3. whenever an ontology O belongs to a safety class for a given signature and the safety class is clear from the context. Given a SHOIQ signature S. S2 and S such that (S1 S2 ) ∩ S = ∅ we have that I(S1 )|S = I(S2 )|S . Given a class of interpretations I(·). Deﬁnition 25 (Class of Interpretations. Safety classes may admit many natural properties. 5. as given in Deﬁnition 24. we say that a set of interpretations I is local w. A safety class (also called a suﬃcient condition to safety) for an ontology language L is a class of ontologies O(·) for L such that for each S it is the case that (i) ∅ ∈ O(S). S for every S.l. and for every S and O ∈ O(S) and every α ∈ O. w. it is local if I(S) is local w. every subset of S. according to Proposition 8.t. & Sattler Deﬁnition 24 (Class of Ontologies. Locality). Also. Antimonotonicity intuitively means that if an ontology O can be proved to be safe w.

In particular. The fact that O(·) is subset-closed and union-closed follows directly from Deﬁnition 25 since (O1 ∪ O2 ) ∈ O(S) iﬀ (O1 ∪ O2 ) is valid in I(S) iﬀ O1 and O2 are valid in I(S) iﬀ O1 ∈ O(S) and O2 ∈ O(S). P4. If I(·) is monotonic then I(S1 ) ⊆ I(S2 ) for every S1 ⊆ S2 . Genetic Disorder}. we have that for every SHOIQ-interpretation I there exists J ∈ I(S) such that J |S = I|S . the set IA←∅ (S) consists of interpretations J such that rJ = ∅ for every atomic r←∅ role r ∈ S and AJ = ∅ for every atomic concept A ∈ S. then J ∈ IA←∅ (S) and I|S = J |S . O ∈ O(S1 ) iﬀ O ∈ O(S2 ). Hence O(·) is anti-monotonic. Hence for every O ∈ I(S) and every SHOIQ interpretation I there is a model J ∈ I(S) such that J |S = I|S . . Then by Deﬁnition 25 for every SHOIQ signature S. and so O ∈ O(S2 ) implies that O is valid in I(S2 ) which implies that O is valid in I(S1 ) which implies that O ∈ O(S1 ). Since I(·) is a local class of interpretations. L = SHOIQ. then O(·) is anti-monotonic. Then O(·) is a subset-closed and union-closed safety class for L = SHOIQ. This has been done by showing that every S-interpretation I can be expanded to a model J of axioms P1–P4. since for r←∅ r←∅ every S1 and S2 the sets of interpretations IA←∅ (S1 ) and IA←∅ (S2 ) are deﬁned diﬀerently only for elements in S1 S2 . which implies by Proposition 8 that O is safe for S w. Given a r←∅ signature S. Thus O(·) is a safety class. if I(·) is monotonic. the set AxA←∅ (S) of axioms that are local w. and so. It is easy to show that IA←∅ (S) / / I .Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice r←∅ Example 26 Let IA←∅ (·) be a class of SHOIQ interpretations deﬁned as follows. . Assume that O(·) is a class of ontologies based on I(·). Proof.t. S based on IA←∅ (S) r←∅ consists of all axioms α such for every J ∈ IA←∅ (S). ·J ) deﬁned by ∆J := ∆I . r←∅ r←∅ Given a signature S. r←∅ Corollary 28 The class of ontologies OA←∅ (S) deﬁned in Example 26 is an anti-monotonic compact subset-closed and union-closed safety class. In terms of Example 26 this means that 295 . it is the case that J |= α. E1} is a deductive conservative extension of Q for S = {Cystic Fibrosis. and X J := X I / / r←∅ r←∅ r←∅ for the remaining symbols X. Additionally. ·I ) and the interpretation is local for every S. ♦ Proposition 27 (Locality Implies Safety) Let O(·) be a class of ontologies for SHOIQ based on a local class of interpretations I(·).t.r. E1 by interpreting the symbols in Sig(P1 ) \ S as the empty set. S2 and S such that (S1 S2 ) ∩ S = ∅ we have that I(S1 )|S = I(S2 )|S . we demonstrated that the ontology P1 ∪ Q given in Figure 1 with P1 = {P1. and if I(·) is compact then O(·) is also compact. since for every interpretation I = (∆ J = (∆J . Then the r←∅ r←∅ r←∅ class of local ontologies based on IA←∅ (·) is deﬁned by O ∈ OA←∅ (S) iﬀ O ⊆ AxA←∅ (S). Hence. we have O ∈ O(S) iﬀ O is valid in I(S) iﬀ J |= O for every interpretation J ∈ I(S). Since IA←∅ (S1 ) ⊆ IA←∅ (S2 ) r←∅ r←∅ for every S1 ⊆ S2 . rJ = ∅ for r ∈ S. AJ = ∅ for A ∈ S. . If I(·) is compact then for every S1 .r. IA←∅ (·) is also compact. Example 29 Recall that in Example 5 from Section 3. hence for every O with Sig(O) ⊆ S we have that O is valid in I(S1 ) iﬀ O is valid in I(S2 ). it is the case that IA←∅ (·) is monotonic. O ∈ O(S) iﬀ O ∈ O(S ∩ Sig(O)) since (S (S ∩ Sig(O))) ∩ Sig(O) = (S \ Sig(O)) ∩ Sig(O) = ∅. O(·) is compact. .

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f ) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) τ (α.r. When ambiguity does not arise. the ontology P1 is safe for S w.t. S). L = SHOIQ. S). S) = ⊥ ⊥ if r ∈ S and otherwise = Trans(r). S) = a : τ (C. S) = ⊥ ⊥ if Sig(R) S and otherwise = Funct(R). S) be deﬁned recursively as follows: τ (C.C 1 . / | τ (Funct(R). Horrocks. otherwise = (R1 R2 ). introduced in Example 26. In the next section we discuss how to perform this test in practice. & Sattler r←∅ r←∅ P1 ∈ OA←∅ (S). R2 . as will be shown in Section 8. but in principle. 5. = ⊥ if Sig(R) S and otherwise = ( n R. it is suﬃcient to interpret every atomic concept and atomic role not in S as the empty set and then check if α is satisﬁed in all interpretations of the remaining symbols.3 Testing Locality r←∅ In this section. = ⊥ if A ∈ S and otherwise = A. S. S) | τ (∃R. this could be done. = τ (C1 . S)).t. S) 2. S) ::= τ ( . by Proposition 27. b). This observation suggests the following test for locality: Proposition 30 (Testing Locality) Given a SHOIQ signature S. | τ (r(a. ♦ Proposition 27 and Example 29 suggest a particular way of proving the safety of ontologies. S).τ (C1 . we refer to this safety class simply as locality. S) | τ ({a}. ⊥ if Sig(R2 ) S. | τ (a : C. S) | τ (A. = ⊥ if Sig(R) S and otherwise = ∃R.Cuenca Grau. In order to test the locality of α w. S) and τ (O. S) ::= C2 . Kazakov.r. It turns out that this notion provides a powerful suﬃciency test for safety which works surprisingly well for many real-world ontologies. S). S) τ (C1 | τ (R1 = .t. = ¬τ (C1 . otherwise = ∃R1 . Given a SHOIQ ontology O and a signature S it is suﬃcient to check whether r←∅ O ∈ OA←∅ (S). that is. S) = ⊥ if r ∈ S and otherwise = r(a. / = {a}. If this property holds. τ (α. 296 .2 r←∅ From the deﬁnition of AxA←∅ (S) given in Example 26 it is easy to see that an axiom α is r←∅ local w. S (based on IA←∅ (S)) if α is satisﬁed in every interpretation that ﬁxes the interpretation of all atomic roles and concepts outside S to the empty set. S) | τ ( n R. S).. / | τ (Trans(r). S)). S) ::= τ (α.C1 . whether every axiom α in O is satisﬁed by every interpretation from r←∅ IA←∅ (S). Namely. S) τ (C2 . Note that for deﬁning locality we do not ﬁx the interpretation of the individuals outside S. α∈O τ (O. axiom α and ontology O let τ (C. S) | τ (¬C1 . concept C. S) = (τ (C1 . The reason is that there is no elegant way to describe such interpretations. every individual needs to be interpreted as an element of the domain. This notion of locality is exactly the one we used in our previous work (Cuenca Grau et al. b).r. S) τ (C2 . then O must be safe for S according to Proposition 27. S) = (⊥ ⊥) if Sig(R1 ) S. S) | τ (C1 C2 . Since OA←∅ (·) is a class of local ontologies. and there is no “canonical” element of every domain to choose. we focus in more detail on the safety class OA←∅ (·).τ (C1 . 2007).

S) may still contain individuals that do not occur in S. it is suﬃcient to perform the following replacements in α (the symbols from S2 are underlined): ⊥ [by (b)] M2 Genetic Fibrosis ≡ Fibrosis ⊥ [by (b)] (8) ∃has Origin. theoretically. S2 ) = (Genetic Fibrosis ≡ ⊥ ∃has Origin.t. S). In the second case τ (M2.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice r←∅ Then. and hence will be eliminated. every role R∅ with Sig(R∅ ) S occurs in O as either ∃R∅ .t. / since τ (α.C).C and ( n R. Hence r←∅ an axiom α is local w. The primary reason is that the sizes of the axioms which need to be tested for tautologies are usually relatively small compared to the sizes of ontologies.r. a diﬃcult problem (e. S1 ) = (⊥ ≡ Fibrosis ⊥) which is a SHOIQ-tautology.C. among other things.t. S1 it is suﬃcient to perform the following replacements in α (the symbols from S1 are underlined): ⊥ [by (b)] M2 Genetic Fibrosis ≡ Fibrosis ⊥ [by (f)] ∃has Origin. C1 C2 . in other words. Proof. for the DL SHOIQ it is known to be NEXPTIME-complete. S2 . S) r←∅ for every Sig(α)-interpretation I ∈ IA←∅ (S) iﬀ τ (α.r. R∅ R. SHOIQ. in particular. We demonstrate using Proposition 30 that O is local w. ∃R. Example 31 Let O = {α} be the ontology consisting of axiom α = M2 from Figure 1. Indeed. S) is a tautology. S2 .r. There are.Genetic Origin In the ﬁrst case we obtain τ (M2. 297 .t. S))I and that I |= α iﬀ I |= τ (α. it is possible to formulate a tractable approximation to the locality conditions for SHOIQ: 3.r. and ( n R.Genetic Origin (7) Similarly.t.⊥) which is not a SHOIQ tautology. several reasons to believe that the locality test would perform well in practice. Tobies. S) is a tautology.3 It is also easy to show by induction that for every r←∅ interpretation I ∈ IA←∅ (S). modern DL reasoners are highly optimized for standard reasoning tasks and behave well for most realistic ontologies. ∀R. Pellet (Sirin & Parsia. Recall that the constructors ⊥. we have C I = (τ (C. S iﬀ I |= α for every interpretation I ∈ IA←∅ (S) iﬀ I |= τ (α. C1 C2 . Genetic Origin}. 2006). ♦ 5. O ∈ OA←∅ (S) iﬀ every axiom in τ (O.r. S1 and hence by Proposition 8 is S1 -safe w. according to Proposition 30. we have A ∈ S and r ∈ S. allow testing for DL-tautologies. S1 = {Fibrosis. in order to check whether O is local w. It is easy to check that for every atomic concept A and atomic role r from τ (C. however.t. all atomic concepts and roles that are not in S are eliminated by the transformation. 2006) for testing o locality since these reasoners. S)) ⊆ S. Note that it is not necessarily the case that Sig(τ (α.g. Trans(R∅ ).t. has Origin}.C) are assumed to be expressed using . Hence O is local w. S2 = {Genetic Fibrosis. 2003).t. hence O is not local w.C). 2004) or KAON2 (Motik. S). ( n R∅ . Checking for tautologies in description logics is. or Funct(R∅ ). in order to check whether O is local w.C.r. In case reasoning is too costly.r. All atomic concepts A∅ ∈ S will be eliminated likewise. RACER (M¨ller & Haarslev. hence. but not local w. R R∅ . 2000).r.4 A Tractable Approximation to Locality One of the important conclusions of Proposition 30 is that one can use the standard capabilities of available DL-reasoners such as FaCT++ (Tsarkov & Horrocks. Secondly.

♦ 298 . . Con∆(S ) ⊆ Con∆(S ) be shown by induction. . & Sattler Deﬁnition 32 (Syntactic Locality for SHOIQ). Genetic Origin}. . R any role. every syntactically local axiom is satisﬁed in every interpretation r←∅ I from IA←∅ (S).C | ∃R.C) | ( n R. Also one can show by induction that ˜ r←∅ ˜ r←∅ ˜ r←∅ ˜ r←∅ α ∈ AxA←∅ (S) iﬀ α ∈ AxA←∅ (S ∩ Sig(α)). E1} considered in Example 29 is syntactically local w. S.t. ˜ r←∅ A SHOIQ-ontology O is syntactically local w. Below we indicate sub-concepts in α from Con∅(S1 ): ∈ Con∅(S1 ) [matches A∅ ] M2 Genetic Fibrosis ≡ Fibrosis ∈ Con∅(S1 ) [matches ∃R∅ . C(i) ∈ Con∆(S).Genetic Origin ∈ Con∅(S1 ) [matches C C ∅] (9) It is easy to show in a similar way that axioms P1 —P4. S.r. subset-closed. ·I ) from of Con r←∅ IA←∅ (S) it is the case that (C ∅ )I = ∅ and (C ∆ )I = ∆I for every C ∅ ∈ Con∅(S) and C ∆ ∈ Con∆(S). Horrocks. Example 35 (Example 31 continued) It is easy to see that axiom M2 from Figure 1 is syntactically local w.r. or (3) Funct(R∅ ). The following grammar recursively deﬁnes two sets of concepts Con∅(S) and Con∆(S) for a signature S: Con∅(S) ::= A∅ | ¬C ∆ | C Con∆(S) ::= ∆ | ¬C ∅ | C1 C∅ | C∅ ∆ C2 .t. C | ∃R∅ . Genetic Disorder}. P4. and so we obtain the following conclusion: r←∅ ˜ r←∅ Proposition 33 AxA←∅ (S) ⊆ AxA←∅ (S). by proving that Con 2 1 2 1 ˜ r←∅ ˜ r←∅ and AxA←∅ (S2 ) ⊆ AxA←∅ (S1 ) when S1 ⊆ S2 . Anti-monotonicity for OA←∅ (·) can ∅(S ) ⊆ Con∅(S ). OA←∅ (·) is a safety class by Proposition 33.Cuenca Grau. Further. S if O ⊆ AxA←∅ (S). S if it is of one of the following forms: (1) R∅ R.t.r. syntactic locality provides a simple syntactic test to ensure that an axiom is r←∅ satisﬁed in every interpretation from IA←∅ (S). C ∅ ∈ Con∅(S). or (4) C ∅ C. 2}. S. and i ∈ {1. ˜ r←∅ ˜ r←∅ Proof. S = {Cystic Fibrosis. R∅ (possibly the inverse of) an atomic role r∅ ∈ S.t. or (6) a : C ∆ . Hence.C ∅ | ( n R∅ . we have that OA←∅ (·) is subset-closed and union-closed. Hence the ontology P1 = {P1. S1 = {Fibrosis.t. C / / ∆ any concept. or (2) Trans(r∅ ). and E1 from Figure 1 are syntactically local w.r. it can be shown that the safety class for SHOIQ based on syntactic locality enjoys all of the properties from Deﬁnition 24: ˜ r←∅ Proposition 34 The class of syntactically local ontologies OA←∅ (·) given in Deﬁnition 32 is an anti-monotonic. It is easy to see from the inductive deﬁnitions ∅(S) and Con∆(S) in Deﬁnition 32 that for every interpretation I = (∆I .C ∅ ) . or (5) C C ∆ . so OA←∅ (·) is compact.t.r. and union-closed safety class. We denote ˜ r←∅ by AxA←∅ (S) the set of all SHOIQ-axioms that are syntactically local w. compact.t. . ♦ Intuitively.r. An axiom α is syntactically local w.r. where A∅ ∈ S is an atomic concept. We denote by ˜ r←∅ OA←∅ (S) the set of all SHOIQ ontologies that are syntactically local w.C] ∃has Origin. Since O ∈ OA←∅ (S) ˜ r←∅ ˜ r←∅ iﬀ O ⊆ AxA←∅ (S). Let S be a signature. Kazakov.

In Table 3 we have listed several such classes of local interpretations where we ﬁx the interpretation of atomic roles outside S to be either the empty set ∅.¬A ∃r. as usual. the universal relation ∆ × ∆. but not syntactically local.r. S = {A.4 5. every S since it is a tautology (and hence true in every interpretation). and the functionality axiom P7 but 4. that the symbols from S are underlined. Furthermore.r. Other classes of local interpretations can be constructed in a similar way by ﬁxing the interpretations of elements outside S to diﬀerent values. syntactic locality checking can be performed in polynomial time by matching an axiom according to Deﬁnition 32. x | x ∈ ∆J } Table 3: Examples for Diﬀerent Local Classes of Interpretations The converse of Proposition 33 does not hold in general since there are semantically local axioms that are not syntactically local. since τ (α. deﬁnition P5. A ∈ S : rJ ∅ AJ ∆J ∆J ∆J ∆J × ∆J { x. however. is a GCI α = (∃r. As a result.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice r←∗ IA←∗ (S) r←∅ IA←∅ (S) r←∆×∆ IA←∅ (S) r←id IA←∅ (S) r.t.r. The axiom α is semantically local w. These axioms are assumed to be an extension of our project ontology from Figure 1. Each local class of interpretations in Table 3 deﬁnes a corresponding class of local ontologies analogously to Example 26. x | x ∈ ∆J } ∆J × ∆J { x. or the identity relation id on ∆.¬⊥ ∃r. A ∈ S : rJ ∅ AJ ∅ ∅ ∅ r←∗ IA←∗ (S) r←∅ IA←∆ (S) r←∆×∆ IA←∆ (S) r←id IA←∆ (S) r. the axiom α = (A A B) is local w.¬⊥) is a tautology. On the other hand. syntactic locality does not detect all tautological axioms. and whose running time is polynomial in |O| + |S|. These examples show that the limitation of our syntactic notion of locality is its inability to “compare” diﬀerent occurrences of concepts from the given signature S. It is reasonable to assume. 299 . The locality condition based on IA←∅ (S) captures the domain axiom P4. where |O| and |S| are the number of symbols occurring in O and S respectively. that tautological axioms do not occur often in realistic ontologies. We assume that the numbers in number restrictions are written down using binary coding. For example.5 Other Locality Classes r←∅ The locality condition given in Example 26 based on a class of local interpretations IA←∅ (·) is just a particular example of locality which can be used for testing safety. Proposition 36 There exists an algorithm that given a SHOIQ ontology O and a sig˜ r←∅ nature S.¬B). and the interpretation of atomic concepts outside S to either the empty set ∅ or the set ∆ of all elements. the disjointness axiom P6.t. We indicate which axioms are local w. In Table 4 we have listed all of these classes together with examples of typical types of axioms used in ontologies. S for which locality conditions assuming. S = {r}. B} according to Deﬁnition 32 since it involves symbols in S only. which is not a tautology.t. determines whether O ∈ OA←∅ (S).t. Another example. It can be seen from Table 4 that diﬀerent types of locality conditions are appropriate r←∅ for diﬀerent types of axioms. it is easy to see that α is not syntactically local w. S) = (∃r.r.

It might be possible to come up with algorithms for testing locality conditions for the classes of interpretation in Table 3 similar to the ones presented in Proposition 30. every subset of P containing P6 and P8 is not safe w. it is easy to come up with tractable syntactic approximations for all the locality conditions considered in this section in a similar manner to what has been done in Section 5. Horrocks. For r←∅ example. since it is not clear how to eliminate the universal roles and identity roles from the axioms and preserve validity in the respective classes of interpretations. that is for IA←∗ (S) and IA←∗ (S). In order to capture such functionality r←id r←id axioms. P5 BioMedical Project ≡ Project ∃has Focus. Hence. since in P6 and P8 together imply axiom β = ({Human Genome} Bio Medicine ⊥) which uses the symbols from S only. where the case (a) of the deﬁnition for τ (C. S. & Sattler α Axiom Project ? α ∈ Ax r←∅ A←∅ r←∆×∆ A←∅ r←id A←∅ r←∅ A←∆ r←∆×∆ A←∆ r←id A←∆ P4 ∃has Focus. namely to deﬁne two sets Con∅(S) and Con∆(S) of concepts for a signature S which are interpreted as the empty 300 .t.Cystic Fibrosis ∃has Focus. locality based on the class IA←∆ (S) can be tested as in Proposition 30.r. where every atomic role outside S is interpreted with the identity relation id on the interpretation domain. the functionality axiom P7 is not captured by this locality condition since the atomic role has Focus is interpreted as the universal relation ∆×∆. S. can capture such assertions but are generally poor for other types of axioms. S) = if A ∈ S and otherwise = A / (a ) r←∆×∆ r←id For the remaining classes of interpretations. checking locality. is not that straightforward.Cuenca Grau. Gene) E2 ∀has Focus. and so cannot be local w.t. one can use locality based on IA←∅ (S) or IA←∆ (S). where the atomic roles and concepts outside S are interpreted as the largest possible sets. Kazakov.Cystic Fibrosis Table 4: A Comparison between Diﬀerent Types of Locality Conditions neither of the assertions P8 or P9. S) is replaced with the following: τ (A.4.r. For example. Still. since the individuals Human Genome and Gene prevent us from interpreting the atomic role has Focus and atomic concept Project with the empty r←∆×∆ set. Note also that it is not possible to come up with a locality condition that captures all the axioms P4–P9. Note that the modeling error E2 is not local for any of the given locality conditions. The idea is the same as that used in Deﬁnition 32.Bio Medicine Bio Medicine ⊥ P6 Project P7 Funct(has Focus) P8 Human Genome : Project P9 has Focus(Human Genome. which is not necessarily functional. however. The locality condition based on IA←∆ (S).

every locality condition gives a union-closed safety class. Obviously.6 Combining and Extending Safety Classes In the previous section we gave examples of several safety classes based on diﬀerent local classes of interpretations and demonstrated that diﬀerent classes are suitable for diﬀerent types of axioms. R is any role | A∅ | ∃R∅ . One may wonder if locality classes already provide the most powerful suﬃcient 301 . Sig(R∆×∆ ). rid ∈ S. ♦ As shown in Proposition 33. the ontology O1 consisting of axioms P4–P7 from Table 4 satisﬁes the ﬁrst locality condition. m ≥ 2 .C | | ( m Rid . is not even safe for S as we have shown in Section 5. the ontology O2 consisting of axioms P8–P9 satisﬁes the second locality condition. A∆ .5.C ∆ | ( n R∆×∆ . Sig(R∅ ). This safety class is not union-closed since.C ∆ | ( 1 Rid . r∆×∆ .C ∅ n R∅ . the union of such safety classes might be no longer unionclosed. but their union O1 ∪O2 satisﬁes neither the ﬁrst nor the second locality condition and. or respectively.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice Con∅(S) ::= ¬C ∆ | C | ∃R. Sig(Rid ) S. 5. In Figure 3 we gave recursive r←∗ ˜ r←∗ deﬁnitions for syntactically local axioms AxA←∗ (S) that correspond to classes IA←∗ (S) of interpretations from Table 3. b) | Trans(rid ) | Funct(Rid ) Figure 3: Syntactic Locality Conditions for the Classes of Interpretations in Table 3 set and. as demonstrated in the following example: r←∆×∆ r←∅ Example 37 Consider the union (OA←∅ ∪ OA←∆ )(·) of two classes of local ontologies r←∆×∆ r←∅ OA←∅ (·) and OA←∆ (·) deﬁned in Section 5. Formally. In order to check safety of ontologies in practice.C ∅ | r←∗ for IA←∅ (·): r←∅ for IA←∗ (·): r←id for IA←∗ (·): C∅ | C∅ n R. subset-closed as well. however. C|C C∆ | a : C∆ ˜ r←∗ AxA←∗ (S) ::= C ∅ r←∅ for IA←∗ (·): r←∆×∆ for IA←∗ (·): r←id for IA←∗ (·): | R∅ |R R | Trans(r∅ ) | Funct(R∅ ) R∆×∆ | Trans(r∆×∆ ) | r∆×∆ (a. then the union is anti-monotonic. It is easy to see by Deﬁnition 24 that if both O1 (·) and O2 (·) are safety classes then their union (O1 ∪ O2 )(·) is a safety class. C is any concept.C). Where: A∅ . where some cases in the recursive deﬁnitions are present only for the indicated classes of interpretations. as seen in Example 37. r∅ . Unfortunately the unionclosure property for safety classes is not preserved under unions. C(i) ∈ Con∆(S). their union (O1 ∪ O2 )(·) is a class of ontologies deﬁned by (O1 ∪O2 )(S) = O1 (S)∪O2 (S). Moreover. ∆ C ∅ ∈ Con∅(S). this gives a more powerful suﬃcient condition for safety. as ∆I in every interpretation I from the class and see in which situations DL-constructors produce the elements from these sets.5.C ∆ ) .C ∆ ) | ∃Rid . for example. in fact. one may try to apply diﬀerent suﬃcient tests and check if any of them succeeds.C C Con∆(S) ::= r←∗ for IA←∆ (·): r←∆×∆ for IA←∗ (·): r←id for IA←∗ (·): ∆ | ¬C ∅ | C1 ∆ C2 | A∆ | ∃R∆×∆ . given two classes of ontologies O1 (·) and O2 (·). if each of the safety classes is also anti-monotonic or subset-closed. respectively. which can be seen as the union of the safety classes used in the tests.

·) is deﬁned as in Proposition 30. since α ∈ AxA←∅ (S). Take Q to consist of all tautologies of form ⊥ A and ⊥ ∃r. it is not clear how to deﬁne the function τ (·. A safety class O1 (·) is maximal unionclosed for a language L if O1 (·) is union-closed and for every union-closed safety class O2 (·) that extends O1 (·) and every O over L we have that O ∈ O2 (S) implies O ∈ O1 (S). We deﬁne ontologies P and Q as follows. r←∅ r←∅ Since O ∈ OA←∅ (S). ♦ r←∅ r←∅ Proposition 39 The classes of local ontologies OA←∅ (·) and OA←∆ (·) deﬁned in Section 5. for every ontology Q over L with Sig(Q) ∩ Sig(O ∪ P) ⊆ S it is the case that O ∪ P ∪ Q is a deductive conservative extension of Q. 297). I |= α iﬀ I |= β for every I ∈ IA←∅ (S). Surprisingly this is the case to a certain extent for some locality classes considered in Section 5. () r←∅ Intuitively. Deﬁnition 38 (Maximal Union-Closed Safety Class). r←∅ For O(·) = OA←∆ (·) the proof can be repeated by taking P to consist of axioms A and ∃r. A safety class O2 (·) extends a safety class O1 (·) if O1 (S) ⊆ O2 (S) for every S. Let O be an ontology over L that satisﬁes conditions (i)–(iii) above. since O |= α and O ∪ P ∪ Q r←∅ has only models from IA←∅ (S). (ii) O is safe w. Q is an ontology which implies nothing but tautologies and uses all the atomic concepts and roles from S. S in L. We demonstrate that r←∅ r←∅ this is not possible for O(·) = OA←∅ (·) or O(·) = OA←∆ (·) r←∅ We ﬁrst consider the case O(·) = OA←∅ (·) and then show how to modify the proof for r←∅ the case O(·) = OA←∆ (·). Let / / β := τ (α. we have that Sig(β) ⊆ S = Sig(Q) and.5). According to Deﬁnition 38. As has been shown in the proof of r←∅ this proposition. By Proposition 30. there exists an axiom α ∈ O such that α ∈ AxA←∅ (S). ⊥ for every atomic r←∅ concept A and atomic role r from Sig(O) \ S. since this will not guarantee that β = τ (α. Kazakov. r ∈ S. such that (i) O ∈ / O(S).5.5 are maximal union-closed safety classes for L = SHIQ. ·) in these cases (see a related discussion in Section 5. and modifying τ (·. thus Q |= β. S in L. it is not clear how to force interpretations of roles to be the universal or identity relation using SHOIQ axioms. / β is not a tautology. We claim that O ∪ P ∪ Q is not a deductive Sig(Q)-conservative extension of Q. for every A. Second. O ∪ P ∪ Q is not a deductive Sig(Q)-conservative extension of Q ( ). S) where τ (·.5.r. First. Proof. There are some diﬃculties in extending the proof of Proposition 39 to other locality classes considered in Section 5. Hence. that is. since β r←∅ does not contain individuals. if a safety class O(·) is not maximal union-closed for a language L.5. r ∈ Sig(O) \ S. ⊥ for all A. S) contains symbols from S only (see Footnote 3 on r←∅ r←∅ p. It is easy to see that P ∈ OA←∅ (S). Take P to consist of the axioms A ⊥ and ∃r. the ontology P is chosen in such a way that P ∈ OA←∅ (S) and O ∪ P ∪ Q r←∅ has only models from IA←∅ (S). Now. 302 .t.t. and (iii) for every P ∈ O(S). then there exists a signature S and an ontology O over L.r. Horrocks. Hence there is probably room to extend the locality classes OA←∅ (·) and OA←∆ (·) for L = SHOIQ while preserving union-closure. & Sattler conditions for safety that satisfy all the desirable properties from Deﬁnition 24. by Deﬁnition 1.Cuenca Grau. Note also that the proof of Proposition 39 does not work in the presence of nominals. it is the case that O ∪ P is safe w. Note that Sig(O ∪ P) ∩ Sig(Q) ⊆ S. ·) as has been discussed in Section 5. it is the case that O ∪ P ∪ Q |= β.

which represent a partitioning of the ontology O into three disjoint subsets Om . 303 . Invariant I1 states that the three sets Om . there exists no general procedure that can recognize or extract all the (minimal) modules for a signature in an ontology in ﬁnite time. As shown in Corollary 23 in Section 4. any procedure for checking membership of a safety class O(·) can be used directly for checking whether Om is a module based on O(·). I3 establishes that the rewrite rules either add elements to Om .r. any safety class O(·) can provide a suﬃcient condition for testing modules—that is. according to Deﬁnition 40. In order to extract an O(·)-module.t. namely O itself. Ou and Os . it is possible to avoid checking all the possible subsets of the input ontology. The rewrite rules R1 and R2 preserve invariants I1–I3 given in Figure 4. in order to prove that O1 is a S-module in O. The set Ou . Therefore. the set Os is intended to be safe w. At the end of this process. Proposition 18 establishes the relationship between the notions of safety and module. O(·). The techniques described in Section 5. it is suﬃcient to show that O \ O1 ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O1 )).t. Deﬁnition 40 (Modules Based on Safety Class). it is suﬃcient to enumerate all possible subsets of the ontology and check if any of these subsets is a module based on O(·). Given an axiom α from Ou . which is initialized to O. ♦ It is clear that.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice 6. Given an ontology O and a signature S over L. S ∪ Sig(Om ). rule R2 moves α into Om and moves all axioms from Os back into Ou . indeed.r. These axioms are distributed among Om and Os according to rules R1 and R2. contains the unprocessed axioms. we say that Om ⊆ O is an O(·)-based S-module in O if O \ Om ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). rule R1 moves α into Os provided Os remains safe w. the pair (|Om |. however. a subset O1 of O is an S-module in O provided that O \ O1 is safe for S ∪ Sig(O1 ). can be reused for extracting particular families of modules that satisfy certain suﬃcient conditions. A notion of modules based on this property can be deﬁned as follows. ♦ Remark 41 Note that for every safety class O(·).r. S ∪ Sig(Om ). there exists at least one O(·)-based S-module in O. or they add elements to Os without changing Om . Extracting Modules Using Safety Classes In this section we revisit the problem of extracting modules from ontologies. the empty ontology ∅ = O \ O also belongs to O(S) for every O(·) and S.t. S ∪ Sig(Om ) according to the safety class O(·). however. Figure 4 presents an optimized version of the module-extraction algorithm. the set Om is an O(·)-based module in O. more precisely. Otherwise. Let L be an ontology language and O(·) be a safety class for L. ontology O and signature S. Note also that it follows from Deﬁnition 40 that Om is an O(·)-based S-module in O iﬀ Om is an O(·)-based S -module in O for every S with S ⊆ S ⊆ (S ∪ Sig(Om )). by Deﬁnition 24.r. |Os |) consisting of the sizes for these sets increases in lexicographical order. Ou and Os form a partitioning of O.t. The procedure manipulates conﬁgurations of the form Om | Ou | Os . The set Om accumulates the axioms of the extracted module. in other words. when no axioms are left in in Ou . In practice. since Sig(Om ) might expand and axioms from Os might become no longer safe w. ﬁnally. I2 states that the set Os satisﬁes the safety test for S ∪ Sig(Om ) w.

by Deﬁnition 40. and suppose that Om is an O(·)-based S-module in O. and (2) If. |Os |) increases in lexicographical order (see invariant I3 in Figure 4). is the smallest O(·)-based S-module in O. O(·) is anti-monotonic. if Ou = ∅ then it is always possible to apply one of the rewrite rules R1 or R2. then there is a unique minimal O(·)-based S-module in O. suppose that. (2) Now. and the procedure returns precisely this minimal module. Then: (1) The procedure in Figure 4 with input O. a safety class O(·) a module Om in O based on O(·) unprocessed ↓ Conﬁguration: Om | Ou | Os . and unionclosed safety class. Om | Ou ∪ {α} | Os =⇒ Om | Ou | Os ∪ {α} R2. (|Om |. in addition. O(·) is an anti-monotonic. |Os |) I2. We demonstrate by induction that for every conﬁguration Om | Ou | Os derivable from ∅ | O | ∅ by rewrite rules R1 and R2. for the base case we have Om = ∅ ⊆ Om . Os ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )) Figure 4: A Procedure for Computing Modules Based on a Safety Class O(·) Proposition 42 (Correctness of the Procedure from Figure 4) Let O(·) be a safety class for an ontology language L. subset-closed. O = Om Ou Os if (Os ∪ {α}) ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )) if (Os ∪ {α}) ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )) Invariant for Om | Ou | Os =⇒ Om | Ou | Os : I3. and S a signature over L. and hence. S. Indeed. and therefore the size of every set is bounded. (1) The procedure based on the rewrite rules from Figure 4 always terminates for the following reasons: (i) for every conﬁguration derived by the rewrite rules. () 304 . Om | Ou ∪ {α} | Os =⇒ Om ∪ {α} | Ou ∪ Os | ∅ Invariants for Om | Ou | Os : I1.Cuenca Grau. ↑ ↑ Initial Conﬁguration = ∅|O|∅ Termination Condition: Ou = ∅ module safe Rewrite rules: R1. that Om is an O(·)-based S-module in O. Kazakov. which implies. (|Om |. Proof. a signature S. & Sattler Input: Output: an ontology O. O an ontology over L. This will prove that the module computed by the procedure is a subset of every O(·)-based S-module in O. |Os |) <lex (|Om |. it is the case that Om ⊆ Om . O(·) terminates and returns an O(·)based S-module Om in O. For the rewrite rule R2 we have: Om | Ou ∪ {α} | Os =⇒ Om ∪ {α} | Ou ∪ Os | ∅ if (Os ∪ {α}) ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). Os ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). additionally. (ii) at each rewrite step. and hence the procedure always terminates with Ou = ∅. the sets Om . subset-closed and union-closed. Horrocks. The rewrite rule R1 does not change the set Om . O is partitioned into Om and Os and by invariant I2. Additionally. Upon termination. by invariant I1 from Figure 4. Ou and Os form a partitioning of O (see invariant I1 in Figure 4).

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice Input: an ontology O. it is suﬃcient to check if {α} ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )) since it is already known that Os ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). Moreover. a safety class O(·) Output: a module Om in O based on O(·) Initial Conﬁguration = Rewrite rules: R1. like those based on classes of local interpretations described in Section 5. In Figure 5 we present an optimized version of the algorithm from Figure 4 for such locality classes. The ﬁrst column of the table lists the conﬁgurations obtained from the initial conﬁguration ∅ | O | ∅ by applying the rewrite rules R1 and R2 from Figure 5. it is possible to show that this procedure runs in polynomial time assuming that the safety test can be also performed in polynomial time. In the last column we indicate whether the ﬁrst conditions of the rules R1 r←∅ and R2 are fulﬁlled for the selected axiom α from Ou —that is. Example 43 In Table 5 we present a trace of the algorithm from Figure 5 for the ontology O consisting of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1. the underlined axiom α is the one that is being tested for safety. as stated in claim (2) of Proposition 42. the procedure. If the safety class O(·) satisﬁes additional desirable properties. If O(·) is compact and subset closed.2. then. Since Om ⊆ Om and O(·) is anti-monotonic. Since by invariant I2 from Figure 4. since the set of remaining axioms will stay in O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). it is possible to optimize the procedure shown in Figure 4. we have {α} ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). The rewrite rule corresponding to the result of this test is applied to the conﬁguration. in fact. that Om ⊆ Om but Om ∪ {α} Om . it is suﬃcient to move only those axioms Os that contain at least one symbol from α which did not occur in Om before. Os ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )) and O(·) is union-closed. Claim (1) of Proposition 42 establishes that the procedure from Figure 4 terminates for every input and produces a module based on a given safety class. Since O(·) is subset-closed. in each row. 305 . whether α is local for IA←∅ (·). Om | Ou ∪ {α} | Os ∪ Os =⇒ Om ∪ {α} | Ou ∪ Os | Os if {α} ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). produces the smallest possible module based on the safety class. then instead of moving all the α axioms in Os to Ou in rule R2. to the contrary. Os ∪ {α} ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). Genetic Disorder} r←∅ and safety class O(·) = OA←∅ (·) deﬁned in Example 26. signature S = {Cystic Fibrosis. The second column of the table shows the elements of S ∪ Sig(Om ) that have appeared for the current conﬁguration but have not been present for the preceding conﬁgurations. {α} ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). and Sig(Os ) ∩ Sig(α) ⊆ Sig(Om ) ∅|O|∅ Termination Condition: Ou = ∅ Figure 5: An Optimized Procedure for Computing Modules Based on a Compact SubsetClosed Union-Closed Safety Class O(·) Suppose. we have that Os ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). which contradicts ( ). In this case. a signature S. Om | Ou ∪ {α} | Os =⇒ Om | Ou | Os ∪ {α} if {α} ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )) α α R2. If O(·) is union closed. Since Om is an O(·)-based S-module in O. instead of checking whether (Os ∪ {α}) ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )) in the conditions of rules R1 and R2. Then α ∈ Os := O \ Om . This contradiction implies that the rule R2 also preserves property Om ⊆ Om .

because the set Ou may increase after applications of rule R2.t. Genetic Disorder} Note that some axioms α are tested for safety several times for diﬀerent conﬁgurations. M4 | M2.r. In our example. It turns out that any O(·)-based module Om is guaranteed to cover the set of minimal modules. According to Claim (2) of Proposition 42 all such r←∅ computations should produce the same module Om . M4. for example. M3. . 306 . provided that O(·) is anti-monotonic and subset-closed. The following Lemma provides the main technical argument underlying this result. M3. . and 4–8 only. but became non-local when new axioms were added to Om . Lemma 44 Let O(·) be an anti-monotonic subset-closed safety class for an ontology language L. which is the smallest OA←∅ (·)-based S-module in O. Then O2 := O1 ∩ Om is an S-module in O w. S ∪ Sig(Om ) when Om = ∅. Om contains all the S-essential axioms in O. M3 | M2. the procedure from Figure 5 has implicit non-determinism. M4. Note that it is possible to apply the rewrite rules for diﬀerent choices of the axiom α in Ou . the implicit non-determinism in the procedure from Figure 5 does not have any impact on the result of the procedure. L and Om an O(·)-based S-module in O. Genetic Origin Genetic Fibrosis − − − {α} ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om ))? Yes Yes No No No Yes No ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ R1 R1 R2 R2 R2 R1 R2 1 − | M1. Let O1 be an S-module in O w.t. M3 M1 | M2. Pancreas. ♦ It is worth examining the connection between the S-modules in an ontology O based on a particular safety class O(·) and the actual minimal S-modules in O. M2. has Origin. M3. Horrocks. M5} from Figure 1 and S = {Cystic Fibrosis. α | Os 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 − | M1.r. given O and S. In other words. . M3.t. O an ontology. M4 | − | M5 New elements in S ∪ Sig(Om ) − − Fibrosis. M4 | M2 | M5 M1. & Sattler Om | Ou . which results in a diﬀerent computation. that is. M3. M4. M5 | M2 − | M1. However.Cuenca Grau. M5 | − M1. alternative choices for α may result in shorter computations: in our example we could have selected axiom M1 in the ﬁrst conﬁguration instead of M2 which would have led to a shorter trace consisting of conﬁgurations 1. M3. Note also that diﬀerent results for the locality tests are obtained in these cases: both M2 and M3 were local w. . L. syntactic locality produces the same results for the tests. It is also easy to see that. Genetic Disorder Table 5: A trace of the Procedure in Figure 5 for the input Q = {M1. the axiom α = M2 is tested for safety in both conﬁgurations 1 and 7.r. Kazakov. in our case. and α = M3 in conﬁgurations 2 and 4. M5 | − M1. M4. M5 | M2. M2. located In. the rewrite procedure produces a module Om consisting of axioms M1– M4. In other words. M5 | − Cystic Fibrosis. M4. and S a signature over L. M5 | − M1.

r. in general. it is suﬃcient to extract a module for a subset of the signature of α which. Note that B ⊥ ∈ OA . and O2 ⊆ Om . all the axioms M1–M4 are essential for the ontology O and signature S considered in Example 43. B} ∈ O(∅) then OA |= α. In our case. By Deﬁnition 40. we have that OA |= (A ⊥) which implies OA |= (A B). 307 .r. leads to smaller modules. 1. L.r.t. L. (b) Consider O = O ∪{B ⊥}. L. In some cases. Then Om contains all S-essential axioms in O w. Since Sig(α) ⊆ S. O2 is an O(·)-based S-module in O1 . L which is strictly contained in O1 .r. as given by the following proposition: Proposition 46 Let O(·) be a compact union-closed safety class for an ontology language L. contains all S-essential axioms in O w. it is the case that (O \ OA ) ∪ {B ⊥} ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(OA )). Hence Om is a superset of every minimal S-module in O and hence. {B ⊥} ∈ / O(∅) and O(·) is compact. O2 is an S-module in O w. We demonstrate that O1 ⊆ Om .t. we have that O \ Om ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )). Proof. / (a) By Remark 41 it is the case that OA is an O(·)-based module in O for S = {A. localitybased modules might contain non-essential axioms. Then: 1 If O |= α := (A 2 If O |= α := (B B) and {B A) and { ⊥} ∈ O(∅) then OA |= α. we have that O1 \ O2 ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(O2 )). O an ontology and A.t. the extracted module contains only essential axioms. L. Since O1 is an S-module in O w.t. subset-closed safety class for L and Om be an O(·)-based S-module in O. and. B}. in order to test subsumption between a pair of atomic concepts. B atomic concepts. Since Sig(B ⊥) = {B} and B ∈ Sig(OA ). Indeed. Corollary 45 Let O(·) be an anti-monotonic. otherwise.t. As shown in Section 3. Since O(·) is anti-monotonic. in general.t. In particular O2 is an S-module in O1 w. hence (O \ OA ) ∪ {B ⊥} = O \ OA . Let OA be an O(·)-based module in O for S = {A} in O. O1 ∩ Om is an S-module in O w. L. In particular. it is the case that O |= (A ⊥).Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice Proof. and hence. Proof. by Deﬁnition 24 it is the case that {B ⊥} ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(OA )). this module.4. in accordance to Corollary 45. by Deﬁnition 40.t. Since OA is an O(·)-based S-module in O. if the safety class being used enjoys some nice properties then it suﬃces to extract a module for one of them. then O \ OA ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(OA )).r. Since O(·) is union-closed. Indeed. it is the case that O |= α implies OA |= α. Since O1 \ O2 = O1 \ Om ⊆ O \ Om and O(·) is subset-closed. we have that OA is an O(·)-based S-module in O . however. since B ∈ Sig(OA ). We have seen in this example that the locality-based S-module extracted from O contains all of these axioms. since OA is a module in O for S = {A}. by Deﬁnition 40.r. hence. by Deﬁnition 12 and Deﬁnition 1. Consider two cases: (a) B ∈ Sig(OA ) and (b) B ∈ Sig(OA ). since O |= (A B). Now. Let O1 be a minimal S-module in O w. in order to check whether O |= α it suﬃces to retrieve the module for Sig(α) and verify if the implication holds w.t. L.r. by Lemma 44. since Om is an O(·)-based S-module in O. An interesting application of modules is the pruning of irrelevant axioms when checking if an axiom α is implied by an ontology O. it is the case that O1 \ O2 ∈ O(S ∪ Sig(Om )).r.

For example.. including B—that is. by Corollary 47. M2 is an S-module in M1 for S = {A. Let OA←∅ (·) and r←∗ r←∗ OA←∆ (·) be locality classes based on local classes of interpretations of form IA←∅ (·) and r←∗ (·). Proposition 46 implies that a module based on a safety class for a single atomic concept A can be used for capturing either the super-concepts (Case 1). ALCIQ (Lutz et al. the empty signature. This property can be used.Cuenca Grau. it is the case that OB |= ( A). In order to check if the subsumption A B holds in an ontology O. B atomic concepts. Kazakov. r←∗ Corollary 47 Let O be a SHOIQ ontology and A. it is suﬃcient to extract a module in O for S = {A} using a modularization algorithm based on a safety class in which the ontology {B ⊥} is local w.r. for example. B} and M1 is an S-module in the original ontology O. Lutz et al. from Table 3. to optimize the classiﬁcation of ontologies.r. 2006. and check whether this subsumption holds w. 2007). The proof of this case is analogous to that for Case 1: Case (a) is applicable without changes. axioms of the form B ⊥ (Case 1) or ( B) (Case 2). Related Work We have seen in Section 3 that the notion of conservative extension is valuable in the formalization of ontology reuse tasks.t. One could extract a OA←∆ (·)-based module M2 for S = {B} in M1 which. Horrocks. 2007). Let O be a module for S = {A} based on O r←∗ (·) and IA←∆ A A←∅ r←∗ OB be a module for S = {B} based on OA←∆ (·). is complete for all the sub-concepts of B in M1 . 2007) (roughly OWL-Lite). That is. The problem of deciding conservative extensions has been recently investigated in the context of ontologies (Ghilardi et al. which implies O |= (B A). provided that the safety class captures. it is convenient to use a syntactically tractable approximation of the safety class in use. Proof.t. ALCIQO (roughly OWL DL). including A. one could use the syntactic locality conditions given in Figure 3 instead of their semantic counterparts. Indeed. 2-EXPTIME-complete w. it is the case that M2 is also an S-module in O. The problem of deciding whether P ∪ Q is a deductive S-conservative extension of Q is EXPTIME-complete for EL (Lutz & Wolter. in Case (b) we show that OA is an O(·)-based module for S = {A} in O = O∪{ B}.t. 7. when applied to the empty signature. by Corollary 47 this module is complete for all the super-concepts of A in O. 2007). Lutz & Wolter. 308 . if an atomic concept is a super-concept of A in O. and.r.r. the module. respectively.. Furthermore. Then O |= (A B) iﬀ OA |= (A B) iﬀ OB |= (A B). hence. and undecidable w. It is possible to combine modularization procedures to obtain modules that are smaller than the ones obtained using these procedures individually..t. & Sattler 2. therefore. checking model conservative extensions is already undecidable for EL (Lutz & Wolter. and for ALC it is even not semi-decidable (Lutz et al. 2007. or the sub-concepts (Case 2) B of A. By Proposition 46.. since O |= ( A). It is easy to see that {B r←∗ ⊥} ∈ OA←∅ (∅) and { r←∗ A} ∈ OA←∆ (∆). then it is also a r←∗ super-concept of A in M1 . B is a super-concept or a sub-concept of A in the ontology if and only if it is such in the module. in order to check r←∗ the subsumption O |= (A B) one could ﬁrst extract a OA←∅ (·)-based module M1 for S = {A} in O. For this purpose. for example. 2007).

From the description of the procedure it is not entirely clear whether it works with a classiﬁed ontology (which is unlikely in the case of GALEN since the full version of GALEN has not been classiﬁed by any existing reasoner). however. numerous techniques for extracting fragments of ontologies for the purposes of knowledge reuse have been proposed. For example. In general. S is expanded with the symbols in Sig(Q1 ). These steps are repeated until a ﬁxpoint is reached. Most of these techniques rely on syntactically traversing the axioms in the ontology and employing various heuristics to determine which axioms are relevant and which are not. concepts that are “linked” from the input concepts (via existential restrictions) and their “super-concepts”. The description of the procedure is very high-level. After this step. In particular. It is easy to see that Q is consistent. the fragment extracted by the Prompt-Factor algorithm consists of all the axioms M1-M5. but not their “subconcepts”. 2006). Q2 |= α. “union”. the extracted fragment is not guaranteed to be a module. Genetic Disorder}. For example. the Prompt-Factor algorithm may fail even if Q is consistent. how the “super-” and “sub-” concepts are computed. admits only single element models.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice In the last few years. α = (A ∀r. together with their “super-concepts” and “super-roles” but not their “sub-concepts” and “sub-roles”. so the authors investigate the possibility of splitting GALEN into small “segments” which can be processed by reasoners separately. consider an ontology Q = {A ≡ ¬A. and Q consists of axioms M1–M5 from Figure 1. the PromptFactor algorithm extracts a module (though not a minimal one). Currently. C}. Noy. computes a “segment” for S in the ontology. and “equivalent concepts” should be considered by including the roles and concepts they contain. when S = {Cystic Fibrosis. Hence. the segment should contain all “super-” and “sub-” concepts of the input concepts. Given S = {B. the full version of GALEN cannot be processed by reasoners. consider an ontology Q = { {a}. and Ontology Segmentation (Kalfoglou & Schorlemmer. The authors describe a segmentation procedure which. second. and M5 containing these terms. In particular. Ontology Merging. the algorithm ﬁrst retrieves axioms M1. otherwise. and so Q2 is not a module in Q. In this case. or. a rapidly growing body of work has been developed under the headings of Ontology Mapping and Alignment. M4. the Prompt-Factor algorithm extracts Q2 = {B C}. given a set of atomic concepts S. The ontology Q is inconsistent due to the axiom A ≡ ¬A: any axiom (and α in particular) is thus a logical consequence of Q. which was used for segmentation of the medical ontology GALEN (Rector & Rogers. then expands S with the symbols mentioned in these axioms. such that S contains all the symbols of Q. and S = {A}. Given a signature S and an ontology Q. 1999). the algorithm retrieves a fragment Q1 ⊆ Q as follows: ﬁrst. for the included concepts. 2004a. For our example in Section 3. A B}. which does not imply α. An example of such a procedure is the algorithm implemented in the Prompt-Factor tool (Noy & Musen. This ﬁeld is rather diverse and has roots in several communities. In general. 2003. Ontology Integration. however. B C} and α = (C B). and α is satisﬁed in every such a model. “intersection”. It is also not clear which axioms should be included in 309 . 2004b). that is. 2003). the Prompt-Factor algorithm extracts Q1 = {A B}.A). Another example is Seidenberg’s segmentation algorithm (Seidenberg & Rector. In this case. The authors discuss which concepts and roles should be included in the segment and which should not. all the remaining axioms of Q are retrieved. also “their restrictions”. Q |= α. the axioms in Q that mention any of the symbols in S are added to Q1 .

5. Parsia. such as safety testing. Such studies are beyond the scope of this paper. Cuenca Grau et al. In contrast to these works. The papers describing these modularization procedures do not attempt to formally specify the intended outputs of the procedures. & Honavar. and we establish a collection of reasoning services. including those containing “non-safe” axioms. & Sattler the segment in the end.html 310 . namely that the module QA should entail all the subsumptions in the original ontology between atomic concepts involving A and other atomic concepts in QA .edu/events/womo.. since the procedure talks only about the inclusion of concepts and roles. most of these proposals. for information see the homepage of the workshop http://www. 2006b). The growing interest in the notion of “modularity” in ontologies has been recently reﬂected in a workshop on modular ontologies5 held in conjunction with the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2006). the algorithm we present here works for any ontology. they do not take the semantics of the ontology languages into account. Module extraction in ontologies has also been investigated from a formal point of view (Cuenca Grau et al. to check for side-eﬀects. there have been various proposals for “safely” combining modules. In contrast. In particular.iastate. should not contain unsatisﬁable atomic concepts. What is common between the modularization procedures we have mentioned is the lack of a formal treatment for the notion of module. such as E-connections (Cuenca Grau.Cuenca Grau. 2004) consists of partitioning the concepts in an ontology to facilitate visualization of and navigation through an ontology. A diﬀerent approach to module extraction proposed in the literature (Stuckenschmidt & Klein. 2006) propose a specialized semantics for controlling the interaction between the importing and the imported modules to avoid side-eﬀects. The algorithm is intended as a visualization technique. The authors present an algorithm for partitioning an ontology into disjoint modules and proved that the algorithm is correct provided that certain safety requirements for the input ontology hold: the ontology should be consistent. Caragea. Horrocks. The paper imposes an additional requirement on modules. 2007). The algorithm uses a set of heuristics for measuring the degree of dependency between the concepts in the ontology and outputs a graphical representation of these dependencies. & Sirin. It might be possible to formalize these algorithms and identify ontologies for which the “intuitionbased” modularization procedures work correctly. Distributed Description Logics (Borgida & Seraﬁni. we assume here that reuse is performed by simply building the logical union of the axioms in the modules under the standard semantics. 2003) and Package-based Description Logics (Bao. 2006a). but rather argue what should be in the modules and what not based on intuitive notions. Kazakov. (2006) deﬁne a notion of a module QA in an ontology Q for an atomic concept A. One of the requirements for the module is that Q should be a conservative extension of QA (in the paper QA is called a logical module in Q). and should have only “safe” axioms (which in our terms means that they are local for the empty signature). Concerning the problem of ontology reuse. The interested reader can ﬁnd in the literature a detailed comparison between the diﬀerent approaches for combining ontologies (Cuenca Grau & Kutz. and does not establish a correspondence between the nodes of the graph and sets of axioms in the ontology.cild.

2003). 6. we report on our implementation in the ontology editor Swoop (Kalyanpur. & Hendler. / Note that these axioms simply indicate that the atomic concepts A. In this section by “module” we understand the result of the considered modularization procedures which may not necessarily be a module according to Deﬁnition 10 or 12 8.6 For all ontologies P that import an ontology Q.ac. we show that OA←∅ (·)-based modules are typically very small compared to both the size of the ontology and the modules extracted using other techniques. Tsarkov. we have implemented a syntactic loca˜ r←∅ ˜ r←∆×∆ lity checker for the locality classes OA←∅ (·) and OA←∆ (·) as well as the algorithm for extracting modules given in Figure 5 from Section 6. we were able to easily repair these non-localities as follows: we replace every occurrence of A in P with B and then remove this axiom from the ontology. From the 11 non-local ontologies. The library is available at http://www. but rather to give an idea of the typical size of the modules extracted from real ontologies by each of the algorithms. (2006). 2006). Indeed. Third.. A2: The segmentation algorithm proposed by Cuenca Grau et al. 2004) to which our framework does not yet apply. The aim of the experiments described in this section is not to provide a throughout comparison of the quality of existing modularization algorithms since each algorithm extracts “modules” according to its own requirements. all 4 non-local ontologies turned out to be local. It turned out that from the 96 ontologies in the library that import other ontologies. all but 11 were syntactically local for S (and hence also semantically local for S). For this purpose.1 Locality for Testing Safety ˜ r←∅ We have run our syntactic locality checker for the class OA←∅ (·) over the ontologies from a library of 300 ontologies of various sizes and complexity some of which import each other (Gardiner. ˜ r←∅ A3: Our modularisation algorithm (Algorithm 5). Sirin. After this transformation. & Horrocks. we compare three modularization7 algorithms that we have implemented using Manchester’s OWL API:8 A1: The Prompt-Factor algorithm (Noy & Musen. 7 are written in the OWL-Full species of OWL (Patel-Schneider et al. Parsia.man.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice 8. Cuenca Grau. ˜ r←∅ First. we check if P belongs to the locality class for S = Sig(P) ∩ Sig(Q).cs. we show that the locality class OA←∅ (·) provides a powerful suﬃciency test for ˜ r←∅ safety which works for many real-world ontologies.2 Extraction of Modules In this section. B in the two ontologies under consideration are synonyms. Second. 8. Implementation and Proof of Concept In this section. 8. we provide empirical evidence of the appropriateness of locality for safety testing and module extraction. http://sourceforge. based on the locality class OA←∅ (·). The remaining 4 non-localities are due to the presence of so-called mapping axioms of the form A ≡ B . 2006) and illustrate the ˜ r←∅ ˜ r←∆×∆ combination of the modularization procedures based on the classes OA←∅ (·) and OA←∆ (·).uk/~horrocks/testing/ 7.net/projects/owlapi 311 . where A ∈ S and B ∈ S.

312 . & Sattler (a) Modularization of (a) Modularization of NCINCI (b) Modularization of GALEN-Small (b) Modularization of GALEN-Small (c) Modularization of of SNOMED (c) Modularization SNOMED (d) Modularization of of GALEN-Full (d) Modularization GALEN-Full (e) Small modules GALEN-Full (e) Smallmodules of of GALEN-Full (f) Large modules GALEN-Full (f) Largemodules of of GALEN-Full Figure 6: Distribution for the sizes of syntactic locality-based modules: the X-Axis gives the number of concepts in the modules and the Y-Axis the number of modules extracted for each size range. Horrocks. Kazakov.Cuenca Grau.

org/prj_galen.3 Avg.mindswap.05 0. 11.gov/ontology/ 313 .11 and the SNOMED Ontology12 . it should give an idea of typical module sizes. we have included the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Ontology. in particular. which typically includes a fair amount of other concepts and roles. Max. even if it may not necessarily reﬂect an actual ontology reuse scenario. 12. In the case of GALEN. In this group. This ontology is almost 10 times smaller than the original GALEN-Full ontology.com/ http://www.84 100 0.05 0.loa-cnr.10 the Gene Ontology (GO).8 1.org/2003/CancerOntology/nciOncology.1 100 100 100 51. they do not contain GCIs.4 100 Avg. This group contains the well-known GALEN ontology (GALEN-Full). we took the set of its atomic concepts and extracted modules for every atomic concept.-based mod.8 100 0.(%) 30. 10.4 2 10 29.(%) 0.8 0.(%) 55 100 1 100 100 100 83. 15.openclinical. yet similar in structure.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice Ontology Atomic Concepts A1: Prompt-Factor Max.owl http://ontology. Since there is no benchmark for ontology modularization and only a few use cases are available. These ontologies are complex since they use many constructors from OWL DL and/or include a signiﬁcant number of GCIs. It is worth emphasizing here that our algorithm A3 does not just extract a module for the input atomic concept: the extracted fragment is also a module for its whole signature.7 3. http://www.5 0.teknowledge. there is no systematic way of evaluating modularization procedures.nasa.3 100 Avg. Therefore we have designed a simple experiment setup which.(%) 0.08 0.14 and NASA’s Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET)15 .1 100 100 100 88.6 100 1 100 100 100 96.html http://www. For each ontology. These ontologies are expressed in a simple ontology language and are of a simple structure.(%) 75. which we divided into two groups: Simple.org http://www.09 1.1 24. 13.org http://www. we have also considered a version GALEN-Small that has commonly been used as a benchmark for OWL reasoners.(%) 87. Complex. but only deﬁnitions.5 0.9 the SUMO Upper Ontology.jpl.6 NCI SNOMED GO SUMO GALEN-Small GALEN-Full SWEET DOLCE-Lite 27772 255318 22357 869 2749 24089 1816 499 Table 6: Comparison of Diﬀerent Modularization Algorithms As a test suite.snomed.13 the DOLCE upper ontology (DOLCE-Lite).9 37.html http://sweet. 14.7 100 A2: Segmentation Max. we have collected a set of well-known ontologies available on the Web. We compare the maximal and average sizes of the extracted modules.it/DOLCE.5 100 A3: Loc.geneontology. 9.

SWEET and DOLCE. DOLCE. we have a more detailed analysis of the modules for NCI. most of the modules we have obtained for these ontologies contain less than 40 atomic concepts. the X-axis represents the size ranges of the ob314 . in SNOMED. For NCI. GO and SUMO. and the average size of the modules is 1/10 of the size of the largest module. For example. the modules are even bigger—1/3 of the size of the ontology—which indicates that the dependencies between the diﬀerent concepts in the ontology are very strong and complicated.5% of the size of the ontology. even if large. For DOLCE. & Sattler ˜ r←∅ ˜ r←∆×∆ (a) Concepts DNA Sequence and (b) OA←∅ (S)-based module for (c) OA←∆ (S)-based module for Microanatomy in NCI DNA Sequence in NCI Micro Anatomy in the fragment 7b Figure 7: The Module Extraction Functionality in Swoop The results we have obtained are summarized in Table 6. Horrocks. In fact. we have obtained very small locality-based modules. GALEN and SNOMED. the largest module in GALEN-Small is 1/10 of the size of the ontology. For GALEN. the algorithms A1 and A2 retrieve the whole ontology as the module for each input signature. SNOMED. The SWEET ontology is an exception: even though the ontology uses most of the constructors available in OWL. SNOMED.Cuenca Grau. the locality-based modules are larger. the ontology is heavily underspeciﬁed. are simple in structure and logical expressivity. in particular. The table provides the size of the largest module and the average size of the modules obtained using each of these algorithms. the largest locality-based module obtained is approximately 0. In the table. as opposed to 1/200 in the case of SNOMED. This can be explained by the fact that these ontologies. Indeed. In contrast. Here. GALEN-Small and GALEN-Full. which yields small modules. In Figure 6. we can clearly see that locality-based modules are signiﬁcantly smaller than the ones obtained using the other methods. the modules we obtain using our algorithm are signiﬁcantly smaller than the size of the input ontology. in the case of SUMO. Kazakov.

but no medium-sized modules in-between. Thus this module can be seen as the “upper ontology” for A in O. The resulting module is shown in Figure 7b. 2006). Algorithm A2 extracts a fragment of the ontology that is a module for the input atomic concept and is additionally semantically separated from the rest of the ontology: no entailment between an atomic concept in the module and an atomic concept not in the module should hold in the original ontology. The considerable diﬀerences in the size of the modules extracted by algorithms A1 – A3 are due to the fact that these algorithms extract modules according to diﬀerent requirements. For SNOMED. If one wants to reﬁne the module by only including the information in the ontology necessary to ˜ r←∆×∆ entail the “path” from DNA Sequence to Micro Anatomy. for GALEN-Full. Since our algorithm is based on weaker requirements. in the end.. it is to be expected that it extracts smaller modules. Recall that. we have integrated our algorithm for extracting modules in the ontology editor Swoop (Kalyanpur et al. In contrast. at least. in Figure 6(e) we can see that the distribution for the “small” modules in GALEN-Full is smooth and much more similar to the one for the simpliﬁed version of GALEN. which. Algorithm A1 produces a fragment of the ontology that contains the input atomic concept and is syntactically separated from the rest of the axioms—that is. In order to explore the use of our results for ontology design and analysis.com/p/swoop/ 315 . This cycle does not occur in the simpliﬁed version of GALEN and thus we obtain a smooth distribution for that case. a OA←∅ (·)-based module for an atomic concept contains all necessary axioms for. all its (entailed) super-concepts in O. ˜ r←∅ as obtained in Swoop. The presence of this cycle can be spotted more clearly in Figure 6(f).google. according to Corollary 47.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice tained modules and the Y-axis the number of modules whose size is within the given range. is an anatomy kind. this module contains all the sub-concepts of Micro Anatomy in the previously extracted module. The tool can be downloaded at http://code. The user interface of Swoop allows for the selection of an input signature and the retrieval of the corresponding module. the fragment and the rest of the ontology have disjoint signatures. Figure 7 shows that this module contains only the concepts in the “path” from DNA Sequence to the top level concept Anatomy Kind. we can observe that the size of the modules follows a smooth distribution. By Corollary 47. In fact. one could extract the OA←∆ (·)based module for Micro Anatomy in the fragment 7b. This suggests that the knowledge in NCI about the particular concept DNA Sequence is very shallow in the sense that NCI only “knows” that a DNA Sequence is a macromolecular structure.16 Figure 7a shows the classiﬁcation of the concepts DNA Sequence and Microanatomy in ˜ r←∅ the NCI ontology. What is surprising is that the diﬀerence in the size of modules is so signiﬁcant. The plots thus give an idea of the distribution for the sizes of the diﬀerent modules. 16. NCI and GALEN-Small. This abrupt distribution indicates the presence of a big cycle of dependencies in the ontology. In contrast. the ﬁgure shows that there is a large number of modules of size in between 6515 and 6535 concepts. we have obtained a large number of small modules and a signiﬁcant number of very big ones. Figure 7b shows the minimal OA←∅ (·)-based module for DNA Sequence.

. We have dealt with these problems by deﬁning suﬃcient conditions for a solution to exist. 364–370. & Sirin. B. E. Modularity and web ontologies. A. Nardi. we would like to study other approximations which can produce small modules in complex ontologies like GALEN. Bao. We have introduced and studied the notion of a safety class. J.. (2006). AAAI. India. 2007) and the results obtained in Section 4. Gr¨del. In IJCAI-05. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge 316 . which characterizes any suﬃciency condition for safety of an ontology w. E. Hyderabad. and Applications. (2005). E. Horrocks. Modular ontology languages revisited. Sirin. 4 (1).Cuenca Grau. a signature. 2007. A logical framework for modularity of ontologies. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Web for Collaborative Knowledge Acquisition. P.r. & Honavar. D. Calvanese. Springer-Verlag.. India. L. J. Pushing the EL envelope. (2006a). (Eds.. L. I.. B. Kazakov. Y. January 2007. Parsia. 4273 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Y. J.. UK. pp.. B¨rger. F. we have used safety classes to extract modules from ontologies. A. B.. Cuenca Grau. Professional Book Center.. & Patel-Schneider... Scotland. July 30-August 5. E. Caragea..). & Kalyanpur. January 5. Distributed description logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. B. B. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2006). & Sattler 9. Conclusion In this paper. 2005. which can be computed in practice. Kazakov. we have shown that these problems are undecidable or algorithmically unsolvable for the logic underlying OWL DL. (2006b). 298– 304. GA. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory. Combining OWL ontologies using Econnections. Cambridge University Press. Cuenca Grau. U. Data Semantics. Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence. Using existing results (Lutz et al. pp.. Implementation. Edinburgh. (1997). S. F.. we have proposed a set of reasoning problems that are relevant for ontology reuse. pp. Web Sem. References Baader. 1.t. For future work. The Classical Decision Problem.. (2007). D. 153–184. In addition. (2003). Vol. 40–59. F.. 2006.. Baader. Perspectives o a of Mathematical Logic. On the semantics of linking and importing in modular ontologies. O. V. Parsia. D. USA. Horrocks. Cuenca Grau. Borgida. (2007). McGuinness. (2003). In IJCAI-07.. Hyderabad... We have established the relationships between these problems and studied their computability. November 5-9.. Second printing (Universitext) 2001. & Seraﬁni. & Sattler. and exploit modules to optimize ontology reasoning.. Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence. & Kutz. D. Brandt. Athens. Cuenca Grau. 72–86. B. C. & Gurevich. & Lutz.

In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW-2007). (2007). (2003). Alberta. M¨ller.. Gardiner. 33 (4). A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. Web Sem. Web Sem. F. Germany. a Noy. & Schorlemmer. (2006). ACM. B. Tsarkov.. N. Cuenca Grau. January 2007. D. 2006. AAAI.. B. Kalfoglou. Swoop: A web ontology editing browser. pp. C.. B. Banﬀ. Conservative extensions in the lightweight description logic EL. pp. 2006. Y.... 144–153. 453–459. June 2-5. 2007. & Sattler. I. Lake District. Cuenca Grau. CEUR-WS. Edinburgh. F. P. T. & Wolter. India..June 1. V.. 198–209. July 17-20. Lake District of the United Kingdom. Cuenca Grau. & Wolter. (2004a). (2003). Walther. F. Univesit¨t Karlsruhe (TH). Athens. 1–31. Horrocks. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence (IJCAI-07). D. UK. 317 . SIGMOD Record. Lutz. & Sattler.. Canada. 2006. (2006). A. Scotland. Parsia.. Horrocks. Description logic systems. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-21). Springer. 2007. I.. pp. 2006. November 5-9. I. 1 (1). In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2006). 189 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. (2005). O. pp. B. Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies. Vol. J. Germany. U. Springer.. & Hendler. 4 (2). Professional Book Center.. 448–453. 84–99. Lake District of the United Kingdom. AAAI Press. July 30-August 5. I. 187–197. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence (IJCAI-05). 7–26. Hyderabad. 717–726.. Windermere. Conservative extensions in expressive description logics. (2006). Horrocks. AAAI Press... Ontology mapping: The state of the art. 2005. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2006). 654–667. (2007). R. pp.. The Knowledge Engineering Review. Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches. Horrocks. F. Bremen.Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice Representation and Reasoning (KR-2006). Kazakov.. M. chap. C. B. (2006). 4603 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. & Wolter. Reasoning in Description Logics using Resolution and Deductive Databases. Will my ontologies ﬁt together?. 282–305.. Ph. (2006). Kalyanpur. 4273 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. J. & Haarslev. May 30 . E. C. U. (2007). UK. Patel-Schneider. GA. F. I. J. Lutz.. Framework for an automated comparison of description logic reasoners. June 2-5. Y. Sirin.D.. 18. Did I damage my ontology? a case for conservative extensions in description logics.. S. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-2006). pp. Motik. USA. In The Description Logic o Handbook. Kutz. pp. Lutz. Ghilardi. & van Harmelen. thesis. Karlsruhe. & Sattler. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. pp. May 8-12. 65–70. Vol. F.. Vol.org. A. Cambridge University Press. (2003). 8. & Horrocks. U.

104 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Intell. & Sattler Noy.. Sirin. A. 6 (59). F. B. Int.). (2004b). Res... (2004). 289–303. In Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006). P. Tobies. 292–297. Web ontology segmentation: analysis. G. (2006).. Hayes. 365–384. 2004). pp. Seattle. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. & Smolka. In IMIA WG6 Workshop. UK. Structure-based partitioning of large class hierarchies. Stuckenschmidt. A. In Proceedings of the Third International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2004). J. (1991). Tsarkov. L. & Klein.. Whistler. & Studer (Staab & Studer. 318 . & Parsia. 1–26. I. S. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW-2006). J. 2006. Handbook on Ontologies. 2004. & Studer. Journal of Human-Computer Studies. E. Tools for mapping and merging ontologies. M. USA. May 23-26. Web ontology language OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics. Edinburgh. British Columbia. (2003). W3C Recommendation. 3298 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Canada. August 17-20. & Horrocks. N. Ontological issues in using a description logic to represent medical concepts: Experience from GALEN. S. 13–22.. (2004). (2004). 2006. M. Artif. 199–217. CEUR-WS. Proceedings. H. 48 (1).org.. November 7-11. (Eds. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2004). (2000). N.. Schmidt-Schauß. classiﬁcation and use. The complexity of reasoning with cardinality restrictions and nominals in expressive description logics. & Rector.Cuenca Grau. 2004. Staab. FaCT++ description logic reasoner: System description. Noy. pp. Artiﬁcial Intelligence. I. Pellet system description. (JAIR). Horrocks. Elsevier. June 6-8. Rector.. 4130 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. pp. The PROMPT suite: Interactive tools for ontology mapping and merging. WA. P. In Staab. ACM. R. M. (2004). & Horrocks. Vol. J. Japan. & Rogers. 12. D. Elsevier. (1999). & Musen. pp. (2006). Seidenberg. Springer.. Kazakov. Vol. Vol. Hiroshima. Springer. Scotland. Patel-Schneider. Springer.

- Fanuc Lr Mate 200ic
- 17441476-John-Barrow-Chaos-in-Number-Land.pdf
- 17441476-John-Barrow-Chaos-in-Number-Land.pdf
- eula.rtf
- SanDisk_SecureAccess_QSG.pdf
- 6821.full.pdf
- 17441476-John-Barrow-Chaos-in-Number-Land.pdf
- barrow_autobio2_nov07.pdf
- 6821.full.pdf
- 126882283-Mechanical-Engineering-dictionary.pdf
- barrow_autobio2_nov07.pdf
- barrow_autobio2_nov07.pdf
- Barrow Autobio2 Nov07
- GeometrySuccessin20MinutesaDay3rdEdition
- Trigonometry Success in 20 Minutes a Day
- CalculusSuccessin20MinutesaDay2ndEdition
- CalculusSuccessin20MinutesaDay2ndEdition
- Colloquium Brief Cyber Infrastructure Protection 2011-12-19 SSI Article
- Five Hundred and Seven Mechanical Moveme
- Definitions of Racism
- Evolution
- Archimedes_5

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Betti.pdf
- Paper
- 10.1.1.33.4723
- Set 2
- Mouse (Set Theory)
- J. Baldwin and S. Shelah- The Primal Framework I
- Set Families 2
- Well Founded Relation
- Well Founded Ness
- Set 2_2
- Well Founded Ness
- Axiom of Global Choice
- 10.1.1.31
- Well Foundedness
- 3_Mereology
- Cps170 First Order Logic
- A Modularity Approach for a Fragment of ALC
- Axiom of Regularity
- Infinite Thought by Alain Badiou
- From Axiomatic Logic to Natural Deduction
- Dialectics of the fable
- 27
- Appendix
- Cps270 First Order Logic
- Gödel god
- Tzuchien Tho THE CONSISTENCY OF INCONSISTENCY
- Boo Lean
- onthology
- Sankhya Note
- DAVIS 1931 Discovery Review
- 10.1.1.114

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd