Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Avidan, G.: ¬A new framework for systematic analysis and classification of inconsistencies in multi-viewpoint ontologies (2021)
0.01
0.011551105 = product of:
0.02310221 = sum of:
0.02310221 = product of:
0.04620442 = sum of:
0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04620442 = score(doc=589,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 589, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=589)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Plurality of beliefs and theories in different knowledge domains calls for modelling multi-viewpoint ontologies and knowledge organization systems (KOS). A generic theoretical approach recently proposed for heterogeneity representation in KOS was linking each ontological statement to a specific validity scope to determine a set of conditions under which the statement is valid. However, the practical applicability of this approach has yet to be empirically assessed. In addition, there is still a need to investigate the types of inconsistencies that might arise in multi-viewpoint ontologies as well as their possible causes. This study proposes a new framework for systematic analysis and classification of inconsistencies in multi-viewpoint ontologies. The framework is based on eight generic logical structures of ontological statements. To test the validity of the proposed framework, two ontologies from different knowledge domains were examined. We found that only three of the eight structures led to inconsistencies in both ontologies, while the other two structures were always present in logically consistent statements. The study has practical implications for building diversified and personalized knowledge systems.
