Iterated applications of belief change operators are essential for different scenarios such as that of ontology evolution where new information is not presented at once but only in piecemeal fashion within a sequence. I discuss iterated applications of so called reinterpretation operators that trace conflicts between ontologies back to the ambiguous of symbols and that provide conflict resolution strategies with bridging axioms. The discussion centers on adaptations of the classical iteration postulates according to Darwiche and Pearl. The main result of the paper is that reinterpretation operators fulfill the postulates for sequences containing only atomic triggers. For complex triggers, a fulfillment is not guaranteed and indeed there are different reasons for the different postulates why they should not be fulfilled in the particular scenario of ontology revision with well developed ontologies.
Ontologies provide a conceptualization of a domain of interest. Nowadays, they are typically represented in terms of Description Logics (DLs), and are seen as the key technology used to describe the semantics of information at various sites. The idea of using ontologies as a conceptual view over data repositories is becoming more and more popular, but for it to become widespread in standard applications, it is fundamental that the conceptual layer through which the underlying data layer is accessed does not introduce a significant overhead in dealing with the data. Based on these observations, in recent years a family of DLs, called DL-Lite, has been proposed, which is specifically tailored to capture basic ontology and conceptual data modeling languages, while keeping low complexity of reasoning and of answering complex queries, in particular when the complexity is measured w.r.t. the size of the data. In this article, we present a detailed account of the major results that have been achieved for the DL-Lite family. Specifically, we concentrate on @math , an expressive member of this family, present algorithms for reasoning and query answering over @math ontologies, and analyze their computational complexity. Such algorithms exploit the distinguishing feature of the logics in the DL-Lite family, namely that ontology reasoning and answering unions of conjunctive queries is first-order rewritable, i.e., it can be delegated to a relational database management system. We analyze also the effect of extending the logic with typical DL constructs, and show that for most such extensions, the nice computational properties of the DL-Lite family are lost. We address then the problem of accessing relational data sources through an ontology, and present a solution to the notorious impedance mismatch between the abstract objects in the ontology and the values appearing in data sources. The solution exploits suitable mappings that create the objects in the ontology from the appropriate values extracted from the data sources. Finally, we discuss the QUONTO system that implements all the above mentioned solutions and is wrapped by the DIG-QUONTO server, thus providing a standard DL reasoner for @math with extended functionality to access external data sources. Finding correct semantic correspondences between heterogeneous ontologies is one of the most challenging problems in the area of semantic web technologies. As manually constructing such mappings is not feasible in realistic scenarios, a number of automatic matching tools have been developed that propose mappings based on general heuristics. As these heuristics often produce incorrect results, a manual revision is inevitable in order to guarantee the quality of generated mappings. Experiences with benchmarking matching systems revealed that the manual revision of mappings is still a very difficult problem because it has to take the semantics of the ontologies as well as interactions between mappings into account. In this article, we propose methods for supporting human experts in the task of revising automatically created mappings. In particular, we present non-standard reasoning methods for detecting and propagating implications of expert decisions on the correctness of a mapping.  Ontology matching is one of the key research topics in the field of the Semantic Web. There are many matching systems that generate mappings between different ontologies either automatically or semi-automatically. However, the mappings generated by these systems may be inconsistent with the ontologies. Several approaches have been proposed to deal with the inconsistencies between mappings and ontologies. This problem is often called a mapping revision problem, as the ontologies are assumed to be correct, whereas the mappings are repaired when resolving the inconsistencies. In this paper, we first propose a conflict-based mapping revision operator and show that it can be characterized by two logical postulates adapted from some existing postulates for belief base revision. We then provide an algorithm for iterative mapping revision by using an ontology revision operator and show that this algorithm defines a conflict-based mapping revision operator. Three concrete ontology revision operators are given to instantiate the iterative algorithm, which result in three different mapping revision algorithms. We implement these algorithms and provide some preliminary but interesting evaluation results.