@inproceedings{71e4310335214e33ac0ace46d18e4281,
title = "Explaining inconsistencies in OWL ontologies",
abstract = "Justifications play a central role as the basis for explaining entailments in OWL ontologies. While techniques for computing justifications for entailments in consistent ontologies are theoretically and practically well-understood, little is known about the practicalities of computing justifications for inconsistent ontologies. This is despite the fact that justifications are important for repairing inconsistent ontologies, and can be used as a basis for paraconsistent reasoning. This paper presents algorithms, optimisations, and experiments in this area. Surprisingly, it turns out that justifications for inconsistent ontologies are more {"}difficult{"} to compute and are often more {"}numerous{"} than justifications for entailments in consistent ontologies: whereas it is always possible to compute some justifications, it is often not possible to compute all justifications for real world inconsistent ontologies. {\textcopyright} 2009 Springer Berlin Heidelberg.",
author = "Matthew Horridge and Bijan Parsia and Ulrike Sattler",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-642-04388-8_11",
language = "English",
isbn = "3642043879",
volume = "5785",
series = "Lecture Notes in Computer Science",
publisher = "Springer Nature",
pages = "124--137",
booktitle = "Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)|Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.",
address = "United States",
note = "3rd International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, SUM 2009 ; Conference date: 01-07-2009",
}