Abstract

The new Web Ontology Language (OWL) and its Description Logic compatible sublanguage (OWL-DL) explicitly exclude defaults and exceptions, as do all logic based formalisms for ontologies. However, many biomedical applications appear to require default reasoning, at least if they are to be engineered in a maintainable way. Default reasoning has always been one of the great strengths of Frame systems such as Protege. Resolving this conflict requires analysis of the different uses for defaults and exceptions. In some cases, alternatives can be provided within the OWL framework; in others, it appears that hybrid reasoning about a knowledge base of contingent facts built around the core ontology is necessary. Trade-offs include both human factors and the scaling of computational performance. The analysis presented here is based on the OpenGALEN experience with large scale ontologies using a formalism, GRAIL, which explicitly incorporates constructs for hybrid reasoning, numerous experiments with OWL, and initial work on combining OWL and Protege.