{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010494752623688156, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.608910891089109, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reasoning with Inconsistent Possibilistic Description Logics Ontologies with Disjunctive Assertions

We present a preliminary framework for reasoning with possibilistic description logics ontologies with disjunctive assertions (PoDLoDA ontologies for short). Given a PoDLoDA ontology, its terminological box is expressed in the description logic programming fragment but its assertional box allows four kinds of statements: an individual is a member of a concept, two individuals are related through a role, an individual is a member of the union of two or more concepts or two individuals are related through the union of two or more roles. Axioms and statements in PoDLoDA ontologies have a numerical certainty degree attached. A disjunctive assertion expresses a doubt respect to the membership of either individuals to union of concepts or pairs of individuals to the union of roles. Because PoDLoDA ontologies allow to represent incomplete and potentially inconsistent information, instance checking is addressed through an adaptation of Bodanza’s Suppositional Argumentation System that allows to reason with modus ponens and constructive dilemmas. We think that our approach will be of use for implementers of reasoning systems in the Semantic Web where uncertainty of membership of individuals to concepts or roles is present.