DOCSLIB.ORG

Practical Reasoning for Defeasible Description Logics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Practical Reasoning for Defeasible Description Logics PRACTICAL REASONING FOR DEFEASIBLE DESCRIPTION LOGICS by Kody Moodley Submitted in fulfilment of the academic requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa Supervisor: Prof. Thomas Meyer Co-Supervisors: Prof. Uli Sattler, Dr. Deshen Moodley November 2015 Preface The work reported on in this thesis was carried out at the Centre for Artifi- cial Intelligence Research and the CSIR Meraka Institute in Pretoria, South Africa, from August 2011 to December 2015, under the supervision of Pro- fessor Thomas Meyer and Dr Deshen Moodley. During the period from September 2013 to September 2014, the work was conducted at the Information Management Group of the department of Computer Science at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, under the supervision of Professor Uli Sattler. These studies represent original work by the author and have not otherwise been submitted in any form for any degree or diploma to any tertiary institu- tion. Whenever other researchers work is used, they are duly acknowledged in the text. Declaration 1 - Plagiarism I, , declare that: 1. The research reported in this dissertation, except where otherwise in- dicated, is my original research. 2. This dissertation has not been submitted for any degree or examination at any other university. 3. This dissertation does not contain other person’s data, pictures, graphs or other information, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other persons. 4. This dissertation does not contain other persons’ writing, unless specif- ically acknowledged as being sourced from other researchers. Where other written sources have been quoted, then: (a) Their words have been re-written but the general information at- tributed to them has been referenced (b) Where their exact words have been used, then their writing has been placed in italics and inside quotation marks, and referenced. 5. This dissertation does not contain text, graphics or tables copied and pasted from the Internet, unless specifically acknowledged, and the source being detailed in the dissertation and in the References section. Signed: Declaration 2 - Publications Below is a list of publications contributing towards the content of this thesis. 1. Meyer, T., Moodley, K. and Varzinczak, I. (2012) A Prot´eg´ePlug-in for Defeasible Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Twenty Fifth International Workshop on Description Logics (DL). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Volume 846, ISSN: 1613-0073. 2. Meyer, T., Moodley, K. and Varzinczak, I. (2012) A Defeasible Rea- soning Approach for Description Logic Ontologies. In Proceedings of the Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists (SAICSIT). p69- 78, ISBN: 978-1-4503-1308-7, ACM New York. 3. Casini, G., Meyer, T., Moodley, K. and Varzinczak, I. (2013). To- wards Practical Defeasible Reasoning for Description Logics. In Pro- ceedings of the Twenty Sixth International Workshop on Description Logics (DL). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Volume 1014, p587-599, ISSN: 1613-0073. 4. Casini, G., Meyer, T., Moodley, K. and Varzinczak, I. (2013). Non- monotonic Reasoning in Description Logics: Rational Closure for the ABox. In Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth International Workshop on Description Logics (DL). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Volume 1014, p600-615, ISSN: 1613-0073. 5. Casini, G., Meyer, T., Moodley, K. and Nortje, R. (2014). Relevant Closure: A New Form of Defeasible Reasoning for Description Log- ics. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Volume 8761, p92-106, ISBN: 978-3-319-11557-3, Springer In- ternational Publishing. 6. Meyer, T., Moodley, K. and Sattler, U. (2014). Practical Defeasible Reasoning for Description Logics. In Proceedings of The Seventh Euro- pean Starting AI Researcher Symposium (STAIRS). Volume 264, p191- 200, ISBN: 978-1-61499-420-6, IOS Press. 7. Meyer, T., Moodley, K. and Sattler, U. (2014). DIP: A Defeasible- Inference Platform for OWL Ontologies. In Proceedings of the Twenty Seventh International Workshop on Description Logics (DL). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Volume 1193, p671-683, ISSN: 1613-0073. 8. Casini, G., Meyer, T., Moodley, K., Sattler, U. and Varzinczak, I. (2015). Introducing Defeasibility into OWL Ontologies. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Volume 9367, p409-426, ISBN: 978-3- 319-25009-0, Springer International Publishing. I was the primary author for Publications 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 in which I contributed somewhat to the theoretical aspects but more heavily in practical implementation and evaluation of tools and algorithms. For publications 4 and 5, I was responsible for the implementation, experimental evaluation (and write-up thereof) of several algorithms central to the work. Signed: Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors Tommie Meyer, Uli Sattler and Deshen Moodley. I really could not have asked for better supervisors and they were each integral to completing this PhD. Thank you also to Giovanni Casini and Ivan Varzinczak for helpful discussions on my work. I am very grateful that, during my tenure at the University of Manchester, Uli and the students of the Information Management Group really went out of their way to make me feel welcome. In particular, I would like to thank Slava Sazonau, Liang Chang, Nico Matentzoglu and Jared Leo for keeping me sane and entertained while I conducted my research. Thank you to Nico for helping me with sourcing data for the empirical component of my work, and thanks also to Bijan Parsia for his useful comments on my experiments. Matthew Horridge was an inspiration to me on how to conduct practical research in my area and I am grateful to him for his example in this regard. Back in Pretoria, I would like to thank Marlene Jivan for all her help with handling various administration tasks relevant to this PhD, and Nishal Morar for keeping me company at the office while he did his Masters degree. Of course, this PhD could not have been completed without funding and I have been very fortunate to receive it in abundance from the National Research Foundation, the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, the CSIR Meraka Institute and the University of KwaZulu-Natal. I would particularly like to thank Quentin Williams from the CSIR Meraka Institute for his help with arranging funds for me. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their encouragement during my studies, and a very special appreciation goes to my wife Nicole for her unconditional love, understanding and support throughout this PhD - thanks for putting up with me. Contents List of Figures 11 List of Algorithms 15 Abstract 16 1 Introduction 17 1.1 Motivation . 18 1.2 Uncertainty vs. Exceptions in Knowledge Representation . 20 1.3 Goals . 20 1.4 Organisation of Thesis . 22 2 Background and Related Work 24 2.1 Description Logics (DLs) . 25 2.1.1 Syntax and Semantics . 26 2.1.2 Common Reasoning Problems . 30 2.1.3 Trade-off between Expressivity and Complexity . 38 2.2 The Web Ontology Language (OWL) . 44 2.3 Incomplete Knowledge . 45 2.3.1 Defeasibility . 46 2.3.2 Uncertainty . 46 2.3.3 Subjectivity or Relativity . 47 2.4 Circumscription . 47 2.4.1 Basic Circumscription . 47 7 CONTENTS 8 2.4.2 Prioritised Circumscription . 52 2.4.3 Grounded Circumscription . 54 2.4.4 Complexity Considerations . 55 2.4.5 Discussion . 56 2.5 Default Reasoning . 58 2.5.1 Basic Default Logic . 58 2.5.2 Defaults Embedded in Description Logics . 60 2.5.3 Discussion . 64 2.6 Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure (MKNF) . 65 2.6.1 DLs of MKNF . 66 2.6.2 Discussion . 69 2.7 Defeasible Logic . 70 2.7.1 Basic Defeasible Logic . 71 2.7.2 Combining Defeasible and Description Logics . 76 2.7.3 Discussion . 78 2.8 Preferential Reasoning . 79 2.8.1 Propositional Foundations . 80 2.8.2 Description Logic Foundations . 84 2.8.3 Rational Closure for Description Logics . 93 2.8.4 Rational Extensions of an ABox . 98 2.8.5 Discussion . 99 2.9 Overriding . 101 2.9.1 Discussion . 104 2.10 Summary and Discussion . 105 2.11 Notation and Conventions . 107 3 Requirements Analysis 108 3.1 Need for Defeasible Description Logics . 109 3.1.1 Dataset . 110 3.1.2 Experiment Setup . 111 3.1.3 Results and Discussion . 114 3.2 Inferential Character . 117 CONTENTS 9 3.2.1 Formal Properties . 118 3.2.2 Semi-Formal Properties . 124 3.3 Discussion . 128 4 Algorithms for Defeasible Reasoning 130 4.1 Exceptionality to Classical Entailment . 131 4.1.1 Disjoint Union of Ranked Interpretations . 131 4.1.2 Exceptionality in Terms of Unsatisfiability . 136 4.2 Ranking of a Defeasible Knowledge Base . 144 4.3 Rational Closure . 169 4.4 Lexicographic Closure . 180 4.4.1 Semantics . 181 4.4.2 Procedure . 186 4.4.3 Discussion . 201 4.5 Relevant Closure . 203 4.6 Optimisations . 222 4.7 Syntactic Sugar . 226 4.7.1 Defeasible Equivalence . 227 4.7.2 Defeasible Disjointness . 228 4.8 Discussion . 231 5 Inferences of Defeasible Reasoning 233 5.1 Preferential Algorithms . 233 5.2 Non-Preferential Algorithms . 239 5.2.1 Overriding . 240 5.2.2 Circumscription . 243 5.2.3 Default Reasoning . 250 5.3 Discussion . 254 6 Performance of Defeasible Reasoning 257 6.1 Artificial Data . 258 6.1.1 Data Generation Model . 258 CONTENTS 10 6.1.2 Experiment Setup . 270 6.1.3 Ranking Compilation Results . 274 6.1.4 Entailment Checking Results . 277 6.1.5 Discussion . 289 6.2 Modified Real World Data . 291 6.2.1 Data Curation Methodology . 292 6.2.2 Introducing Defeasibility into the Data .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schema.Org As a Description Logic
    Schema.org as a Description Logic Andre Hernich1, Carsten Lutz2, Ana Ozaki1 and Frank Wolter1 1University of Liverpool, UK 2University of Bremen, Germany fandre.hernich, anaozaki, [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Patel-Schneider [2014] develops an ontology language for Schema.org with a formal syntax and semantics that, apart Schema.org is an initiative by the major search en- from some details, can be regarded as a fragment of OWL DL. gine providers Bing, Google, Yahoo!, and Yandex that provides a collection of ontologies which web- In this paper, we abstract slightly further and view the masters can use to mark up their pages. Schema.org Schema.org ontology language as a DL, in line with the for- comes without a formal language definition and malization by Patel-Schneider. Thus, what Schema.org calls a without a clear semantics. We formalize the lan- type becomes a concept name and a property becomes a role guage of Schema.org as a Description Logic (DL) name. The main characteristics of the resulting ‘Schema.org and study the complexity of querying data using DL’ are that (i) the language is very restricted, allowing only (unions of) conjunctive queries in the presence of inclusions between concept and role names, domain and range ontologies formulated in this DL (from several per- restrictions, nominals, and datatypes; (ii) ranges and domains spectives). While querying is intractable in general, of roles can be restricted to disjunctions of concept names (pos- we identify various cases in which it is tractable and sibly mixed with datatypes in range restrictions) and nominals where queries are even rewritable into FO queries are used in ‘one-of enumerations’ which also constitute a form or datalog programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontologies and Description Logics
    Symbolic and structural models for image understanding Part II: Ontologies and description logics Jamal Atif - Isabelle Bloch - Céline Hudelot IJCAI 2016 1 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding Outline 1 What is an ontology ? 2 Ontologies for image understanding: overview 3 Description Logics 4 Description Logics for image understanding 5 Conclusion What is an ontology ? What is an ontology ? Example from F. Gandon, WIMMICS Team, INRIA What is the last document that you have read? Documents 3 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding What is an ontology ? Ontologies: Definition Ontology ethymology: ontos (being, that which is) + logos (science, study, theory) Philosophy Study of the nature of being, becoming and reality. Study of the basic categories of being and their relations. Computer Science Formal representation of a domain of discourse. Explicit specification of a conceptualization [Gruber 95]. Ref: [Guarino 09] 4 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding What is an ontology ? Ontologies: Definition ontology Formal, explicit (and shared) specification of a conceptualization [Gruber 95, Studer 98] Formal, explicit specification: a formal language is used to refer to the elements of the conceptualization, e.g. description logics Conceptualization: Objects, concepts and other entities and their relationships Concept Relation Denoted by: Denoted by: a name a name a meaning (intensional definition) an intension a set of denoted objects (extensional an extension definition) 5 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding What is an ontology ? The different types of ontologies According to their expressivity Source : [Uschold 04] 6 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations
    Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations Evan Patterson Department of Statistics, Stanford University Abstract We introduce the relational ontology log, or relational olog, a knowledge representation system based on the category of sets and relations. It is inspired by Spivak and Kent’s olog, a recent categorical framework for knowledge representation. Relational ologs interpolate between ologs and description logic, the dominant formalism for knowledge representation today. In this paper, we investigate relational ologs both for their own sake and to gain insight into the relationship between the algebraic and logical approaches to knowledge representation. On a practical level, we show by example that relational ologs have a friendly and intuitive—yet fully precise—graphical syntax, derived from the string diagrams of monoidal categories. We explain several other useful features of relational ologs not possessed by most description logics, such as a type system and a rich, flexible notion of instance data. In a more theoretical vein, we draw on categorical logic to show how relational ologs can be translated to and from logical theories in a fragment of first-order logic. Although we make extensive use of categorical language, this paper is designed to be self-contained and has considerable expository content. The only prerequisites are knowledge of first-order logic and the rudiments of category theory. 1. Introduction arXiv:1706.00526v2 [cs.AI] 1 Nov 2017 The representation of human knowledge in computable form is among the oldest and most fundamental problems of artificial intelligence. Several recent trends are stimulating continued research in the field of knowledge representation (KR).
    [Show full text]
  • THE DATA COMPLEXITY of DESCRIPTION LOGIC ONTOLOGIES in Recent Years, the Use of Ontologies to Access Instance Data Has Become In
    THE DATA COMPLEXITY OF DESCRIPTION LOGIC ONTOLOGIES CARSTEN LUTZ AND FRANK WOLTER University of Bremen, Germany e-mail address: [email protected] University of Liverpool e-mail address: [email protected] ABSTRACT. We analyze the data complexity of ontology-mediated querying where the ontologies are formulated in a description logic (DL) of the ALC family and queries are conjunctive queries, positive existential queries, or acyclic conjunctive queries. Our approach is non-uniform in the sense that we aim to understand the complexity of each single ontology instead of for all ontologies for- mulated in a certain language. While doing so, we quantify over the queries and are interested, for example, in the question whether all queries can be evaluated in polynomial time w.r.t. a given on- tology. Our results include a PTIME/CONP-dichotomy for ontologies of depth one in the description logic ALCFI, the same dichotomy for ALC- and ALCI-ontologies of unrestricted depth, and the non-existence of such a dichotomy for ALCF-ontologies. For the latter DL, we additionally show that it is undecidable whether a given ontology admits PTIME query evaluation. We also consider the connection between PTIME query evaluation and rewritability into (monadic) Datalog. 1. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the use of ontologies to access instance data has become increasingly popular [PLC+08, KZ14, BO15]. The general idea is that an ontology provides domain knowledge and an enriched vocabulary for querying, thus serving as an interface between the query and the data, and enabling the derivation of additional facts. In this emerging area, called ontology-mediated querying, it is a central research goal to identify ontology languages for which query evaluation scales to large amounts of instance data.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity of the Description Logic ALCM
    Proceedings, Fifteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2016) Complexity of the Description Logic ALCM Monica´ Martinez and Edelweis Rohrer Paula Severi Instituto de Computacion,´ Facultad de Ingenier´ıa, Department of Computer Science, Universidad de la Republica,´ Uruguay University of Leicester, England Abstract in ALCM can be used for a knowledge base in ALC. Details of our ExpTime algorithm for ALCM along with In this paper we show that the problem of deciding the consis- proofs of correctness and the complexity result can be found tency of a knowledge base in the Description Logic ALCM is ExpTime-complete. The M stands for meta-modelling as in (Martinez, Rohrer, and Severi 2015). defined by Motz, Rohrer and Severi. To show our main result, we define an ExpTime Tableau algorithm as an extension of 2 A Flexible Meta-modelling Approach an algorithm for ALC by Nguyen and Szalas. A knowledge base in ALCM contains an Mbox besides of a Tbox and an Abox. An Mbox is a set of equalities of the form 1 Introduction a =m A where a is an individual and A is a concept (Motz, The main motivation of the present work is to study the com- Rohrer, and Severi 2015). Figure 1 shows an example of two plexity of meta-modelling as defined in (Motz, Rohrer, and ontologies separated by a horizontal line, where concepts are Severi 2014; 2015). No study of complexity has been done denoted by large ovals and individuals by bullets. The two so far for this approach and we would like to analyse if it ontologies conceptualize the same entities at different lev- increases the complexity of a given description logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Description Logics
    Description Logics Franz Baader1, Ian Horrocks2, and Ulrike Sattler2 1 Institut f¨urTheoretische Informatik, TU Dresden, Germany [email protected] 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK {horrocks,sattler}@cs.man.ac.uk Summary. In this chapter, we explain what description logics are and why they make good ontology languages. In particular, we introduce the description logic SHIQ, which has formed the basis of several well-known ontology languages, in- cluding OWL. We argue that, without the last decade of basic research in description logics, this family of knowledge representation languages could not have played such an important rˆolein this context. Description logic reasoning can be used both during the design phase, in order to improve the quality of ontologies, and in the deployment phase, in order to exploit the rich structure of ontologies and ontology based information. We discuss the extensions to SHIQ that are required for languages such as OWL and, finally, we sketch how novel reasoning services can support building DL knowledge bases. 1 Introduction The aim of this section is to give a brief introduction to description logics, and to argue why they are well-suited as ontology languages. In the remainder of the chapter we will put some flesh on this skeleton by providing more technical details with respect to the theory of description logics, and their relationship to state of the art ontology languages. More detail on these and other matters related to description logics can be found in [6]. Ontologies There have been many attempts to define what constitutes an ontology, per- haps the best known (at least amongst computer scientists) being due to Gruber: “an ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualisation” [47].3 In this context, a conceptualisation means an abstract model of some aspect of the world, taking the form of a definition of the properties of important 3 This was later elaborated to “a formal specification of a shared conceptualisation” [21].
    [Show full text]
  • Description Logics—Basics, Applications, and More
    Description Logics|Basics, Applications, and More Ian Horrocks Information Management Group University of Manchester, UK Ulrike Sattler Teaching and Research Area for Theoretical Computer Science RWTH Aachen, Germany RWTH Aachen 1 Germany Overview of the Tutorial • History and Basics: Syntax, Semantics, ABoxes, Tboxes, Inference Problems and their interrelationship, and Relationship with other (logical) formalisms • Applications of DLs: ER-diagrams with i.com demo, ontologies, etc. including system demonstration • Reasoning Procedures: simple tableaux and why they work • Reasoning Procedures II: more complex tableaux, non-standard inference prob- lems • Complexity issues • Implementing/Optimising DL systems RWTH Aachen 2 Germany Description Logics • family of logic-based knowledge representation formalisms well-suited for the representation of and reasoning about ➠ terminological knowledge ➠ configurations ➠ ontologies ➠ database schemata { schema design, evolution, and query optimisation { source integration in heterogeneous databases/data warehouses { conceptual modelling of multidimensional aggregation ➠ : : : • descendents of semantics networks, frame-based systems, and KL-ONE • aka terminological KR systems, concept languages, etc. RWTH Aachen 3 Germany Architecture of a Standard DL System Knowledge Base I N Terminology F E I R Father = Man u 9 has child.>... N E T Human = Mammal. u Biped . N E Description C R E F Logic A Concrete Situation S C Y E John:Human u Father S John has child Bill . T . E M RWTH Aachen 4 Germany Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Logic-Based Technologies for Intelligent Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives
    information Article Logic-Based Technologies for Intelligent Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives Roberta Calegari 1,* , Giovanni Ciatto 2 , Enrico Denti 3 and Andrea Omicini 2 1 Alma AI—Alma Mater Research Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna, 40121 Bologna, Italy 2 Dipartimento di Informatica–Scienza e Ingegneria (DISI), Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna, 47522 Cesena, Italy; [email protected] (G.C.); [email protected] (A.O.) 3 Dipartimento di Informatica–Scienza e Ingegneria (DISI), Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 25 February 2020; Accepted: 18 March 2020; Published: 22 March 2020 Abstract: Together with the disruptive development of modern sub-symbolic approaches to artificial intelligence (AI), symbolic approaches to classical AI are re-gaining momentum, as more and more researchers exploit their potential to make AI more comprehensible, explainable, and therefore trustworthy. Since logic-based approaches lay at the core of symbolic AI, summarizing their state of the art is of paramount importance now more than ever, in order to identify trends, benefits, key features, gaps, and limitations of the techniques proposed so far, as well as to identify promising research perspectives. Along this line, this paper provides an overview of logic-based approaches and technologies by sketching their evolution and pointing out their main application areas. Future perspectives for exploitation of logic-based technologies are discussed as well, in order to identify those research fields that deserve more attention, considering the areas that already exploit logic-based approaches as well as those that are more likely to adopt logic-based approaches in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Representation and Ontologies Part 2: Description Logics
    Knowledge Representation and Ontologies Part 2: Description Logics Diego Calvanese Faculty of Computer Science Master of Science in Computer Science A.Y. 2011/2012 Computational complexity Introduction to DLs DLs and UML Class Diagrams References Part 2: Description Logics Part 2 Description Logics unibz.it D. Calvanese (FUB) Part 2: Description Logics KRO { 2011/2012 (1/95) Computational complexity Introduction to DLs DLs and UML Class Diagrams References Part 2: Description Logics Outline of Part 2 1 Brief introduction to computational complexity Basic definitions Hardness and completeness Most important complexity classes 2 Introduction to Description Logics Ingredients of Description Logics Description Logics ontologies Reasoning in Description Logics Relationship between DLs and other representation formalisms 3 Description Logics and UML Class Diagrams UML Class Diagrams as ontology formalisms Reducing reasoning in UML to reasoning in DLs Reducing reasoning in DLs to reasoning in UML Reasoning on UML Class Diagrams 4 References unibz.it D. Calvanese (FUB) Part 2: Description Logics KRO { 2011/2012 (2/95) Computational complexity Introduction to DLs DLs and UML Class Diagrams References Part 2: Description Logics Outline of Part 2 1 Brief introduction to computational complexity Basic definitions Hardness and completeness Most important complexity classes 2 Introduction to Description Logics 3 Description Logics and UML Class Diagrams 4 References unibz.it D. Calvanese (FUB) Part 2: Description Logics KRO { 2011/2012 (3/95) Computational complexity Introduction to DLs DLs and UML Class Diagrams References Basic definitions Part 2: Description Logics Outline of Part 2 1 Brief introduction to computational complexity Basic definitions Hardness and completeness Most important complexity classes 2 Introduction to Description Logics 3 Description Logics and UML Class Diagrams 4 References unibz.it D.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fuzzy Description Logic
    From: AAAI-98 Proceedings. Copyright © 1998, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. A Fuzzy Description Logic Umberto Straccia I.E.I - C.N.R. Via S. Maria, 46 I-56126 Pisa (PI) ITALY [email protected] Abstract is such a concept: we may say that an individual tom is an instance of the concept Tall only to a certain degree Description Logics (DLs, for short) allow reasoning n ∈ [0, 1] depending on tom’s height. about individuals and concepts, i.e. set of individuals with common properties. Typically, DLs are limited to Fuzzy logic directly deals with the notion of vague- dealing with crisp, well dened concepts. That is, con- ness and imprecision using fuzzy predicates. Therefore, cepts for which the problem whether an individual is it oers an appealing foundation for a generalisation of an instance of it is a yes/no question. More often than DLs in order to dealing with such vague concepts. not, the concepts encountered in the real world do not The aim of this work is to present a general fuzzy DL, have a precisely dened criteria of membership: we which combines fuzzy logic with DLs. In particular we may say that an individual is an instance of a concept will extend DLs by allowing expressions of the form only to a certain degree, depending on the individual’s hC(a) ni (n ∈ [0, 1]), e.g. hTall(tom) .7i, with intended properties. Concepts of this kind are rather vague than precise. As fuzzy logic directly deals with the notion of meaning “the membership degree of individual a being vagueness and imprecision, it oers an appealing foun- an instance of concept C is at least n”.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasoning in the Description Logic BEL Using Bayesian Networks
    Statistical Relational AI: Papers from the AAAI-14 Workshop Reasoning in the Description Logic BEL Using Bayesian Networks Ismail˙ Ilkan˙ Ceylan⇤ Rafael Penaloza˜ † Theoretical Computer Science Theoretical Computer Science, TU Dresden, Germany TU Dresden, Germany Center for Advancing Electronics Dresden [email protected] [email protected] Abstract 2 Proof Structures in EL is a light-weight DL that allows for polynomial-time rea- We study the problem of reasoning in the probabilistic De- EL scription Logic . Using a novel structure, we show that soning. It is based on concepts and roles, corresponding to probabilistic reasoningBEL in this logic can be reduced in poly- unary and binary predicates from first-order logic, respec- nomial time to standard inferences over a Bayesian network. tively. Formally, let NC and NR be disjoint sets of concept This reduction provides tight complexity bounds for proba- names and role names, respectively. concepts are defined bilistic reasoning in . through the syntactic rule C ::= A EL C C r.C, where BEL | > | u | 9 A NC and r NR. The2 semantics2 of is given in terms of an interpre- 1 Introduction EL tation =(∆I , I ) where ∆I is a non-empty domain Description Logics (DLs) (Baader et al. 2007) are a fam- I · and I is an interpretation function that maps every con- ily of knowledge representation formalisms tailored towards · cept name A to a set AI ∆I and every role name the representation of terminological knowledge in a formal ✓ r to a set of binary relations rI ∆I ∆I . The manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Probabilistic Description Logic Programs Q
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 45 (2007) 288–307 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijar Probabilistic description logic programs q Thomas Lukasiewicz * Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Universita` di Roma ‘‘La Sapienza’’, Via Salaria 113, 00198 Rome, Italy Received 11 January 2006; received in revised form 11 June 2006; accepted 30 June 2006 Available online 14 August 2006 Abstract Towards sophisticated representation and reasoning techniques that allow for probabilistic uncer- tainty in the Rules, Logic, and Proof layers of the Semantic Web, we present probabilistic descrip- tion logic programs (or pdl-programs), which are a combination of description logic programs (or dl-programs) under the answer set semantics and the well-founded semantics with Poole’s indepen- dent choice logic. We show that query processing in such pdl-programs can be reduced to computing all answer sets of dl-programs and solving linear optimization problems, and to computing the well- founded model of dl-programs, respectively. Moreover, we show that the answer set semantics of pdl-programs is a refinement of the well-founded semantics of pdl-programs. Furthermore, we also present an algorithm for query processing in the special case of stratified pdl-programs, which is based on a reduction to computing the canonical model of stratified dl-programs. Ó 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Normal program; Description logic; Probabilistic uncertainty; Independent choice logic; Stratified program; Answer set semantics; Well-founded semantics 1. Introduction The Semantic Web [5,14] aims at an extension of the current World Wide Web by stan- dards and technologies that help machines to understand the information on the Web so q This paper is a significantly revised and extended version of two papers that have appeared in Proceedings ECSQARU-2005 [31] and in Proceedings URSW-2005 [32].
    [Show full text]