Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The F-logic approach for description languages

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Frame-logic (F-logic) approach of [20] is suggested as an underlying framework for description languages. F-logic is shown to provide a full account for description languages without losing the direct semantics and the descriptive nature. It can support such desirable features as high-order role fillers, collective entities, intensions, roles as first-class objects, andn-ary relationships. Yet, its semantics is first order. In an F-logic based description language, few description constructs are built in, and concepts, roles,and terminological operators are definable. The discussion of desirable features in descriptions is made possible within a single, uniform framework that also coherently integrates with logic programming and deductive, object-oriented database technology. Typical descriptive operators can be defined in the language, thereby yielding a flexible description language in which not all operators must be built in.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. F. Baader and B. Hollunder, Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms,KR-92 (1992) pp. 306–317.

  2. F. Baader, B. Hollunder, B. Nebel, H.J. Profitlich and E. Franconi, An empirical analysis of optimization techniques for terminological representation systems,KR-92 (1992) pp. 270–281.

  3. S. Bergamaschi, S. Lodi and C. Sartori, Representational extensions of DLs,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 11–13.

  4. A. Borgida, Towards the systematic development of description logic reasoners: Clasp reconstructed,KR-92 (1992) pp. 259–269.

  5. A. Borgida, R.J. Brachman, D.L. McGuinness and L.A. Resnick, CLASSIC: A structural data model for objects,ACM-SIGMOD-89, Portland, OR (1989).

  6. R.J. Brachman, D.L. McGuinness, P.F. Patel-Schneider, L.A. Resnick and A. Borgida, Living with CLASSIC: When and how to use a kl-one like language, in:Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge, ed. J. Sowa (Morgan Kaufmann, 1991) pp. 401–456.

  7. R.J. Brachman and H.J. Levesque, Competence in knowledge representation,AAAI-82, Pittsburgh, PA (1982) pp. 189–192.

  8. R.J. Brachman and H.J. Levesque, The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages,AAAI-84, Austin, TX (1984) pp. 34–37.

  9. R.J. Brachman and J.G. Schmolze, An overview of the kl-one knowledge representation system, Cognitive Sci. 9(1985)171–216.

    Google Scholar 

  10. W. Chen, M. Kifer and D.S. Warrn, HiLog: A foundation for higher-order logic programming, J. Logic Programm. 15(1993)187–230.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Doyle and R.S. Patil, Two theses of knowledge representation: Language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services, J. Artificial Intelligence 48(1991)261–297.

    Google Scholar 

  12. E. Franconi, Collective entities and relations in concept languages,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 31–35.

  13. M.W. Freeman, The qua link, in:Proc. 1981 KL-One Workshop, eds. J.G. Schmolze and R.J. Brachman (Bolt Beranek and Newman, Jackson, NH, 1981) pp. 54–64.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Gehrke, Particles of the part whole relation,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 36–38.

  15. P. Hanschke, How to benefit from terminological logics,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 45–48.

  16. P.J. Hayes, The logic of frames, in:Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, ed. D. Metzing (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1979) pp. 46–61.

    Google Scholar 

  17. B. Hollunder, W. Nutt and M. Schmidt-Schauß, Subsumption algorithms for concept description languages,ECAI-90 (1990) pp. 348–353.

  18. M. Kifer, W. Kim and Y. Sagiv, Querying object oriented databases,ACM-SIGMOD-92 (1992) pp. 393–402.

  19. M. Kifer and G. Lausen, F-logic: A higher-order language for reasoning about objects, inheritance, and schemes,SIGMOD-89.

  20. M. Kifer, G. Lausen and J. Wu, Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages, J. ACM 42(3)(1995).

  21. H.J. Levesque and R.J. Brachman, A fundamental tradeoff in knowledge representation and reasoning, in:Readings in Knowledge Representation, eds. R.J. Brachman and H.J. Levesque (Morgan Kaufmann, CA, 1985) pp. 41–70.

    Google Scholar 

  22. H.J. Levesque and R.J. Brachman, Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning, Comput. Intellig. 3(1987)78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  23. K.V. Luck, B. Nebel, C. Peltason and A. Schmiesel, The back system, Technical Report KIT Report 29, Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  24. K.V. Luck, B. Nebel, C. Peltason and A. Schmiesel, The anatomy of the back system, Technical Report KIT Report 41, Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  25. R. MacGregor, The evolving technology of classification-based knowledge representation systems, in:Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge, ed. J. Sowa (Morgan Kaufmann, 1991) pp. 385–400.

  26. R. MacGregor, Inside the loom description classifier, SIGART Bull. 2(1991)88–92.

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. MacGregor, What's needed to make a description logic a good kr citizen,Working Notes, AAAI Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 53–55.

  28. R. MacGregor, D. McGuinness, E. Mays and T. Russ (eds.),Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992).

  29. B. Mark, 10 years don's mean nothing,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 59–60.

  30. A. Napoli, Subsumption and classification-based reasoning in object-based representations,ECAI-92S (1992) pp. 425–429.

  31. B. Nebel, Computational complexity of terminological reasoning in back, J. Artificial Intelligence 34(1988)371–383.

    Google Scholar 

  32. B. Nebel, Reasoning and revision in hybrid representation systems, Dissertation, University of Saarlands, Saarbrücken (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  33. B. Nebel, Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable, J. Artificial Intelligence 43(1990)235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  34. B. Nebel, Terminological cycles: Semantics and computational properties, in:Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge, ed. J. Sowa (Morgan Kaufmann, 1991) pp. 331–361.

  35. L. Padgham and B. Nebel, Combining classification and nonmonotonic inheritance reasoning: A first step,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 64–71.

  36. P.F. Patel-Schneider, Small can be beautiful in knowledge representation,Proc. 1983 KL-ONE Workshop, Denver, CO.

  37. P.F. Patel-Schneider, Undecidability of subsumption in nikl, J. Atificial Intelligence 39(1989)263–272.

    Google Scholar 

  38. P.F. Patel-Schneider, Defaults and descriptions,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 72–73.

  39. P.F. Patel-Schneider, Partial reasoning in knowledge representation systems based on description logics,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 74–75.

  40. P.F. Patel-Schneider and B. Swartout, Description logic specification — from the krss effort, Technical Report, AT&T Bell Labs. (1993).

  41. A.B. Pfahringer, The logical way to build a DL-based kr system,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 76–77.

  42. J. Quantz, A step towards second order,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 78–82.

  43. J. Quantz and V. Royer, A preference semantics for defaults in terminological logics,KR-92 (1992) pp. 294–305.

  44. L.A. Resnick, A. Borgida, R.J. Brachman, D.L. McGuinness and P.F. Patel-Schneider, Classic description and reference manual for common LISP implementation, Version 1.02, Technical Report, AT&T Bell Labs. (1990).

  45. V. Royer and J. Quantz, Deriving inference rules for terminological logics, in:Logics in AI, JELIA '92, eds. D. Pearce and G. Wagner, Lecture Notes in Aritificial Intelligence 633 (Springer, Berlin, 1992) pp. 84–105.

    Google Scholar 

  46. M. Schmidt-Schauß, Subsumption in kl-one is undecidable,Proc. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, Ontario (1989) pp. 421–431.

  47. M. Schmidt-Schauß and G. Smolka, Attributive concept descriptions with complements, J. Artificial Intelligence 48(1991)1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  48. A. Schmiedel, For a more expressive query language,Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symp. on Issues in Description Logics (1992) pp. 98–102.

  49. J.G. Schmolze, Terminological knowledge representation systems supportingn-ary terms,Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, Ontario (1989) pp. 432–443.

  50. J.F. Sowa, Towards the expressive power of natural language, in:Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge, ed. J. Sowa (Morgan Kaufmann, 1991) pp. 157–190.

  51. W.A. Woods, Understanding subsumption and taxonomy: A framework for progress, in:Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge, ed. J. Sowa (Morgan Kaufmann, 1991) pp. 45–94.

  52. W.A. Woods and J.G. Schmolze, The kl-one family, Comp. Math. Appl., Special Issue on Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence (1992).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, 84105, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Mira Balaban

Authors
  1. Mira Balaban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Balaban, M. The F-logic approach for description languages. Ann Math Artif Intell 15, 19–60 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01535840

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01535840

Keywords

Search

Navigation