Advertisement

Representation and reasoning with attributive descriptions

  • Bernhard Nebel
  • Gert Smolka
II. On Sorts And Types In Knowledge Representation Including Qualitative Reasoning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 418)

Abstract

This paper surveys terminological representation languages and feature-based unification grammars pointing out the similarities and differences between these two families of attributive description formalisms. Emphasis is given to the logical foundations of these formalisms.

Keywords

Feature Graph Horn Clause Concept Description Feature Term Constraint Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    G. Abrett and M. H. Burstein. The KREME knowledge editing environment. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27(2):103–126, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. V. Aho, J. E. Hopcroft, and J. D. Ullman. The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1974.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    H. Aït-Kaci and R. Nasr. LOGIN: a logic programming language with built-in inheritance. The Journal of Logic Programming, 3:185–215, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Y. Arens, L. Miller, S. C. Shapiro, and N. K. Sondheimer. Automatic construction of user-interface displays. In Proceedings of the 7th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 808–813, Saint Paul, Minn., Aug. 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. W. Beck, S. K. Gala, and S. B. Navathe. Classification as a query processing technique in the CANDIDE semantic data model. In Proceedings of the International Data Engineering Conference, IEEE, pages 572–581, Los Angeles, Cal., Feb. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. J. Brachman, A. Borgida, D. L. McGuinness, and L. A. Resnick. The CLASSIC knowledge representation system, or, KL-ONE: the next generation. In Preprints of the Workshop on Formal Aspects of Semantic Networks, Two Harbors, Cal., Feb. 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. J. Brachman and H. J. Levesque. The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In Proceedings of the 4th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 34–37, Austin, Tex., Aug. 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. J. Brachman, V. Pigman Gilbert, and H. J. Levesque. An essential hybrid reasoning system: knowledge and symbol level accounts in KRYPTON. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 532–539, Los Angeles, Cal., Aug. 1985.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. J. Brachman and J. G. Schmolze. An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, 9(2):171–216, Apr. 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    T. W. Finin and D. Silverman. Interactive classification as a knowledge acquisition tool. In L. Kerschberg, editor, Expert Database Systems—Proceedings From the 1st International Workshop, pages 79–90, Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, Cal., 1986.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability—A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, San Francisco, Cal., 1979.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Höhfeld and G. Smolka. Definite Relations over Constraint Languages. LILOG Report 53, IBM Deutschland, Stuttgart, West Germany, Oct. 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Jaffar and J. Lassez. Constraint logic programming. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 111–119, ACM, Munich, West Germany, Jan. 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Johnson. Attribute-Value Logic and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes 16, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    T. S. Kaczmarek, R. Bates, and G. Robins. Recent developments in NIKL. In Proceedings of the 5th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 978–987, Philadelphia, Pa., Aug. 1986.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    P. C. Kanellakis and J. C. Mitchell. Polymorphic unification and ML typing. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 5–15, Jan. 1989.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R. Kaplan and J. Bresnan. Lexical-Functional Grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan, editor, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pages 173–381, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. T. Kasper and W. C. Rounds. A logical semantics for feature structures. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Columbia University, pages 257–265, New York, N.Y., 1986.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. Kay. Functional grammar. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, Cal., 1979.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Kay. Parsing in functional unification grammars. In D. Dowty and L. Karttunen, editors, Natural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Kay. Unification Grammar. Technical Report, Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, Cal., 1983.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    R. A. Kowalski. Algorithm = Logic + Control. Communications of the ACM, 22(7):424–436, 1979.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    H. J. Levesque and R. J. Brachman. Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 3:78–93, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. MacGregor and R. Bates. The Loom Knowledge Representation Language. Technical Report ISI/RS-87-188, University of Southern California, Information Science Institute, Marina del Rey, Cal., 1987.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    K. Mukai. Anadic Tuples in Prolog. Technical Report TR-239, ICOT, Tokyo, Japan, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    B. Nebel. Computational complexity of terminological reasoning in BACK. Artificial Intelligence, 34(3):371–383, Apr. 1988.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    B. Nebel. Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems. PhD thesis, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, West Germany, June 1989.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    B. Nebel. Terminological Reasoning is Inherently Intractable. IWBS Report, IWBS, IBM Deutschland, Stuttgart, West Germany, Aug. 1989. In prepration.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    B. Nebel and K. von Luck. Hybrid reasoning in BACK. In Z. W. Res and L. Saitta, editors, Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pages 260–269, North-Holland, Amsterdam, Holland, 1988.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    R. Neches, W. R. Swartout, and J. D. Moore. Explainable (and maintainable) expert systems. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 382–389, Los Angeles, Cal., Aug. 1985.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    B. Owsnicki-Klewe. Configuration as a consistency maintenance task. In W. Hoeppner, editor, GWAI-88. 12th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, pages 77–87, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, West Germany, 1988.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    P. F. Patel-Schneider. A four-valued semantics for terminological logics. Artificial Intelligence, 38(3):319–351, Apr. 1989.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    P. F. Patel-Schneider. Small can be beautiful in knowledge representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Principles of Knowledge-Based Systems, pages 11–16, Denver, Colo., 1984.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    P. F. Patel-Schneider. Undecidability of subsumption in NIKL. Artificial Intelligence, 39(2):263–272, June 1989.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    P. F. Patel-Schneider, R. J. Brachman, and H. J. Levesque. ARGON: knowledge representation meets information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications, pages 280–286, Denver, Col., 1984.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    F. Pereira. Grammars and logics of partial information. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 989–1013, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1987.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    F. Pereira and D. Warren. Definite clause grammars for language analysis—a survey of the formalism and a comparison with augmented transition networks. Artificial Intelligence, 13:231–278, 1980.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    C. Pollard and I. Sag. An Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes 13, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, 1987.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    W. Rounds and R. Kasper. A complete logical calculus for record structures representing linguistic information. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 38–43, Boston, Mass., 1986.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    W. C. Rounds and A. Manaster-Ramer. A logical version of functional grammar. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Stanford University, pages 89–96, Stanford, Cal., 1987.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    K. Schild. Undecidability of U. KIT Report 67, Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, West Germany, Oct. 1988.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    M. Schmidt-Schauß. Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable. In R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 421–431, Toronto, Ont., May 1989.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    M. Schmidt-Schauß and G. Smolka. Attributive Concept Descriptions with Unions and Complements. SEKI Report SR-88-21, Department of Computer Science, Universität Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, West Germany, Dec. 1988.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    S. M. Shieber. The design of a computer language for linguistic information. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 362–366, Stanford, Cal., 1984.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    S. M. Shieber. An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes 4, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, 1986.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    S. M. Shieber. Parsing and Type Inference for Natural and Computer Languages. Technical Note 460, SRI International, Artificial Intelligence Center, Menlo Park, Cal., March 1989.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    S. M. Shieber, H. Uszkoreit, F. Pereira, J. Robinson, and M. Tyson. The formalism and implementation of PATR-II. In J. Bresnan, editor, Research on Interactive Acquisition and Use of Knowledge, SRI International, Artificial Intelligence Center, Menlo Park, Cal., 1983.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    G. Smolka. A Feature Logic with Subsorts. LILOG Report 33, IBM Deutschland, Stuttgart, May 1988.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    N. K. Sondheimer and B. Nebel. A logical-form and knowledge-base design for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 5th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 612–618, Philadelphia, Pa., Aug. 1986.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    F. N. Tou, M. D. Williams, R. E. Fikes, A. Henderson, and T. Malone. RABBIT: an intelligent database assistant. In Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 314–318, Pittsburgh, Pa., Aug. 1982.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    M. B. Vilain. The restricted language architecture of a hybrid representation system. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 547–551, Los Angeles, Cal., Aug. 1985.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    W. A. Woods. What's important about knowledge representation. IEEE Computer, 16(10):22–29, Oct. 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Nebel
    • 1
  • Gert Smolka
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Deutschland, IWBSStuttgart 80West Germany

Personalised recommendations