Proof Explanation in the DR-DEVICE System

  • Nick Bassiliades
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Guido Governatori
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4524)

Abstract

Trust is a vital feature for the Semantic Web: If users (humans and agents) are to use and integrate system answers, they must trust them. Thus, systems should be able to explain their actions, sources, and beliefs, and this issue is the topic of the proof layer in the design of the Semantic Web. This paper presents the design of a system for proof explanation on the Semantic Web, based on defeasible reasoning. The basis of this work is the DR-DEVICE system that is extended to handle proofs. A critical aspect is the representation of proofs in an XML language, which is achieved by a RuleML language extension.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G., Bikakis, A.: DR-Prolog: A System for Defeasible Reasoning with Rules and Ontologies on the Semantic Web. IEEE Tran. on Knowledge and Data Engineering 19(2), 233–245 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., et al.: Proof Explanation for the Semantic Web Using Defeasible Logic.(submitted)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barwise, J., Etchemendy, J.: The Language of First-Order Logic. Center for the study of Language and Information (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: A Defeasible Logic Reasoner for the Semantic Web. Int. Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 2(1), 1–41 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bassiliades, N., Kontopoulos, E., Antoniou, G.: A Visual Environment for Developing Defeasible Rule Bases for the Semantic Web. In: Adi, A., Stoutenburg, S., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2005. LNCS, vol. 3791, pp. 172–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bassiliades, N., Vlahavas, I.: R-DEVICE: An Object-Oriented Knowledge Base System for RDF Metadata. Int. Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 2(2), 24–90 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL web ontology language reference, W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), www.w3.org/TR/ owl-ref/
  9. 9.
    Boley, H., Tabet, S.: The Rule Markup Initiative, www.ruleml.org
  10. 10.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: dlvhex: A System for Integrating Multiple Semantics in an Answer-Set Programming Framework. In: Proc. WLP2006, pp. 206–210 (2006) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosof, B.N.: Prioritized conflict handing for logic programs. In: Proc. of the 1997 Int. Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 197–211 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grosof, B.N., Gandhe, M.D., Finin, T.W.: SweetJess: Translating DAMLRuleML to JESS. In: Proc. RuleML (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic. In: In: Proc. 12th Intl. Conf. on the World Wide Web (WWW-2003), pp. 48–57. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Bechhofer, S., Tsarkov, D.: OWL Rules: A Proposal and Prototype Implementation. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 23–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G.: Visualizing Defeasible Logic Rules for the Semantic Web. In: Mizoguchi, R., Shi, Z., Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) ASWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4185, pp. 278–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levy, A., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining Horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence 104(1-2), 165–209 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maher, M.J.: A Model-Theoretic Semantics for Defeasible Logic. In: Proc. Workshop on Paraconsistent Computational Logic, pp. 67–80 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGuinness, D.L., Borgida, A.: Explaining Subsumption in Description Logics. In: Proc. IJCAI , pp. 816–821 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGuinness, D.L., da Silva, P.: Explaining answers from the Semantic Web: the Inference Web approach. Journal of Web Semantics 1(4), 397–413 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosati, R.: On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 41–60 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shortliffe, E.: Computer-based medical consultations: MYCIN. Elsevier, North-Holland (1976)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sintek, M., Decker, S.: TRIPLE - A Query, Inference, and Transformation Language for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. Int. Semantic Web Conference, pp. 364–378 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swartout, W., Paris, C., Moore, J.: Explanations in Knowledge Systems: Design for Explainable Expert Systems. IEEE Expert 6(3), 58–64 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wagner, G.: Web Rules Need Two Kinds of Negation. In: Bry, F., Henze, N., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) PPSWR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2901, pp. 33–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Bassiliades
    • 1
  • Grigoris Antoniou
    • 2
  • Guido Governatori
    • 3
  1. 1.Aristotle University of ThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.FORTH-ICS, Greece and University of CreteGreece
  3. 3.University of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations