Nonmonotonic Multi-Context Systems: A Flexible Approach for Integrating Heterogeneous Knowledge Sources

  • Gerhard Brewka
  • Thomas Eiter
  • Michael Fink

Abstract

In this paper we give an overview on multi-context systems (MCS) with a special focus on their recent nonmonotonic extensions. MCS provide a flexible, principled account of integrating heterogeneous knowledge sources. By a knowledge source we mean a knowledge base formulated in any of the typical knowledge representation languages, including classical logic, description logics, modal or temporal logics, but also nonmonotonic formalisms like logic programs under answer set semantics or default logic. We will motivate the need for such systems, describe what has been achieved in this area, but we also discuss work in progress and introduce generalizations of the existing framework which we consider useful.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bairakdar, S.E.-D., Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: Decomposition of distributed nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) [39]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bairakdar, S.E.-D., Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: The DMCS solver for distributed nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) [39]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M.: Logic programs with consistency-restoring rules. In: International Symposium on Logical Formalization of Commonsense Reasoning, AAAI 2003 Spring Symposium Series, pp. 9–18 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bao, J., Honovar, V.: Extension to support collaborative ontology building. In: Poster & Demonstration Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), page PID 37 (2004) (poster)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bögl, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Schüller, P.: The MCS-IE system for explaining inconsistency in multi-context systems. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) [39]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonanno, G., Delgrande, J.P., Lang, J., Rott, H.: Special issue on formal models of belief change in rational agents. J. Applied Logic 7(4), 363 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: Directed domain correspondences in federated information sources. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) CoopIS 2002, DOA 2002, and ODBASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2519, pp. 36–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: Cp-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J. Artif. Intell. Res (JAIR) 21, 135–191 (2004)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Equilibria in Heterogeneous Nonmonotonic Multi-Context Systems. In: AAAI 2007, pp. 385–390. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Argumentation context systems: A framework for abstract group argumentation. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brewka, G., Roelofsen, F., Serafini, L.: Contextual Default Reasoning. In: IJCAI 2007, pp. 268–273 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buccafurri, F., Caminiti, G.: Logic programming with social features. TPLP 8(5-6), 643–690 (2008)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buccafurri, F., Caminiti, G., Laurendi, R.: A logic language with stable model semantics for social reasoning. In: de la Banda, M.G., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 718–723. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caleiro, C., Sernadas, A., Sernadas, C.: Fibring logics: Past, present and future. In: Artëmov, S.N., Barringer, H., d’Avila Garcez, A.S., Lamb, L.C., Woods, J. (eds.) We Will Show Them! (1), pp. 363–388. College Publications (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: Distributed nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: Proceedings 12th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010), Toronto, Canada, May 9-13 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dell’Acqua, P., Pereira, L.M.: Preferring and updating in logic-based agents. In: Bartenstein, O., Geske, U., Hannebauer, M., Yoshie, O. (eds.) INAP 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2543, pp. 70–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dix, J.: A Classification-Theory of Semantics of Normal Logic Programs: II. Weak Properties. Fundamenta Informaticae XXII(3), 257–288 (1995)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drabent, W., Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Małuszyński, J.: Hybrid reasoning with rules and ontologies. In: Bry, F., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) Semantic Techniques for the Web. LNCS, vol. 5500, pp. 1–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eiter, T., Brewka, G., Dao-Tran, M., Fink, M., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T.: Combining nonmonotonic knowledge bases with external sources. In: Ghilardi, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) FroCoS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5749, pp. 18–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Schüller, P.: Approximations for explanations of inconsistency in partially known multi-context systems. In: Informal Proceedings Conference Thirty Years of Nonmonotonicty (NonMon30), Lexington, October 22-25 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Schüller, P., Weinzierl, A.: Finding explanations of inconsistency in multi-context systems. In: Proceedings 12th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010), Toronto, Canada, May 9-13 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Preference-based inconsistency assessment in multi-context systems. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) [39]Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Veith, H.: Modular logic programming and generalized quantifiers. In: Fuhrbach, U., Dix, J., Nerode, A. (eds.) LPNMR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1265, pp. 290–309. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining Answer Set Programming with Description Logics for the Semantic Web. Artificial Intelligence 172(12-13), 1495–1539 (2008); Preliminary version Tech.Rep. INFSYS RR-1843-07-04, Inst. Information Systems, TU Vienna (January 2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 90–96 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Recursive aggregates in disjunctive logic programs: Semantics and complexity. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 200–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Finin, T.W., Fritzson, R., McKay, D.P., McEntire, R.: Kqml as an agent communication language. In: CIKM, pp. 456–463. ACM, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). Fipa2000 agent specification (2000), http://www.fipa.org
  30. 30.
    Gabbay, D. (ed.): Fibring Logics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gelfond, M.: Answer sets. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, ch. 7, pp. 285–316. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: ICLP 1988, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and deductive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F.: Local models semantics, or contextual reasoning=locality+compatibility. Artif. Intell. 127(2), 221–259 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Giunchiglia, F.: Contextual reasoning. Epistemologia XVI, 345–364 (1993)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giunchiglia, F., Serafini, L.: Multilanguage hierarchical logics, or: How we can do without modal logics. Artificial Intelligence 65(1), 29–70 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hirayama, K., Yokoo, M.: The distributed breakout algorithms. Artif. Intell. 161(1-2), 89–115 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Homola, M.: Semantic Investigations in Distributed Ontologies. PhD thesis, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia (April 2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.): JELIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6341. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kutz, O., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: Connecting abstract description systems. In: Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D.L., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) KR, pp. 215–226. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a logic program. In: International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), pp. 23–37 (1994)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    McCarthy, J.: Generality in artificial intelligence. Commun. ACM 30(12), 1029–1035 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roelofsen, F., Serafini, L.: Minimal and absent information in contexts. In: Proc. IJCAI 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weiss, G. (ed.): Multiagent Systems. A Modern Approach to Distributed Artifical Intelligence. MIT-Press, Cambridge (2000) (2nd print)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2002); 2nd edn. (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zimmermann, A.: Integrated distributed description logics. In: Calvanese, D., Franconi, E., Haarslev, V., Lembo, D., Motik, B., Turhan, A.-Y., Tessaris, S. (eds.) Description Logics. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 250, CEUR-WS.org (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Brewka
    • 1
  • Thomas Eiter
    • 2
  • Michael Fink
    • 2
  1. 1.Universität LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations