Towards complete answers in concept languages
In recent years, much attention has been given to conceptbased knowledge bases. In spite of the fact that there are several wellknown distinct problems, like consistency, coherence, subsumption, instantiation, realization and retrieval, they have been reduced to each other, whenever possible, in order to prove (in)tractability and (un)decidability results. Only for the first three problems, however, have efficient algorithms been studied. In particular, little attention has been given to the retrieval problem which computes the set of individuals that belong to a given concept in all models of the knowledge base.
Lenzerini and Schaerf studied the retrieval problem in [10, 11] and proposed using two concept languages: one for expressing the knowledge in the base and the other for making queries. However, their algorithm works by generate-and-test in the sense that it tests, for every individual i that occurs in the knowledge base, if a certain concept C(i) (built from those concepts of the knowledge base associated with i) subsumes a subconcept of the query. The authors show that their query-answering algorithm is complete and tractable.
Our paper describes a similar system, but differs from the work of Lenzerini and Schaerf in two important respects. First, our query-answering algorithm is syntax-directed rather than of the generate-and-test sort, hence more efficient. This point is important in connection with actual implementations of the system. Second, we can provide answers that may refer to individuals whose existence may be deduced but have no explicit representation in the knowledge base. Thus, our answers are more complete, hence more informative to the user. We prove that our algorithm is also complete and tractable.
KeywordsKnowledge representation concept languages query answering tractable reasoning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.F. Baader, H.-J. Bürckert, B. Hollunder, W. Nutt, J. Siekmann. Concept Logics. In Proc. Symposium on Computational Logic. J. W. Lloyd (ed.), ESPRIT Basic Research Series, DG XIII, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
- 2.F. Baader, B. Hollunder. KRIS: Knowledge Representation and Inference System. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3):8–14, 1991.Google Scholar
- 3.F. Baader, B. Hollunder. A Terminological Knowledge Representation System with Complete Inference Algorithms. Em Proc. International Workshop PDK'91, Kaiserslautern, H. Boley and M. M. Richter (eds.), LNAI 567, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
- 4.R. Brachman, R. Fikes, H. Levesque. KRYPTON: A Functional Approach to Knowledge Representation. In Readings in Knowledge Representation, R. Brachman and H. Levesque (eds.), Morgan Kaufmann, 1985.Google Scholar
- 5.F. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, B. Hollunder, W. Nutt, A. Spaccamela. The complexity of existential quantification in concept languages. Artificial Intelligence, 53(2–3):309–327, 1992.Google Scholar
- 6.F. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, W. Nutt. Tractable Concept Languages. In Proc. 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sidney, 1991.Google Scholar
- 7.B. Hollunder. Hybrid Inferences in KL-ONE-based Knowledge Representation Systems. DFKI Research Report RR-90-06, DFKI, Postfach 2080, D-6750 Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1990.Google Scholar
- 8.B. Hollunder, W. Nutt. Subsumption Algorithms for Concept Languages. DFKI Research Report RR-90-04, DFKI, Postfach 2080, D-6750 Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1990.Google Scholar
- 9.H. Levesque, R. Brachman. A Fundamental Tradeoff in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. In Readings in Knowledge Representation, R. Brachman and H. Levesque (eds.), Morgan Kaufmann, 1985.Google Scholar
- 10.M. Lenzerini, A. Schaerf. Concept Languages as Query Languages. In Proc. 9th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, 1991.Google Scholar
- 11.M. Lenzerini, A. Schaerf. Querying Concept-based Knowledge Bases. In Proc. International Workshop PDK'91, Kaiserslautern, H. Boley and M. M. Richter (eds.), LNAI 567, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
- 12.R. MacGregor. Inside the LOOM Description Classifier. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3):88–92, 1991.Google Scholar
- 13.M. Mamede, L. Monteiro. A Constraint-Based Language for Querying Taxonomic Systems. In Proc. 5th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence, P. Barahona, L. Moniz Pereira and A. Porto (eds.), LNAI 541, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
- 14.M. Mamede, L. Monteiro. A Constraint Logic Programming Scheme for Taxonomic Reasoning. In Logic Programming: Proc. Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, K. Apt (ed.), MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- 15.M. Mamede, L. Monteiro. Bases de Conhecimento Baseadas em Conceitos com Algoritmos de Resposta Completos e Tratáveis. Technical Report RT 11/92-DI/UNL, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 1992.Google Scholar
- 16.B. Nebel. Computational Complexity of Terminological Reasoning in BACK. Artificial Intelligence, 34(3):371–383, 1988.Google Scholar
- 17.B. Nebel. Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems. LNAI 422, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
- 18.P. F. Patel-Schneider. Undecidability of Subsumption in NIKL. Artificial Intelligence, 39(2):263–272, 1989.Google Scholar
- 19.P. Patel-Schneider, D. McGuinness, R. Brachman, L. Resnick, A. Borgida. The CLASSIC Knowledge Representation System: Guiding Principles and Implementation Rationale. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3):108–113, 1991.Google Scholar
- 20.C. Peltason. The BACK System — An Overview. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3):114–119, 1991.Google Scholar
- 21.A. Schaerf. On the Role of Subsumption Algorithms in Concept Languages. To appear in Proc. 7th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligence Systems, Trondheim, Norway, June 1993.Google Scholar
- 22.M. Schmidt-Schauß, G. Smolka. Attributive Concept Descriptions with Complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.Google Scholar