Advertisement

Reasoning with individuals in concept languages

  • Andrea Schaerf
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 728)

Abstract

One of the main characteristics of knowledge representation systems based on the description of concepts is the clear distinction between terminological and assertional knowledge. Although this characteristic leads to several computational and representational advantages, it usually limits the expressive power of the system. For this reason, some attempts have been done, allowing for a limited form of amalgamation between the two components and a more complex interaction between them. In particular, one of these attempts is based on letting the individuals to be referenced in the concept expressions. This is generally performed by admitting a constructor for building a concept from a set of enumerated individuals. In this paper we investigate on the consequences of introducing this type of constructor in the concept description language and we provide some complexity results on it.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    F. Baader, H.-J. Bürkert, J. Heinson, B. Hollunder, J. Müller, B. Nebel, W. Nutt, and H.-J. Profitlich. Terminological knowledge representation: A proposal for a terminological logic. Technical Report TM-90-04, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz, Postfach 2080, D-6750 Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Baader and B. Hollunder. A terminological knowledge representation system with complete inference algorithm. In Proc. of the Workshop on Processing Declarative Knowledge, PDK-91, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Borgida, R. J. Brachman, D. L. McGuinness, and L. Alperin Resnick. CLASSIC: A structural data model for objects. In ACM SIGMOD, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Borgida and P. F. Patel-Schneider. A semantics and complete algorithm for subsumption in the CLASSIC description logic. Submitted for publication, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. J. Brachman and H. J. Levesque. The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In Proc. of the 4th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence AAAI-84, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. J. Brachman, D. L. McGuinness, P. F. Patel-Schneider, L. Alperin Resnick, and A. Borgida. Living with CLASSIC: when and how to use a KL-ONE-like language. In J. F. Sowa, editor, Principles of Semantic Networks, pages 401–456. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. M. Donini, B. Hollunder, M. Lenzerini, A. Marchetti Spaccamela, D. Nardi, and W. Nutt. The complexity of existential quantification in concept languages. Artificial Intelligence, 2–3:309–327, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and W. Nutt. The complexity of concept languages. In J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, editors, Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR-91, pages 151–162. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, W. Nutt, and A. Schaerf. Adding epistemic operators to concept languages. In Proc. of the 3nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR-92, pages 342–353, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, W. Nutt, and A. Schaerf. Adding epistemic operators to concept languages. Technical report, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1993. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and A. Schaerf. From subsumption to instance checking. Technical Report 15.92, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Lenzerini and A. Schaerf. Concept languages as query languages. In Proc. of the 9th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence AAAI-91, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Lenzerini and A. Schaerf. Querying concept-based knowledge bases. In Proc. of the Workshop on Processing Declarative Knowledge, PDK-91, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Nebel. Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Nebel. Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable. Artificial Intelligence, 43:235–249, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Patel-Schneider and B. Swartout. Working version (draft): Description logic specification from the krss effort. January 1993. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Quantz and C. Kindermann. Implementation of the BACK system version 4. Technical Report KIT-Report 78, FB Informatik, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Schaerf. Reasoning with individuals in concept languages. Technical report, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1993. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Schmidt-Schauß and G. Smolka. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Schaerf
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItalia

Personalised recommendations