Learning composite concepts in description logics: A first step

  • Patrick Lambrix
  • Jalal Maleki
Communications Session 1A Knowledge Representation
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1079)


This paper proposes the use of description logics as a representational framework for learning composite concepts. Description logics are restricted variants of first-order logic providing a form of logical bias that dates back to semantic networks. Some recent work investigates concept learning in the context of these formalisms. Also, having recognized the importance of part-whole hierarchies in commonsense reasoning, researchers have started to incorporate part-of reasoning into description logics. In our approach we represent composite concepts in such a formalism. On one hand we have a relatively rich representation language with an infinite space of possible concepts. On the other hand we have special constructs for handling part-of relations that can be used in the learning algorithm to reduce the overall search space.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J., McGuinness, D.L., Resnick, ‘CLASSIC: A Structural Data Model for Objects', Proceedings of SIGMOD 89, pp 59–67, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen, W., Borgida, A., Hirsh, H., ‘Computing Least Common Subsumers in Description Logics', Proceedings of AAAI 92, pp 754–760, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen, W., Hirsh, H., ‘Learning the CLASSIC Description Logic: Theoretical and Experimental Results', Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference — KR 94, pp 121–133, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen, W., Hirsh, H., ‘The Learnability of Description Logics with Equality Constraints', Machine Learning, Vol 17, pp 169–199, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donini, F., Era, A., ‘Most Specific Concepts Technique for Knowledge Bases with Incomplete Information', Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp 545–551, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franconi, E., ‘A Treatment of Plurals and Plural Qualifications based on a Theory of Collections', Minds and Machines, Vol 3(4), pp 453–474, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kietz, J.-U., Morik, K., ‘A Polynomial Approach to the Constructive Induction of Structural Knowledge', Machine Learning, Vol 14, pp 193–217, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell, T., ‘Generalization as Search', Artificial Intelligence, Vol 18(2), pp 203–226, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nebel, B., Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 422, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Padgham, L., Lambrix, P., ‘A Framework for Part-Of Hierarchies in Terminological Logics', Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference — KR 94, pp 485–496, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schaerf, A., ‘Which Semantics for Individuals in the Tbox?', Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics, pp 5–8, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Speel, P.-H., Patel-Schneider, P., ‘CLASSIC extended with physical whole-part relations', Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics, pp 45–50, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Lambrix
    • 1
  • Jalal Maleki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations