A concept language extended with different kinds of transitive roles

  • Ulrike Sattler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1137)


Motivated by applications that demand for the adequate representation of part-whole relations, different possibilities of representing transitive relations in terminological knowledge representation systems axe investigated. A well-known concept language, ALC, is extended by three different kinds of transitive roles. It turns out that these extensions differ largely in expressiveness and computational complexity, hence this investigation gives insight into the diverse alternatives for the representation of transitive relations such as part-whole relations, family relations or partial orders in general.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [ACG+94]
    A. Artale, F. Cesarini, E. Grazzini, F. Pippolini, and G. Soda. Modelling composition in a terminological language environment. In Workshop Notes of the ECAI Workshop on Parts and Wholes: Conceptual Part-Whole Relations and Formal Mereology, pages 93–101, Amsterdam, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. [Baa9l]
    F. Baader. Augmenting concept languages by transitive closure of roles: An alternative to terminological cycles. In Proc. of IJCAI-91, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [DLNN91]
    F. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and W. Nutt. The complexity of concept languages. In Proc. of KR-91, Boston (USA), 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [DLNN95]
    F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and W. Nutt. The complexity of concept languages. Technical Report RR-95-07, DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Deutschland, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [FL79]
    M. J. Fischer and R. E. Ladner. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. of Computer and System Science, 18:194–211, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. [Fra94]
    E. Franconi. A treatment of plurals and plural quantifications based on a theory of collections. Minds and Machines, 3(4):453–474, November 1994.Google Scholar
  7. [HM92]
    J. Y. Halpern and Y. Moses. A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logic of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence, 54:319–379, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [HNS90]
    B. Hollunder, W. Nutt, and M. Schmidt-Schauss. Subsumption algorithms for concept description languages. In ECAI-90, Pitman Publishing, London, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [Lad77]
    R.E. Ladner. The computational complexity of provability in systems of modal propositional logic. SIAM J. of Computing, 6(3):467–480, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. [LB87]
    H. Levesque and R. J. Brachman. Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 3:78–93, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [Pri95]
    S. Pribbenow. Modeling physical objects: Reasoning about (different kinds of) parts. In Time, Space, and Movement Workshop 95, Bonas, France, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [Sch91]
    K. Schild. A correspondence theory for terminological logics: Preliminary report. In Proc. of IJCAI-91, pages 466–471, Sydney, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. [Sim87]
    P. M. Simons. Parts. A study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. [SS91]
    Manfred Schmidt-Schauß and Gert Smolka. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrike Sattler
    • 1
  1. 1.RWTH AachenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations