Queries, rules and definitions as epistemic sentences in concept languages | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Queries, rules and definitions as epistemic sentences in concept languages

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Foundations of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 810))

Abstract

Concept languages have been studied in order to give a formal account of the basic features of frame-based languages. The focus of research in concept languages was initially on the semantical reconstruction of frame-based systems and the computational complexity of reasoning. More recently, attention has been paid to the formalization of other aspects of frame-based languages, such as non-monotonic reasoning and procedural rules, which are necessary in order to bring concept languages closer to implemented systems. In this paper we discuss the above issues in the framework of concept languages enriched with an epistemic operator. In particular, we show that the epistemic operator both introduces novel features in the language, such as sophisticated query formulation and closed world reasoning, and makes it possible to provide a formal account for some aspects of the existing systems, such as rules and definitions, that cannot be characterized in a standard first-order framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baader, F. and Hollunder, B. Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms. In Proc. of the 3nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR-92, pages 306–317. Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brachman, R. J., Borgida, A., McGuinness, D. L., and Alperin Resnick, L. The CLASSIC knowledge representation system, or, KL-ONE: the next generation. Preprints of the Workshop on Formal Aspects of Semantic Networks, Two Harbors, Cal., 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brachman, R. J. and Levesque, H. J. The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In Proc. of the 4th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence AAAI-84, pages 34–37, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Buchheit, M., Donini, F. M., and Schaerf, A. Decidable reasoning in terminological knowledge representation systems. In Proc. of the 13th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-93, 1993. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., and Nutt, W. The complexity of concept languages. In Allen, J., Fikes, R., and Sandewall, E., editors, Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR-91, pages 151–162. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., and Nutt, W. Tractable concept languages. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-91, pages 458–463, Sidney, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Nutt, W., and Schaerf, A. 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 

  8. Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Nutt, W., and Schaerf, A. Adding epistemic operators to concept languages. Technical report, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1993. Forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., and Schaerf, A. A hybrid system integrating datalog and concept languages. In Proc. of the 2nd Italian Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, number 549 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1991. An extended version appeared also in the Working Notes of the AAAI Fall Symposium “Principles of Hybrid Reasoning”, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., and Schaerf, A. From subsumption to instance checking. Technical Report 15.92, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Doyle, J. and Patil, R. S. Two thesis of knowledge representation: Language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services. Artificial Intelligence, 48:261–297, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fikes, R. and Kehler, T. The role of frame-based representation in reasoning. Communications of the ACM, 28(9):904–920, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gelfond, M. and Przymusinska, H. Negation as failure: Careful closure procedure. Artificial Intelligence, 30:273–287, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Levesque, H. J. Foundations of a functional approach to knowledge representation. Artificial Intelligence, 23:155–212, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lifschitz, V. Nonmonotonic databases and epistemic queries. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-91, Sidney, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  16. MacGregor, R. A deductive pattern matcher. In Proc. of the 6th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence AAAI-88, pages 403–408, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  17. MacGregor, R. and Bates, R. The Loom knowledge representation language. Technical Report ISI/RS-87-188, University of Southern California, Information Science Institute, Marina del Rey, Cal., 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Minker, J. On indefinite data bases and the closed world assumption. In Conf. on Automated Deduction, LNCS 138, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nebel, B. Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nebel, B. Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable. Artificial Intelligence, 43:235–249, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nebel, B. Terminological cycles: Semantics and computational properties. In Sowa, J. F., editor, Principles of Semantic Networks, pages 331–361. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Quantz, J. and Kindermann, C. Implementation of the BACK system version 4. Technical Report KIT-Report 78, FB Informatik, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Quantz, J. and Royer, V. A preference semantics for defaults in terminological logics. In Proc. of the 3nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR-92, pages 294–305, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reiter, R. On closed world data bases. In Gallaire, H. and Minker, J., editors, Logic and Databases, pages 119–140. Plenum, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reiter, R. On asking what a database knows. In Lloyd, J. W., editor, Symposium on computational logics, pages 96–113. Springer-Verlag, ESPRIT Basic Research Action Series, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schaerf, A. On the complexity of the instance checking problem in concept languages with existential quantification. In Proc. of the 8th Int. Symp. on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems ISMIS-93, 1993. In press. Extended version to appear in Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schild, K. Towards a theory of frames and rules. Technical report, FB Informatik, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schmidt-Schauß, M. and Smolka, G. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Woods, W. A. Understanding subsumption and taxomony: A framework for progress. In Sowa, J., editor, Principles of Semantic Networks, pages 45–94. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yen, J., Neches, R., and MacGregor, R. CLASP: Integrating term subsumption sstems and production systems. IEEE trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 3(1):25–31, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Via Salaria 113, I-00198, Roma, Italy

    Francesco M. Donini, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi & Andrea Schaerf

  2. German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Werner Nutt

Authors
  1. Francesco M. Donini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maurizio Lenzerini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniele Nardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Werner Nutt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Schaerf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Gerhard Lakemeyer Bernhard Nebel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Nutt, W., Schaerf, A. (1994). Queries, rules and definitions as epistemic sentences in concept languages. In: Lakemeyer, G., Nebel, B. (eds) Foundations of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 810. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58107-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58107-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58107-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48453-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation