Reasoning in Description Logics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Reasoning in Description Logics

on

  • 862 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
862
Views on SlideShare
862
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
37
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Reasoning in Description Logics  Reasoning in Description Logics Presentation Transcript

  • Rajendra AkerkarVestlandsforsking, Norway R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 1
  •  What is Description Logics ( ) p g (DL) Semantics of DL Basic Tableau Algorithm Advanced Tableau Algorithm R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 2
  •  g g A formal logic-based knowledge representation language ◦ “Description" about the world in terms of concepts (classes), roles ( ( l ) l (properties, relationships) and ti l ti hi ) d individuals (instances) Decidable fragments of FOL g Widely used in database (e.g., DL CLASSIC) and semantic web (e.g., OWL language) R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 3
  • Person include Man(Male) and Woman(Female), Woman(Female)A Man is not a WomanA Father is a Man who has ChildA Mother is a Woman who has ChildBoth Father and Mother are ParentGrandmother is a Mother of a ParentA Wife is a Woman and has a Husband( which as Man)A Mother Without Daughter is a Mother g whose all Child(ren) are not Women R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 4
  • 10:58:57 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 5
  •  Concepts (unary predicates/formulae with one free variable) ◦ E.g., Person, Father, Mother E P F th M th Roles (binary predicates/formulae with two free variables) ◦ E.g., hasChild, hasHudband Individual names (constants) ◦ E.g., Alice, Bob, Cindy Subsumption (relations between concepts) ◦ E.g. Female  Person Operators (for forming concepts and roles) ◦ And(Π) , Or(U), Not (¬) ◦ Universal qualifier ( Existent qualifier() ◦ Number restiction :     ◦ Inverse role (-), transitive role (+), Role hierarchy R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 6
  •  (Inverse Role) hasParent = hasChild- ◦ hasParent(Bob,Alice) -> hasChild(Alice, Bob) (Transitive Role)hasBrother ◦ h B h (B b D id) h B h (D id M k) hasBrother(Bob,David), hasBrother(David, Mack) -> hasBrother(Bob,Mack) (Role Hierarchy) hasMother  hasParent ◦ hasMother(Bob,Alice) -> hasParent(Bob, Alice) HappyFather  Father Π hasChild.Woman ppy Π hasChild.Man R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 7
  • Knowledge Base Tbox (schema) HappyFather  Person Π  ystem hasChild.Woman Π hasChild.Man face Inference Sy Interf Abox (data) Happy-Father(Bob) (Example taken from Ian Horrocks, U Manchester, UK) R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 8
  •  ALC: the smallest DL that is propositionally closed ◦ Constructors include booleans (and, or, not), Restrictions on role successors SHOIQ = OWL DL S=ALCR+: ALC with transitive role H = role hierarchy O = nomial .e.g WeekEnd = {Saturday, Sunday} I = Inverse role Q = qulified number restriction e.g. >=1 hasChild.Man hasChild Man  N = number restriction e.g. >=1 hasChild R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 9
  •  What is Description Logic ( ) p g (DL) Semantics of DL Basic Tableau Algorithm Advanced Tableau Algorithm R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 10
  • DL Ontology: is a set of terms and their gy relations Interpretation of a DL Ontology: A possible world ("model") that materializes the ontology Ontology: Student  People Student  Present Topic Present.Topic KR  Topic DL  KR10:58:57 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 11
  •  DL semantics defined by interpretations: I = (I, .I), where ◦ I is the domain (a non-empty set) ◦ .I is an interpretation function that maps:  Concept (class) name A -> subset AI of I  Role (property) name R -> binary relation RI over I  I di id l name i -> iI element of I Individual l t f Interpretation function .I tells us how to interpret atomic concepts, properties and individuals. p ,p p ◦ The semantics of concept forming operators is given by extending the interpretation function in an obvious way. R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 12
  •  I = (I, .I) I = {Raj, DL_Reasoning} PeopleI=StudentI={Raj} TopicI=KRI=DLI={DL_Reasoning} PresentI={(Raj, DL_Reasoning)}An interpretation that satisifies all axioms in an DLontology is also called a model of the ontology. R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 13
  • Description Logics Tutorial, Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler, ECAI-2002 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 14
  • Description Logics Tutorial, Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler, ECAI-2002 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 15
  •  What is Description Logic ( ) p g (DL) Semantics of DL Basic Tableau Algorithm Advanced Tableau Algorithm R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 16
  •  "Machine Understanding" g Find facts that are implicit in the ontology given explicitly stated facts ◦ Find what you know, but you dont know you know it - yet. Example ◦ A is father of B, B is father of C, then A is ancestor of C. ◦ D is mother of B, then D is female R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 17
  •  Knowledge is correct (captures intuitions) ◦ C subsumes D w.r.t. K iff for every model I of K, CI µ DI wrt K Knowledge is minimally redundant (no unintended synonyms) ◦ C is equivallent to D w.r.t. K iff for every model I of K, CI = DI Knowledge i meaningful ( l K l d is i f l (classes can h have instances) i t ) ◦ C is satisfiable w.r.t. K iff there exists some model I of K s.t. CI  ; Querying knowledge ◦ x is an instance of C w.r.t. K iff for every model I of K, xI  CI ◦ hx,yi is an instance of R w.r.t. K iff for, every model I of K, (xI,yI)  RI Knowledge base consistency ◦ A KB K is consistent iff there exists some model I of K R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 18
  • Many inference tasks can be reduced to subsumption reasoning Subsumption can be reduced to satisfiability p y10:58:57 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 19
  •  g Tableau Algorithm is the de facto standard reasoning algorithm used in DL Basic intuitions ◦ Reduces a reasoning problem to concept satisfiability problem ◦ Finds an interpretation that satisfies concepts in p p question. ◦ The interpretation is incrementally constructed as a "Tableau" Tableau R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 20
  •  given: Wife Woman, Woman Person question: if Wife Person Reasoning process ◦ T t if th Test there is a individual th t i a W i i di id l that is Woman b t not but t a Person, i.e. test the satisfiability of concept C0=(WifeΠ¬Person) ◦ C0(x) -> Wife(x), (¬Person)(x) ◦ Wife(x)->Woman(x) ◦W ( ) >P Woman(x) ->Person(x) ( ) ◦ Conflict! ◦ C0 is unsatisfiable, therefore Wife Person is true with the given ontology. R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 21
  •  Transform C into negation normal form(NNF), i.e. negation occurs only in front of concept i ti l i f t f t names. Denote the transformed expression as C0, the p algorithm starts with an ABox A0 = {C0(x0)}, and apply consistency-preserving transformation rules (tableaux expansion) to the ABox as far as possible. If one possible ABox is found, C0 is satisfiable. If not ABox is f f d d ll h h found under all search pathes, C0 is unsatisfiable. R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 22
  • R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 23
  • Clash R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 24
  •  An ABox is called complete if none of the expansion rules applies to it. An ABox is called consistent if no logic clash is found. l hi f d If any complete and consistent ABox is found, found the initial ABox A0 is satisfiable The expansion terminates, either when finds a complete and consistent ABox or ABox, try all search pathes ending with complete but inconsistent ABoxes. R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 25
  •  Embed the TBox in the initial ABox concept CD is equivalent T ¬C U D (T is the "top" concept. It imeans ¬C U D is the super concept f ANY concepts) t for t ) E.g. ◦ Given ontology: Mother  Woman Π Parent Parent, Woman  Person ◦ Query: Mother  Person y ◦ The intitial ABox is : ¬Mother U(Woman Π Parent) Π (¬Woman U Person) Π (Mother Π ¬Person) R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 26
  • Search R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 27
  •  Another explanation of tableaux algorithm is that it works on a finite completion tree whose ◦ i di id l i th t bl individuals in the tableau correspond t nodes d to d ◦ and whose interpretation of roles is taken from the edge labels. g R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 28
  •  Similar tableaux expansions can be designed for more expressive DL d i df i languages. A tableau algorithm has to meet three requirements ◦ Soundness: if a complete and clash-free ABox is found by the algorithm, the ABox must algorithm satisfies the initial concept C0. ◦ Completeness: if the initial concept C0 is satisfiable, the algorithm can always fi d an i fi bl h l ih l find complete and clash-free ABox ◦ Termination: the algorithm can terminate in finite steps with specific result. R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 29
  •  What is Description Logic ( ) p g (DL) Semantics of DL Basic Tableau Algorithm Advanced Tableau Algorithm R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 30
  •  Rich literatures in the past decade. Advanced techniques ◦ Blocking (Subset Blocking, Pair Locking, Dynamic Blocking) ◦ For more expressive languages: number restriction, inverse role, transitive role, nomial, data type ◦ Detailed analysis of complexities. R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 31
  • SHIQ Expansion Rules R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 32
  •  F. Baader, W. Nutt. Basic Description Logics. In the Description Logic Handbook, edited by F Baader, D. Calvanese, D.L. Handbook F. Baader D Calvanese D L McGuinness, D. Nardi, P.F. Patel-Schneider, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pages 47-100. Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. Description Logics Tutorial, ECAI-2002, Lyon, France, July 23rd, 2002. Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), 2005. I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. A description logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(3):385-410, 1999. R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 33