4.7 Article

Representing ontologies using description logics, description graphs, and rules

期刊

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
卷 173, 期 14, 页码 1275-1309

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2009.06.003

关键词

Knowledge representation; Description logics; Structured objects; Ontologies

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/C543319/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/C543319/2] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Description logics (DLs) are a family of state-of-the-art knowledge representation languages, and their expressive power has been carefully crafted to provide useful knowledge modeling primitives while allowing for practically effective decision procedures for the basic reasoning problems. Recent experience with DLs, however, has shown that their expressivity is often insufficient to accurately describe structured objects-objects whose parts are interconnected in arbitrary, rather than tree-like ways. DL knowledge bases describing structured objects are therefore usually underconstrained, which precludes the entailment of certain consequences and causes performance problems during reasoning. To address this problem, we propose an extension of DL languages with description graphs-a knowledge modeling construct that can accurately describe objects with parts connected in arbitrary ways. Furthermore, to enable modeling the conditional aspects of structured objects, we also extend DLs with rules. We present an in-depth study of the computational properties of such a formalism. in particular, we first identify the sources of undecidability of the general, unrestricted formalism. Based on that analysis, we then investigate several restrictions of the general formalism that make reasoning decidable. We present practical evidence that such a logic can be used to model nontrivial structured objects. Finally, we present a practical decision procedure for our formalism, as well as tight complexity bounds. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据