Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Vestlandsforsking, Norway
10:58:57 1 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
What is Description Logics (DL) p g ( )
Semantics of DL
Basic Tableau Algorithm
Advanced Tableau Algorithm
10:58:57 2 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
A formal logicbased knowledge g g
representation language
◦ “Description" about the world in terms of concepts
( l ) l ( ti l ti hi ) d (classes), roles (properties, relationships) and
individuals (instances)
Decidable fragments of FOL g
Widely used in database (e.g., DL CLASSIC)
and semantic web (e.g., OWL language)
10:58:57 3 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Person include Man(Male) and
Woman(Female) Woman(Female),
A Man is not a Woman
A Father is a Man who has Child A Father is a Man who has Child
A Mother is a Woman who has Child
Both Father and Mother are Parent Both Father and Mother are Parent
Grandmother is a Mother of a Parent
A Wife is a Woman and has a Husband( 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
10:58:57 4 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
10:58:57 5 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Concepts (unary predicates/formulae with one free variable)
E P F th M th ◦ E.g., Person, Father, Mother
Roles (binary predicates/formulae with two free variables)
◦ E.g., hasChild, hasHudband
Individual names (constants) 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 : s > = Number restiction : s, >, =
◦ Inverse role (

), transitive role (
+
), Role hierarchy
10:58:57 6 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
(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 (Role Hierarchy) hasMother _ hasParent
◦ hasMother(Bob,Alice) > hasParent(Bob, Alice)
HappyFather _ Father Π >1 hasChild.Woman ppy _
Π >1 hasChild.Man
10:58:57 7 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Knowledge Base
Tbox (schema)
HappyFather _ Person Π >1
hasChild.Woman Π >1 hasChild.Man
y
s
t
e
m
f
a
c
e
Abox (data)
r
e
n
c
e
S
y
I
n
t
e
r
f
Happy  Fat her ( Bob)
I
n
f
e
(Example taken from Ian Horrocks, U Manchester, UK)
10:58:57 8 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
ALC: the smallest DL that is propositionally
closed 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
10:58:57 9 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
What is Description Logic (DL) p g ( )
Semantics of DL
Basic Tableau Algorithm
Advanced Tableau Algorithm
10:58:57 10 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
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 Student _ Present.Topic
KR _ Topic
DL _ KR
10:58:57 11 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
DL semantics defined by interpretations: I = (A
I
, .
I
),
where
◦ A
I
is the domain (a nonempty set)
◦
.I
is an interpretation function that maps: is an interpretation function that maps:
Concept (class) name A > subset A
I
of A
I
Role (property) name R > binary relation R
I
over A
I
I di id l i i
I
l t f A
I
Individual name i > i
I
element of A
I
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.
10:58:57 12 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
I = (A
I
, .
I
)
A
I
= {Raj, DL_Reasoning}
People
I
=Student
I
={Raj}
Topic
I
=KR
I
=DL
I
={DL_Reasoning}
Present
I
={(Raj, DL_Reasoning)}
An interpretation that satisifies all axioms in an DL
ontology is also called a model of the ontology.
10:58:57 13 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Description Logics Tutorial, Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler, ECAI2002
10:58:57 14 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Description Logics Tutorial, Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler, ECAI2002
10:58:57 15 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
What is Description Logic (DL) p g ( )
Semantics of DL
Basic Tableau Algorithm
Advanced Tableau Algorithm
10:58:57 16 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
"Machine Understanding" g
Find facts that are implicit in the ontology
given explicitly stated facts
◦ Find what you know, but you don't know you know
it  yet.
Example 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
10:58:57 17 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Knowledge is correct (captures intuitions)
C subsumes D w r t K iff for every model I of K C
I
µ D
I
◦ C subsumes D w.r.t. K iff for every model I of K, C
I
µ D
I
Knowledge is minimally redundant (no unintended synonyms)
◦ C is equivallent to D w.r.t. K iff for every model I of K, C
I
= D
I
K l d i i f l ( l h i t ) Knowledge is meaningful (classes can have instances)
◦ C is satisfiable w.r.t. K iff there exists some model I of K s.t. C
I
=
C;
Querying knowledge Querying knowledge
◦ x is an instance of C w.r.t. K iff for every model I of K, x
I
e C
I
◦ hx,yi is an instance of R w.r.t. K iff for, every model I of K, (x
I
,y
I
) e
R
I
R
Knowledge base consistency
◦ A KB K is consistent iff there exists some model I of K
10:58:57 18 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Many inference tasks can be reduced to subsumption Many inference tasks can be reduced to subsumption
reasoning
Subsumption can be reduced to satisfiability p y
10:58:57 19 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Tableau Algorithm is the de facto standard g
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
10:58:57 20 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
given: Wife_ Woman, Woman_ Person
question: if Wife_ Person
Reasoning process
T t if th i i di id l th t i W b t t ◦ Test if there is a individual that is a Woman but not
a Person, i.e. test the satisfiability of concept
C
0
=(WifeΠ¬Person)
0
◦ C
0
(x) > Wife(x), (¬Person)(x)
◦ Wife(x)>Woman(x)
W ( ) >P ( ) ◦ Woman(x) >Person(x)
◦ Conflict!
◦ C
0
is unsatisfiable, therefore Wife_ Person is true C
0
is unsatisfiable, therefore Wife_ Person is true
with the given ontology.
10:58:57 21 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Transform C into negation normal form(NNF),
i ti l i f t f t i.e. negation occurs only in front of concept
names.
Denote the transformed expression as C
0
, the p
0
,
algorithm starts with an ABox A
0
= {C
0
(x
0
)}, and
apply consistencypreserving transformation
rules (tableaux expansion) to the ABox as far rules (tableaux expansion) to the ABox as far
as possible.
If one possible ABox is found, C
0
is satisfiable.
f f d d ll h h If not ABox is found under all search pathes,
C
0
is unsatisfiable.
10:58:57 22 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
10:58:57 23 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Clash Clash
10:58:57 24 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
An ABox is called complete if none of the
expansion rules applies to it.
An ABox is called consistent if no logic
l h i f d clash is found.
If any complete and consistent ABox is
found the initial ABox A is satisfiable found, the initial ABox A
0
is satisfiable
The expansion terminates, either when
finds a complete and consistent ABox or finds a complete and consistent ABox, or
try all search pathes ending with complete
but inconsistent ABoxes.
10:58:57 25 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
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
t f ANY t ) concept for ANY concepts)
E.g.
Given ontology: Mother Woman Π Parent ◦ Given ontology: Mother _ Woman Π Parent,
Woman _ Person
◦ Query: Mother _ Person y
◦ The intitial ABox is : ¬Mother U(Woman Π Parent)
Π (¬Woman U Person) Π (Mother Π ¬Person)
10:58:57 26 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Search
10:58:57 27 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Another explanation of tableaux algorithm
is that it works on a finite completion tree
whose
i di id l i th t bl d t d ◦ individuals in the tableau correspond to nodes
◦ and whose interpretation of roles is taken from
the edge labels. g
10:58:57 28 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Similar tableaux expansions can be
d i d f i DL designed for more expressive DL
languages.
A tableau algorithm has to meet three A tableau algorithm has to meet three
requirements
◦ Soundness: if a complete and clashfree ABox
is found by the algorithm the ABox must is found by the algorithm, the ABox must
satisfies the initial concept C
0
.
◦ Completeness: if the initial concept C
0
is
i fi bl h l i h l fi d satisfiable, the algorithm can always find an
complete and clashfree ABox
◦ Termination: the algorithm can terminate in
finite steps with specific result.
10:58:57 29 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
What is Description Logic (DL) p g ( )
Semantics of DL
Basic Tableau Algorithm
Advanced Tableau Algorithm
10:58:57 30 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
Rich literatures in the past decade.
Advanced techniques
◦ Blocking (Subset Blocking, Pair Locking, Dynamic
Blocking) Blocking)
◦ For more expressive languages: number
restriction, inverse role, transitive role, nomial,
data type
◦ Detailed analysis of complexities.
10:58:57 31 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
SHIQ Expansion Rules
10:58:57 32 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
F. Baader, W. Nutt. Basic Description Logics. In the Description
Logic Handbook edited by F Baader D Calvanese D L Logic Handbook, edited by F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D.L.
McGuinness, D. Nardi, P.F. PatelSchneider, Cambridge
University Press, 2002, pages 47100.
Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. Description Logics Tutorial, Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. Description Logics Tutorial,
ECAI2002, 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):385410, 1999.
10:58:57 33 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
p g What is Description Logics ( ) (DL) Semantics of DL Basic Tableau Algorithm Advanced Tableau Algorithm
R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
10:58:57
2
g g A formal logicbased knowledge representation language
◦ “Description" about the world
Decidable fragments of FOL g Widely used in database (e.g., DL CLASSIC) and semantic web (e.g., OWL language)
in terms of concepts (classes), roles ( ( l ) l (properties, relationships) and ti l ti hi ) d individuals (instances)
R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL
10:58:57
3
Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 4 .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.
10:58:57 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 5 .
g. transitive role (+). Mother E P F th M th And(Π) .g. Not (¬) Universal qualifier ( Existent qualifier() Number restiction : Inverse role (). Female Person Operators (for forming concepts and roles) ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ E. Or(U). Concepts (unary predicates/formulae with one free variable) Roles (binary predicates/formulae with two free variables) Individual names (constants) Subsumption (relations between concepts) ◦ E. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 6 . Cindy ◦ E.g. Role hierarchy R. Bob... Father. Alice. hasHudband ◦ E. Person.g. hasChild..
Alice) > hasChild(Alice.Man R.David).Mack) ◦ hasMother(Bob. Mack) > hasBrother(Bob. Bob) ◦ h B h (B b D id) h B h (D id M k) hasBrother(Bob. hasBrother(David. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 7 . (Inverse Role) hasParent = hasChild(Transitive Role)hasBrother ◦ hasParent(Bob. Alice) (Role Hierarchy) hasMother hasParent HappyFather Father Π hasChild.Woman ppy Π hasChild.Alice) > hasParent(Bob.
U Manchester.Man Abox (data) HappyFather(Bob) (Example taken from Ian Horrocks.Knowledge Base Tbox (schema) Inference Sy ystem Interf face HappyFather Person Π hasChild. UK) R.Woman Π hasChild. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 8 .
g WeekEnd = {Saturday.g.g. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 9 . >=1 hasChild R. ALC: the smallest DL that is propositionally closed ◦ Constructors include booleans (and. not).Man hasChild Man N = number restriction e. or. Sunday} Q = qulified number restriction e.e. >=1 hasChild. Restrictions on role successors SHOIQ = OWL DL S=ALCR+: ALC with transitive role H = role hierarchy I = Inverse role O = nomial .
p g (DL) What is Description Logic ( ) Semantics of DL Basic Tableau Algorithm Advanced Tableau Algorithm R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 10 .
Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 11 .Topic KR Topic DL KR 10:58:57 R.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.
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 . R.I). .p p ◦ The semantics of concept forming operators is given by extending the interpretation function in an obvious way. p . DL semantics defined by interpretations: I = (I. properties and individuals. where ◦ I is the domain (a nonempty set) ◦ .I tells us how to interpret atomic concepts. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 12 .
R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 13 . DL_Reasoning} PeopleI=StudentI={Raj} TopicI=KRI=DLI={DL_Reasoning} PresentI={(Raj.I) I = {Raj. DL_Reasoning)} An interpretation that satisifies all axioms in an DL ontology is also called a model of the ontology. I = (I. .
ECAI2002 R. Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 14 .Description Logics Tutorial.
Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler.Description Logics Tutorial. ECAI2002 R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 15 .
Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 16 . p g (DL) What is Description Logic ( ) Semantics of DL Basic Tableau Algorithm Advanced Tableau Algorithm R.
but you don't know you know ◦ A is father of B. ◦ Find what you know. D is mother of B. B is father of C. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 17 . then A is ancestor ◦ of C. then D is female R. g "Machine Understanding" Find facts that are implicit in the ontology given explicitly stated facts Example it .yet.
t.yI) RI ◦ A KB K is consistent iff there exists some model I of K Knowledge base consistency R.r. Knowledge is correct (captures intuitions) ◦ C subsumes D w.r.t. xI CI ◦ hx. K iff for every model I of K. Querying knowledge ◦ x is an instance of C w. every model I of K. K iff there exists some model I of K s.t.r.t. CI . K iff for. (xI. K iff for every model I of K. K iff for every model I of K.yi is an instance of R w.t.r. CI = DI Knowledge i meaningful ( l K l d is i f l (classes can h have instances) i t ) ◦ C is satisfiable w. CI µ DI wrt K Knowledge is minimally redundant (no unintended synonyms) ◦ C is equivallent to D w. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 18 .r.t.
Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 19 .Many inference tasks can be reduced to subsumption reasoning Subsumption can be reduced to satisfiability p y 10:58:57 R.
◦ The interpretation is incrementally constructed as a "Tableau" Tableau R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 20 . 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.
given: Wife Woman. therefore Wife Person is true with the given ontology.e. (¬Person)(x) ◦ Wife(x)>Woman(x) ( ) >P ( ) ◦W Woman(x) >Person(x) ◦ Conflict! ◦ C0 is unsatisfiable. 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. test the satisfiability of concept C0=(WifeΠ¬Person) ◦ C0(x) > Wife(x). Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 21 . R. i.
If one possible ABox is found. C0 is unsatisfiable. f d d ll h h If not ABox is f found under all search pathes. negation occurs only in front of concept i ti l i f t f t names. i. and apply consistencypreserving transformation rules (tableaux expansion) to the ABox as far as possible. R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 22 . the p algorithm starts with an ABox A0 = {C0(x0)}. Denote the transformed expression as C0.e. Transform C into negation normal form(NNF). C0 is satisfiable.
R. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 23 .
Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 24 .Clash R.
l hi f d If any complete and consistent ABox is found. R. An ABox is called complete if none of the expansion rules applies to it. either when finds a complete and consistent ABox or ABox. An ABox is called consistent if no logic clash is found. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 25 . try all search pathes ending with complete but inconsistent ABoxes. found the initial ABox A0 is satisfiable The expansion terminates.
Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 26 . It imeans ¬C U D is the super concept f ANY concepts) t for t ) E. ◦ Given ontology: Mother Woman Π Parent Parent.g. Woman Person ◦ Query: Mother Person y ◦ The intitial ABox is : ¬Mother U(Woman Π Parent) Π (¬Woman U Person) Π (Mother Π ¬Person) R. Embed the TBox in the initial ABox concept CD is equivalent T ¬C U D (T is the "top" concept.
Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 27 .Search R.
R. 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 g the edge labels. 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 clashfree ABox is found by the algorithm. the ABox must algorithm satisfies the initial concept C0. the algorithm can always fi d an find complete and clashfree ABox ◦ Termination: the algorithm can terminate in finite steps with specific result. ◦ Completeness: if the initial concept C0 is i fi bl h l ih l satisfiable. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 29 . R.
Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 30 . p g (DL) What is Description Logic ( ) Semantics of DL Basic Tableau Algorithm Advanced Tableau Algorithm R.
inverse role. R. nomial. transitive role. Advanced techniques ◦ Blocking (Subset Blocking. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 31 . Dynamic Blocking) ◦ For more expressive languages: number restriction. Rich literatures in the past decade. Pair Locking. data type ◦ Detailed analysis of complexities.
Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 32 .SHIQ Expansion Rules R.
France. D. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005). R. 2002. F. Description Logics Tutorial. Cambridge University Press. 2005.F. D. Baader. pages 47100. of the 19th Int. Lyon.L. Nutt. A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In the Description Logic Handbook. Baader D Calvanese D L Handbook McGuinness. A description logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies. 1999. F. 2002. Joint Conf. Journal of Logic and Computation. edited by F Baader. Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. D. ECAI2002. In Proc. I. W. Basic Description Logics. Sattler. 9(3):385410. July 23rd. Calvanese. Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. Nardi. PatelSchneider. Horrocks and U. P. Akerkar: Reasoning in DL 10:58:57 33 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.