Deduction in Concept Languages: From Subsumption to Instance Checking

It is a common opinion that subsumption is the central reasoning task in frame-based knowledge representation languages (or concept languages). Intuitively, a concept C subsumes another concept D if the set of objects represented by C is a superset of the one represented by D. When individual objects are taken into account, the basic deduc-tive task for retrieving information from a knowledge base is instance checking, that amounts to checking whether the knowledge base implies that an individual is an instance of a given concept. In this paper, we address the question of whether instance checking can be solved by means of subsumption algorithms. We do so by considering several languages where subsumption belongs to diierent complexity classes. For such languages we present methods for the instance checking problem, provide a complexity analysis of this problem, and compare it with the subsumption problem. The main result of the paper is that instance checking is not always easily reducible to subsumption. In particular, there are cases where it is strictly harder than subsumption. This impacts on the design of reasoning algorithms for knowledge representation systems based on concept languages.

[1]  Manfred Schmidt-Schauß,et al.  Subsumption in KL-ONE is Undecidable , 1989, KR.

[2]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  The Tractability of Subsumption in Frame-Based Description Languages , 1984, AAAI.

[3]  Christof Peltason The BACK system—an overview , 1991, SGAR.

[4]  Bernhard Hollunder,et al.  Subsumption Algorithms for Concept Description Languages , 1990, ECAI.

[5]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning 1 , 1987, Comput. Intell..

[6]  H. Levesque Logic and the complexity of reasoning , 1988 .

[7]  Werner Nutt,et al.  The Complexity of Concept Languages , 1997, KR.

[8]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems , 1990, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[9]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  Decidable Reasoning in Terminological Knowledge Representation Systems , 1993, IJCAI.

[10]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  A Computationally Tractable Terminological Logic , 1991, SCAI.

[11]  Franz Baader,et al.  A Terminological Knowledge Representation System with Complete Inference Algorithms , 1991, PDK.

[12]  Robert M. MacGregor,et al.  Inside the LOOM description classifier , 1991, SGAR.

[13]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Terminological Cycles: Semantics and Computational Properties , 1991, Principles of Semantic Networks.

[14]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Concept Languages as Query Languages , 1991, AAAI.

[15]  Gert Smolka,et al.  Attributive Concept Descriptions with Complements , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Bernhard Hollunder Hybrid Inferences in KL-ONE-Based Knowledge Representation Systems , 1990, GWAI.

[17]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Terminological Reasoning is Inherently Intractable , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Kenneth Steiglitz,et al.  Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity , 1981 .

[19]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Querying Concept-based Knowledge Bases , 1991, PDK.

[20]  Werner Nutt,et al.  Tractable Concept Languages , 1991, IJCAI.

[21]  Moshe Y. Vardi Querying logical databases , 1985, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..