A Formal Definition for the Expressive Power of Terminological Knowledge Representation Languages

The notions 'expressive power' or 'expressiveness' of knowledge representation languages (KR languages) can be found in most papers on knowledge representation; but these terms are usually just employed in an intuitive sense. The papers contain only informal descriptions of what is meant by expressiveness. There are several reasons that speak in favour of a formal definition of expressiveness: for example, if we want to show that certain expressions in one language cannot be expressed in another language, we need a strict formalism that can be used in mathematical proofs. Even though we shall only consider terminological KR languages—i.e. KR languages descending from the original system KL-ONE—in our motivation and in the examples, the definition of expressive power that will be given in this paper can be used for all KR languages with Tarski-style model-theoretic semantics. This definition will shed a new light on the tradeoff between expressiveness of a representation language and its computational tractability. There are KR languages with identical expressive power, but different complexity results for reasoning, which comes from the fact that sometimes the tradeoff lies between convenience and computational tractability. The definition of expressive power will be applied to compare various terminological KR languages known from the literature with respect to their expressiveness. This will yield examples for how to utilize the definition both in positive proofs— that is, proofs where it is shown that one language can be expressed by another language—and, more interestingly, in negative proofs—which show that a given language cannot be expressed by the other language.

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

[2]  Joseph A. Goguen,et al.  Institutions : abstract model theory for computer science , 1985 .

[3]  Ronald J. Brachman,et al.  An overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System , 1985 .

[4]  K. J. Barwise,et al.  Axioms for abstract model theory , 1974 .

[5]  Alfred Kobsa,et al.  Utilizing Knowledge: The Components of the SB-ONE Knowledge Representation Workbench , 1991, Principles of Semantic Networks.

[6]  P. Patel-Schneider Small can be beautiful in knowledge representation , 1984 .

[7]  Paul Young,et al.  An introduction to the general theory of algorithms , 1978 .

[8]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  CLASSIC: a structural data model for objects , 1989, SIGMOD '89.

[9]  William A. Woods What's Important About Knowledge Representation? , 1983, Computer.

[10]  Bernd Owsnicki-Klewe,et al.  Data Models in Knowledge Representation System: A Case Study , 1986, GWAI.

[11]  Patrick J. Hayes,et al.  Some problems and non-problems in representation theory , 1974 .

[12]  J. Benthem Essays in Logical Semantics , 1986 .

[13]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Hybrid Reasoning in BACK , 1988, ISMIS.

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

[15]  Hector J. Levesque Making Believers out of Computers , 1989 .

[16]  Gert Smolka,et al.  Attributive Concept Descriptions with Unions and Complements , 1989, IWBS Report.

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

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

[19]  Peter B. Andrews An introduction to mathematical logic and type theory - to truth through proof , 1986, Computer science and applied mathematics.

[20]  Jörg Flum,et al.  Mathematical logic , 1985, Undergraduate texts in mathematics.

[21]  Lawrence S. Moss,et al.  Generalized quantifiers and the expres-sive power of natural language , 1985 .

[22]  Franz Baader A Formal Definition for the Expressive Power of Knowledge Representation Languages , 1990, ECAI.

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

[24]  C. Apte,et al.  Experience with K-REP: an object-centered knowledge representation language , 1988, [1988] Proceedings. The Fourth Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications.

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

[26]  Thomas Kaczmarek,et al.  Recent Developments in NIKL , 1986, AAAI.

[27]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Computational Complexity of Terminological Reasoning in BACK , 1988, Artif. Intell..

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

[29]  Alfred V. Aho,et al.  Universality of data retrieval languages , 1979, POPL.

[30]  Franz Baader Augmenting Concept Languages by Transitive Closure of Roles: An Alternative to Terminological Cycles , 1991, IJCAI.

[31]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  An Essential Hybrid Reasoning System: Knowledge and Symbol Level Accounts of KRYPTON , 1985, IJCAI.

[32]  Marc B. Vilain,et al.  The Restricted Language Architecture of a Hybrid Representation System , 1985, IJCAI.

[33]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Undecidability of Subsumption in NIKL , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[34]  Robert M. MacGregor,et al.  The Loom Knowledge Representation Language. , 1987 .

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

[36]  Manfred Schmidt-Schaubß,et al.  Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable , 1989, KR 1989.

[37]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Representation and Reasoning with Attributive Descriptions , 1990, Sorts and Types in Artificial Intelligence.

[38]  Werner Nutt,et al.  Terminological Knowledge Representation: A Proposal for a Terminological Logic , 1991, Description Logics.

[39]  Henry H. Leitner,et al.  Structured Inheritance Networks and Natural Language Understanding , 1979, IJCAI.