A Family of Dynamic Description Logics for Representing and Reasoning About Actions

Description logics provide powerful languages for representing and reasoning about knowledge of static application domains. The main strength of description logics is that they offer considerable expressive power going far beyond propositional logic, while reasoning is still decidable. There is a demand to bring the power and character of description logics into the description and reasoning of dynamic application domains which are characterized by actions. In this paper, based on a combination of the propositional dynamic logic PDL, a family of description logics and an action formalism constructed over description logics, we propose a family of dynamic description logics DDL(X@) for representing and reasoning about actions, where X represents well-studied description logics ranging from the to the , and X@ denotes the extension of X with the @ constructor. The representation power of DDL(X@) is reflected in four aspects. Firstly, the static knowledge of application domains is represented as RBoxes and acyclic TBoxes of the description logic X. Secondly, the states of the world and the pre-conditions of atomic actions are described by ABox assertions of the description logic X@, and the post-conditions of atomic actions are described by primitive literals of X@. Thirdly, starting with atomic actions and ABox assertions of X@, complex actions are constructed with regular program constructors of PDL, so that various control structures on actions such as the “Sequence”, “Choice”, “Any-Order”, “Iterate”, “If-Then-Else”, “Repeat-While” and “Repeat-Until” can be represented. Finally, both atomic actions and complex actions are used as modal operators for the construction of formulas, so that many properties on actions can be explicitly stated by formulas. A tableau-algorithm is provided for deciding the satisfiability of DDL(X@)-formulas; based on this algorithm, reasoning tasks such as the realizability, executability and projection of actions can be effectively carried out. As a result, DDL(X@) not only offers considerable expressive power going beyond many action formalisms which are propositional, but also provides decidable reasoning services for actions described by it.

[1]  Richard E. Ladner,et al.  Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs , 1979, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[2]  Franz Baader,et al.  Integrating Description Logics and Action Formalisms: First Results , 2005, Description Logics.

[3]  John McCarthy,et al.  SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ARTI CIAL INTELLIGENCE , 1987 .

[4]  Maarten Marx,et al.  A Road-Map on Complexity for Hybrid Logics , 1999, CSL.

[5]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A Tableaux Decision Procedure for SHOIQ , 2005, IJCAI.

[6]  Robert L. Constable,et al.  On the theory of programming logics , 1977, STOC '77.

[7]  Zhongzhi Shi,et al.  A logical foundation for the semantic Web , 2007, Science in China Series F: Information Sciences.

[8]  Shi Zhongzhi,et al.  A logical foundation for the semantic Web , 2005 .

[9]  Richard Fikes,et al.  Learning and Executing Generalized Robot Plans , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Reasoning about Actions and Planning in LTL Action Theories , 2002, KR.

[11]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Updating Description Logic ABoxes , 2006, KR.

[12]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Tableaux and Algorithms for Propositional Dynamic Logic with Converse , 1996, CADE.

[13]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  PDL-based framework for reasoning about actions , 1995, AI*IA.

[14]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language , 2003, J. Web Semant..

[15]  Michael Thielscher,et al.  Integrating Action Calculi and Description Logics , 2007, KI.

[16]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Satis ability problem in description logics with modal operators , 1998 .

[17]  Liang Chang,et al.  Dynamic Description Logic: Embracing Actions into Description Logic , 2007, Description Logics.

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

[19]  Hongkai Liu,et al.  Computing updates in description logics , 2009 .

[20]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Reasoning about Actions in Dynamic Linear Time Temporal Logic , 2001, Log. J. IGPL.

[21]  Leszek Pacholski,et al.  Complexity of two-variable logic with counting , 1997, Proceedings of Twelfth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[22]  Richard E. Ladner,et al.  Propositional modal logic of programs , 1977, STOC '77.

[23]  Vaughan R. Pratt A practical decision method for propositional dynamic logic (Preliminary Report) , 1978, STOC '78.

[24]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems , 2002 .

[25]  G Stix,et al.  The mice that warred. , 2001, Scientific American.

[26]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Dynamic Description Logics , 1998, Advances in Modal Logic.

[27]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[28]  Premkumar T. Devanbu,et al.  Taxonomic Plan Reasoning , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[29]  Michael Thielscher,et al.  From Situation Calculus to Fluent Calculus: State Update Axioms as a Solution to the Inferential Frame Problem , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[30]  Dirk Pattinson,et al.  Coalgebraic Hybrid Logic , 2009, FoSSaCS.

[31]  I. Horrocks,et al.  A Tableau Decision Procedure for $\mathcal{SHOIQ}$ , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[32]  Stephan Tobies,et al.  The Complexity of Reasoning with Cardinality Restrictions and Nominals in Expressive Description Logics , 2011, ArXiv.

[33]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Actions and Programs over Description Logic Ontologies , 2007, Description Logics.

[34]  Maja Mili Planning in Action Formalisms based on DLs: First Results ? , 2007 .

[35]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Bringing Semantics to Web Services with OWL-S , 2007, World Wide Web.

[36]  Ulrike Sattler,et al.  A proposal for describing services with DLs , 2002, Description Logics.

[37]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Owl web ontology language guide , 2003 .

[38]  Enrico Franconi,et al.  A Temporal Description Logic for Reasoning about Actions and Plans , 1998, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[39]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Reasoning About Actions Using Description Logics with General TBoxes , 2006, JELIA.

[40]  Sheila A. McIlraith,et al.  Simulation, verification and automated composition of web services , 2002, WWW.

[41]  Maja Miličić Complexity of planning in action formalisms based on description logics , 2007, ICLP 2007.

[42]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web" in Scientific American , 2001 .

[43]  Yilan Gu A Logic For Decidable Reasoning About Services , 2006 .

[44]  Erich Grädel,et al.  Two-variable logic with counting is decidable , 1997, Proceedings of Twelfth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[45]  Mikhail Soutchanski,et al.  Decidable Reasoning in a Modified Situation Calculus , 2007, IJCAI.

[46]  Tran Cao Son,et al.  Semantic Web Services , 2001, IEEE Intell. Syst..