Using Prolog Unification to Solve Non-standard Reasoning Problems in Description Logics

We present a Logic Programming prototype implementation working as proof-of-concept for a unified strategy proposed in our past research to solve several non-standard reasoning problems in Description Logics (DLs) and denoted by Constructive Reasoning. In order to proof both the problem-independence and the logic-independence of the adopted approach, the prototype is focused on the solution of three different problems— namely Least Common Subsumer, Concept Abduction and Concept Difference– and two different, though simple, DLs, i.e., EL and ALN . Accordingly to the implemented strategy, problems are formalized as conjunction of both subsumption and non-subsumption statements, causing the whole prototype to rely on a Prolog program solving subsumption. The program is built around a predicate, which on the one hand checks for the existence of subsumption relations between ground elements, providing boolean answers, and on the other hand, if inverted, exploits Prolog built-in unification to enumerate variable values making subsumption true between concept terms containing concept variables.

[1]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  On the ( Non-) Succinctness of Uniform Interpolation in General EL Terminologies , 2012 .

[2]  Paliath Narendran,et al.  Unification of Concept Terms in Description Logics , 2001, Description Logics.

[3]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  Semantic Matchmaking as Non-Monotonic Reasoning: A Description Logic Approach , 2007, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[4]  Valeria de Paiva Constructive Description Logics : what , why and how , 2006 .

[5]  Franz Baader Least Common Subsumers and Most Specific Concepts in a Description Logic with Existential Restrictions and Terminological Cycles , 2003, IJCAI.

[6]  Ralf Küsters,et al.  Computing Least Common Subsumers in Description Logics with Existential Restrictions , 1999, IJCAI.

[7]  Franz Baader,et al.  Computing the Least Common Subsumer w.r.t. a Background Terminology , 2004, Description Logics.

[8]  Markus Krötzsch,et al.  Concurrent Classification of EL Ontologies , 2011, International Semantic Web Conference.

[9]  Franz Baader,et al.  Usability Issues in Description Logic Knowledge Base Completion , 2009, ICFCA.

[10]  Boris Konev,et al.  Forgetting and Uniform Interpolation in Large-Scale Description Logic Terminologies , 2009, IJCAI.

[11]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Explaining Subsumption in Description Logics , 1995, IJCAI.

[12]  Ralf Küsters,et al.  Rewriting Concepts Using Terminologies , 2000, KR.

[13]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Undecidability of the unification and admissibility problems for modal and description logics , 2006, TOCL.

[14]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  A Semantics and Complete Algorithm for Subsumption in the CLASSIC Description Logic , 1993, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[15]  Franz Baader,et al.  TBoxes do not Yield a Compact Representation of Least Common Subsumers , 2001, Description Logics.

[16]  Gunnar Teege Making the Difference: A Subtraction Operation for Description Logics , 1994, KR.

[17]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Matching in Description Logics , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[18]  Franz Baader,et al.  Unification in the Description Logic EL , 2009, Description Logics.

[19]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  Abductive Matchmaking using Description Logics , 2003, IJCAI.

[20]  Freddy Lecue,et al.  Capturing the Pulse of Cities : A Robust Stream Data Reasoning Approach , 2011 .

[21]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  A Unified Framework for Non-standard Reasoning Services in Description Logics , 2010, ECAI.

[22]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  Computing Least Common Subsumers in Description Logics , 1992, AAAI.

[23]  Stefan Schlobach,et al.  Explaining Subsumption by Optimal Interpolation , 2004, JELIA.

[24]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  Towards Measuring Similarity in Description Logics , 2005, Description Logics.