Relevant closure: A new form of defeasible reasoning for description logics

被引:28
作者
Casini, Giovanni [1 ]
Meyer, Thomas [1 ]
Moodley, Kodylan [1 ]
Nortjé, Riku [1 ]
机构
[1] Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research (CSIR Meraka and UKZN), South Africa
来源
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) | 2014年 / 8761卷
关键词
Formal languages - Formal logic;
D O I
10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_7
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Among the various proposals for defeasible reasoning for description logics, Rational Closure, a procedure originally defined for propositional logic, turns out to have a number of desirable properties. Not only it is computationally feasible, but it can also be implemented using existing classical reasoners. One of its drawbacks is that it can be seen as too weak from the inferential point of view. To overcome this limitation we introduce in this paper two extensions of Rational Closure: Basic Relevant Closure and Minimal Relevant Closure. As the names suggest, both rely on defining a version of relevance. Our formalisation of relevance in this context is based on the notion of a justification (a minimal subset of sentences implying a given sentence). This is, to our knowledge, the first proposal for defining defeasibility in terms of justifications—a notion that is well-established in the area of ontology debugging. Both Basic and Minimal Relevant Closure increase the inferential power of Rational Closure, giving back intuitive conclusions that cannot be obtained from Rational Closure. We analyse the properties and present algorithms for both Basic and Minimal Relevant Closure, and provide experimental results for both Basic Relevant Closure and Minimal Relevant Closure, comparing it with Rational Closure. © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014.
引用
收藏
页码:92 / 106
页数:14
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
Baader F., Calvanese D., McGuinness D., Nardi D., Patel-Schneider P., The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, 2nd edn, (2007)
[2]  
Baader F., Hollunder B., How to prefer more specific defaults in terminological default logic, Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 669-674, (1993)
[3]  
Baader F., Hollunder B., Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms, Journal of Automated Reasoning, pp. 306-317, (1995)
[4]  
Bonatti P., Faella M., Sauro L., Defeasible inclusions in low-complexity DLs, JAIR, 42, pp. 719-764, (2011)
[5]  
Bonatti P., Faella M., Sauro L., On the complexity of EL with defeasible inclusions, Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 762-767, (2011)
[6]  
Bonatti P., Lutz C., Wolter F., The complexity of circumscription in description logic, JAIR, 35, pp. 717-773, (2009)
[7]  
Britz K., Casini G., Meyer T., Moodley K., Varzinczak I., Ordered interpretations and entailment for defeasible description logics, (2013)
[8]  
Britz K., Heidema J., Meyer T., Semantic preferential subsumption, Proceedings of KR, pp. 476-484, (2008)
[9]  
Britz K., Meyer T., Varzinczak I., Semantic foundation for preferential description logics, AI 2011. LNCS (LNAI), 7106, pp. 491-500, (2011)
[10]  
Casini G., Meyer T., Moodley K., Varzinczak I., Nonmonotonic reasoning in description logics: Rational closure for the Abox, Proceedings of DL, pp. 600-615, (2013)