Semantic Foundation for Preferential Description Logics

Britz, Katarina; Meyer, Thomas; Varzinczak, Ivan

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25832-9_50

Cited by 37 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Britz et al, 2008;Britz, Meyer, & Varzinczak, 2011) on preferential DL semantics is strongly connected to our approach, and one of the results has been the semantic characterization of rational closure cited above (Britz et al, 2013).…”

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 64%

Defeasible Inheritance-Based Description Logics

Casini¹,

Straccia²

2013

jair

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defeasible inheritance networks are a non-monotonic framework that deals with hierarchical knowledge. On the other hand, rational closure is acknowledged as a landmark of the preferential approach to non-monotonic reasoning. We will combine these two approaches and define a new non-monotonic closure operation for propositional knowledge bases that combines the advantages of both. Then we redefine such a procedure for Description Logics (DLs), a family of logics well-suited to model structured information. In both cases we will provide a simple reasoning method that is built on top of the classical entailment relation and, thus, is amenable of an implementation based on existing reasoners. Eventually, we evaluate our approach on well-known landmark test examples.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 64%

Defeasible Inheritance-Based Description Logics

Casini¹,

Straccia²

2013

jair

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For ALC, the problem of deciding whether a typical inclusion belongs to the rational closure of the TBox is in ExpTime as well as the problem of deciding whether an assertion C (a) belongs to the rational closure of the knowledge base over the ABox. In this respect, the proposed approach is less complex than other approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning in DLs such as [23,2] and comparable in complexity with the approaches in [8,6,37], and thus a good candidate to define effective nonmonotonic extensions of DLs. The results on the rational closure in ALC (as an extension of Lehmann and Magidor's rational closure [33]) extensively rely on the finite model property, which holds for ALC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In [6] the semantics of the logic of defeasible subsumptions is strengthened by a preferential semantics. Intuitively, given a TBox, the authors first introduce a preference ordering ≪ on the class of all subsumption relations < including TBox, then they define the rational closure of TBox as the most preferred relation < with respect to ≪, i.e.…”

Section: Conclusion and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic characterization of rational closure: From propositional logic to description logics

Giordano

Gliozzi

Olivetti

et al. 2015

Artificial Intelligence

106

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To model such information, we introduce a type of inclusion, i.e., a defeasible inclusion C ∼ D, which is read as "Typically an instance of C is also an instance of D", that is, if we know that an object x is in the set referred to by C, we can conclude that x is in the set referred to by D, unless we have knowledge to the contrary. For the semantics of such axioms, we refer the reader to the work by Britz et al [5,6].…”

Section: An Algorithm To Compute Rational Closure In Alcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing Defeasibility into OWL Ontologies

Casini

Meyer

Moodley

et al. 2015

The Semantic Web - ISWC 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In recent years, various approaches have been developed for representing and reasoning with exceptions in OWL. The price one pays for such capabilities, in terms of practical performance, is an important factor that is yet to be quantified comprehensively. A major barrier is the lack of naturally occurring ontologies with defeasible features -the ideal candidates for evaluation. Such data is unavailable due to absence of tool support for representing defeasible features. In the past, defeasible reasoning implementations have favoured automated generation of defeasible ontologies. While this suffices as a preliminary approach, we posit that a method somewhere in between these two would yield more meaningful results. In this work, we describe a systematic approach to modify real-world OWL ontologies to include defeasible features, and we apply this to the Manchester OWL Repository to generate defeasible ontologies for evaluating our reasoner DIP (Defeasible-Inference Platform). The results of this evaluation are provided together with some insights into where the performance bottle-necks lie for this kind of reasoning. We found that reasoning was feasible on the whole, with surprisingly few bottle-necks in our evaluation.

show abstract

Semantic Foundation for Preferential Description Logics

Cited by 37 publications

References 9 publications

Defeasible Inheritance-Based Description Logics

Defeasible Inheritance-Based Description Logics

Semantic characterization of rational closure: From propositional logic to description logics

Introducing Defeasibility into OWL Ontologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About