LATPub461: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Aus International Center for Computational Logic
Marcel Lippmann (Diskussion | Beiträge) KKeine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung |
Marcel Lippmann (Diskussion | Beiträge) KKeine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung |
||
| Zeile 18: | Zeile 18: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Publikation Details | {{Publikation Details | ||
|Abstract=In description logic (DL), ABoxes are used for describing the state of affairs | |Abstract=In description logic (DL), ABoxes are used for describing the state of affairs in an application domain. We consider the problem of updating ABoxes when the state changes, assuming that update information is described at an atomic level, i.e., in terms of possibly negated ABox assertions that involve only atomic concepts and roles. We analyze such basic ABox updates in several standard DLs, in particular addressing questions of expressibility and succinctness: can updated ABoxes always be expressed in the DL in which the original ABox was formulated and, if so, what is the size of the updated ABox? It turns out that DLs have to include nominals and the ‘@’ constructor of hybrid logic for updated ABoxes to be expressible, and that this still holds when updated ABoxes are approximated. Moreover, the size of updated ABoxes is exponential in the role depth of the original ABox and the size of the update. We also show that this situation improves when updated ABoxes are allowed to contain additional auxiliary symbols. Then, DLs only need to include nominals for updated ABoxes to exist, and the size of updated ABoxes is polynomial in the size of both the original ABox and the update. | ||
in an application domain. We consider the problem of updating ABoxes when | |||
the state changes, assuming that update information is described at an atomic | |||
level, i.e., in terms of possibly negated ABox assertions that involve only atomic | |||
concepts and roles. We analyze such basic ABox updates in several standard | |||
DLs, in particular addressing questions of expressibility and succinctness: can | |||
updated ABoxes always be expressed in the DL in which the original ABox was | |||
formulated and, if so, what is the size of the updated ABox? It turns out that | |||
DLs have to include nominals and the ‘@’ constructor of hybrid logic for updated | |||
ABoxes to be expressible, and that this still holds when updated ABoxes are | |||
approximated. Moreover, the size of updated ABoxes is exponential in the role | |||
depth of the original ABox and the size of the update. We also show that | |||
this situation improves when updated ABoxes are allowed to contain additional | |||
auxiliary symbols. Then, DLs only need to include nominals for updated ABoxes | |||
to exist, and the size of updated ABoxes is polynomial in the size of both the | |||
original ABox and the update. | |||
|ISBN= | |ISBN= | ||
|ISSN= | |ISSN= | ||
| Zeile 52: | Zeile 36: | ||
year = {2011}, | year = {2011}, | ||
} | } | ||
}} | }} | ||
Version vom 23. März 2015, 13:24 Uhr
Foundations of instance level updates in expressive description logics
Hongkai LiuHongkai Liu, Carsten LutzCarsten Lutz, Maja MilicicMaja Milicic, Frank WolterFrank Wolter
Hongkai Liu, Carsten Lutz, Maja Milicic, Frank Wolter
Foundations of instance level updates in expressive description logics
Artificial Intelligence, 175(18):2170-2197, 2011
Foundations of instance level updates in expressive description logics
Artificial Intelligence, 175(18):2170-2197, 2011
- KurzfassungAbstract
In description logic (DL), ABoxes are used for describing the state of affairs in an application domain. We consider the problem of updating ABoxes when the state changes, assuming that update information is described at an atomic level, i.e., in terms of possibly negated ABox assertions that involve only atomic concepts and roles. We analyze such basic ABox updates in several standard DLs, in particular addressing questions of expressibility and succinctness: can updated ABoxes always be expressed in the DL in which the original ABox was formulated and, if so, what is the size of the updated ABox? It turns out that DLs have to include nominals and the ‘@’ constructor of hybrid logic for updated ABoxes to be expressible, and that this still holds when updated ABoxes are approximated. Moreover, the size of updated ABoxes is exponential in the role depth of the original ABox and the size of the update. We also show that this situation improves when updated ABoxes are allowed to contain additional auxiliary symbols. Then, DLs only need to include nominals for updated ABoxes to exist, and the size of updated ABoxes is polynomial in the size of both the original ABox and the update. - Forschungsgruppe:Research Group: AutomatentheorieAutomata Theory
@article{ LiLuMiWo-AIJ11,
author = {Hongkai {Liu} and Carsten {Lutz} and Maja {Milicic} and Frank {Wolter}},
journal = {Artificial Intelligence},
number = {18},
pages = {2170--2197},
title = {Foundations of instance level updates in expressive description logics},
volume = {175},
year = {2011},
}
