1 / 17

L ogics for D ata and K nowledge R epresentation

L ogics for D ata and K nowledge R epresentation. ClassL (part 3): Reasoning with an ABox. Outline. World descriptions, assertions (ABox) Reasoning with the ABox Satisfiability/Consistency Instance checking Instance retrieval Concept realization

keitha
Download Presentation

L ogics for D ata and K nowledge R epresentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation ClassL (part 3): Reasoning with an ABox

  2. Outline • World descriptions, assertions (ABox) • Reasoning with the ABox • Satisfiability/Consistency • Instance checking • Instance retrieval • Concept realization • Eliminating the ABox: Reducing to DPLL reasoning • Closed and open world assumptions 2

  3. ABox, syntax ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • The second component of the knowledge base is the world description, the ABox. • In an ABox one introduces individuals, by giving them names, and one asserts properties about them. • We denote individual names as a, b, c,… • An assertion with concept C is called concept assertion (or simply assertion) in the form: C(a), C(b), C(c), … Student(paul) Professor(fausto) To be read: paul belongs to (is in) Student fausto belongs to (is in) Professor

  4. ABox, semantics ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • We give semantics to ABoxes by extending interpretations to individual names • An interpretation I: L  ∆I not only maps atomic concepts to sets, but in addition it maps each individual name a to an element aI∈ ∆I, namely I(a) = aI∈ ∆I • Unique name assumption (UNA). We assume that distinct individual names denote distinct objects in the domain NOTE: ∆I denotes the domain of interpretation, a denotes the symbol used for the individual (the name), while aI is the actual individual of the domain.

  5. ABox, semantics ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS ∆I = {Fausto, Jack, Paul, Mary} We mean that: I(paul) ∈ I(Student) I(fausto) ∈ I(Professor) I(paul) = Paul I(fausto) = Fausto I (Professor) = {Fausto} I (Student) = {Jack, Paul, Mary} A Student(paul) Professor(fausto) 5

  6. Individuals in the TBox ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • Sometimes, it is convenient to allow individual names (also called nominals) not only in the ABox, but also in the TBox • They are used to construct concepts. The most basic one is the “set” constructor, written: {a1,…,an} It defines a concept, without giving it a name, by enumerating its elements, with the semantics: {a1,…,an}I = {a1I,…,anI} Student ≡ {Jack, Paul, …, Mary} (the name is optional)

  7. Reasoning Services ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • Given an ABox A, we can reason (w.r.t. a TBox T) about the following: • Satisfiability/Consistency: An ABox A is consistent with respect to T if there is an interpretation I which is a model of both A and T. • Instance checking: checking whether an assertion C(a) is entailed by an ABox, i.e. checking whether a belongs to C. A ⊨ C(a) if every interpretation that satisfies A also satisfies C(a). • Instance retrieval: given a concept C, retrieve all the instances a which satisfy C. • Concept realization: given a set of concepts and an individual a find the most specific concept(s) C (w.r.t. subsumption ordering) such that A ⊨ C(a). 7

  8. Reasoning via expansion of the ABox ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • Reasoning services over an ABox w.r.t. an acyclic TBox can be reduced to checking an expanded ABox. • We define the expansion of an ABox A with respect to T as the ABox A’ that is obtained from A by replacing each concept assertion C(a) with the assertion C’(a), with C’ the expansion of C with respect to T. • A is consistent with respect to T iff its expansion A’ is consistent • A is consistent iff A is satisfiable (*), i.e. non contradictory. (*) in PL, under the usual translation, with C(a) considered as a proposition different from C(b) 8

  9. Reasoning via expansion ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS T Undergraduate ⊑  Teach Bachelor ≡ Student ⊓ Undergraduate Master ≡ Student ⊓  Undergraduate PhD ≡ Master ⊓ Research Assistant ≡ PhD ⊓ Teach A Master(Chen) PhD(Enzo) Assistant(Rui) • The expansion of A w.r.t. T: • Master(Chen) • Student(Chen) • Undergraduate(Chen) • PhD(Enzo) • Master(Enzo) • Research(Enzo) • Student(Enzo) • Undergraduate(Enzo) • Assistant(Rui) • PhD(Rui) • Teach(Rui) • Master(Rui) • Research(Rui) • Student(Rui) • Undergraduate(Rui) 9

  10. Consistency ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • Satisfiability/Consistency: An ABox A is consistent with respect to T if there is an interpretation I which is a model of both A and T. • We simply say that A is consistent if it is consistent with respect to the empty TBox T A Parent ≡ Mother ⊔ Father Mother(Mary) Father ≡ Male ⊓ hasChild Father(Mary) Mother ≡ Female ⊓ hasChild Male ≡ Person ⊓  Female A is not consistent w.r.t. T: In fact, from the expansion of T we get that Mother and Father are disjoint. A is consistent (w.r.t. the empty TBox, no constraints)

  11. Instance checking ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • Instance checking: checking whether an assertion C(a) is entailed by an ABox, i.e. checking whether a belongs to C. • A ⊨ C(a) if every interpretation that satisfies A also satisfies C(a). • A ⊨ C(a) iff A ⋃ { C(a)} is inconsistent Consider T and A from the previous example. Is Phd(Rui)entailed? YES! The assertion is in the expansion of A.

  12. Instance retrieval ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • Instance retrieval: given a concept C, retrieve all the instances a which satisfy C. • Implementation: A trivial, but not optimixed implementation consists in doing instance checking for all instances. Consider T and A from the previous example. Find all the instances of Undergraduate Looking at the expansion of A we have {Chen, Enzo, Rui}

  13. Concept realization ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • Concept realization: given a set of concepts and an individual a find the most specific concept(s) C (w.r.t. subsumption ordering) such that A ⊨ C(a). • Dual problem of Instance retrieval • Implementation: A trivial, but not optimixed implementation consists in doing instance checking for all concepts.

  14. Concept realization ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS Consider T and A from the previous example. Given the instance Rui, and the concept set {Student, PhD, Assistant} find the most specific conceptC such that A ⊨ C(Rui) Rui is in the extension of all the concepts above. The following chain of subsumptions holds: Assistant⊑ PhD ⊑ Student Therefore, the most specific concept is Assistant. T Undergraduate ⊑  Teach Bachelor ≡ Student ⊓ Undergraduate Master ≡ Student ⊓  Undergraduate PhD ≡ Master ⊓ Research Assistant ≡ PhD ⊓ Teach A Master(Chen) PhD(Enzo) Assistant(Rui) 14

  15. Eliminating the ABox ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • RECALL: ABoxes contain assertions of the form C(a). • To eliminate the ABox we need to create a corresponding concept for each assertion, e.g. of the form C-a and a new axiom C-a ⊑ C. • This causes an exponential blow up. A = {Master(Chen), Master(Paul), PhD(Enzo), PhD(Ronald), Assistant(Rui)} New concepts: Master-Chen, Master-Paul, PhD-Enzo, PhD-Ronald, Assistant-Rui Their interpretation is the singleton set containing the individual. T is extended with: {Master-Chen ⊑ Master, PhD-Enzo ⊑ PhD, Assistant-Rui ⊑ Assistant} 15

  16. Eliminating the ABox: the algorithm ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • It is always possible to reduce reasoning problems w.r.t. an acyclic TBox T and an ABox A to problems without them. See for instance the algorithm for subsumption (all the others can be reduced to it). • Input: a TBox T, an ABox A, the two concepts C and D • Output: true if C ⊑ D holds or false otherwise boolean function IsSubsumedBy(T, A, C, D) { A’ = Expand(A, T); T’ = ConvertAssertions(T, A’); return IsSubsumedBy(T’, C, D) ; } ABox expansion ABox elimination DPLL Reasoning by eliminating T’. (see previous lesson) 16

  17. Closed and Open world assumptions ABOX :: REASONING WITH AN ABOX :: ELIMINATING THE ABOX :: ASSUMPTIONS • Closed world Assumption CWA (in Databases): anything which is not explicitly asserted is false • Open World Assumption OWA (in Abox): anything which is not explicitly asserted (positive or negative) is unknown NOTE: a Database has/is one model. Query answering is model checking. NOTE: an ABox has a set of models. Query answering is satisfiability. NOTE: In ABoxes, like in databases, we use CWA.

More Related