1 / 49

EQL-Lite: Effective First-Order Query Processing in Description Logics(IJCAI07)

EQL-Lite: Effective First-Order Query Processing in Description Logics(IJCAI07). Presented by : Elizabeth Brennan Vidhya Dass. Agenda. Problem Statement Motivation Introduction Proposed Approach Epistemic Query Language(EQL) EQL-Lite(Q) Case Studies Constraints Critique

gabby
Download Presentation

EQL-Lite: Effective First-Order Query Processing in Description Logics(IJCAI07)

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. EQL-Lite: Effective First-Order Query Processing in Description Logics(IJCAI07) Presented by : Elizabeth Brennan Vidhya Dass

  2. Agenda • Problem Statement • Motivation • Introduction • Proposed Approach • Epistemic Query Language(EQL) • EQL-Lite(Q) • Case Studies • Constraints • Critique • Future Research

  3. Problem Statement • Knowledge bases are incomplete • There is a need to be able to reason about incompleteness and to have a language that’s expressiveness is similar to FOL and decidable. • These two desires are at odds with each other.

  4. Motivation • Description Logic (DL) try model the real world • Answering FOL questions posed to a DL is undecidable

  5. Motivation • Currently, DLs can be queried for • Instances • Unions of conjunctive queries • Since a DL can never be complete, FOL logic is not appropriate

  6. Introduction • EQL is based on a variant of a FOL modal logic of knowledge/belief • The minimal knowledge operator, K, is used • K means that something is known • This allows users to engage in closed world reasoning

  7. Introduction • EQL-Lite (Q) implements the operator, K • Q refers to an embedded query language

  8. Introduction • A DL knowledge base (KB) is formed by a set of assertions • TBox- express intentional knowledge • “Candy is yummy” • ABox- express extensional knowledge • “Reese’s cups are candy”

  9. Proposed Approach • Assumptions: • Express knowledge in KB in terms of atomic concepts and atomic roles/relations through the DL. • Assume that constructs allowed in DL KB are expressible in FOL. • Assume DL KB assertions can be expressed as FOL sentences.

  10. Proposed Approach Semantics Syntax • Query Answering: • Interpret DL KB on interpretations sharing same infinite countable domain . • Assume our language includes infinitely countable set of disjoint constants corresponding to elements of , called standard names • Blurs distinction between such constants( syntactic objects) and elements of  that they denote(semantical objects)

  11. Epistemic Query Language(EQL) • EQL is first order modal language with equality and single modal operator K, constructed from concepts, roles/relations and the standard names. • Reason about DL KB according to minimal knowledge semantics(K)

  12. Hint:  Follows logically from  Y. Katz and B. Parsia, "Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure in Description Logics: Part I." vol. 2007: MINDSWAP, University of Maryland, 2005

  13. EQL in • K  is known to hold(by the KB) • c - Constant ĉ - Tuple of constants • x - Variable x - Tuple of variables • , - Arbitrary formulas • cx - Formula where each x is replaced by c • World FOL interpretation over  • Epistemic Interpretation E, i.e. (Possibly infinite) set of worlds, world in E • i.e.  is true in interpretation E,

  14. EQL E 1 n False 2 K n true

  15. EQL • Objective sentence (What is true) • Subjective sentence (What is known to be true) • Inductively define when sentence  is true in interpretation E,

  16. EQL • Let  = DL KB • Mod() = set of all FOL interpretations of models of  • -EQL-interpretation = Epistemic interpretation E, for E=Mod() • if • Objective Formulas : for all denoted by

  17. EQL • S5 axioms of modal logic : Proposition 1 What is known is true(accurate) } KB has complete knowledge on what is known and what is not known

  18. EQL • Proposition 2 • i.e. Sentence is known or not known in KB

  19. EQL • Proposition 3 : For objective sentence  }  is known if it is logically implied

  20. EQL • EQL Queries -Open EQL Formula • Certain answers to query

  21. EQL • DL KB  constituted by T-Box & A-Box FOL Query : Set of males that do not have female children EQL Query : Known males that are not known to be parents of female EQL Query : Known children who have no known sibling

  22. EQL-Lite(Q) • Subset of EQL • Parameterized, embedded query language

  23. EQL-Lite(Q) • Uses the syntax: • is a query expressed in Q

  24. EQL-Lite(Q) • Each occurring in a query is called an epistemic atom • Allowing atoms outside of K does not impact the expressiveness of the language

  25. EQL-LITQ(Q) • This formalizes the idea that restricting atoms to be expressed as beliefs does not impact the expressiveness

  26. EQL-Lite(Q) • EQL is able to separate the reasoning needed for answering epistemic atoms from the reasoning needed to answer the whole query

  27. EQL-Lite(Q) • This says that certain answers are computed in the embedded query language and then the query is evaluated in FOL

  28. Problems Posed by Thm 6 • Problems posed by Theorem 6 • The query posed must be finite to be evaluated • The domain, Δ, is infinite. This means the query cannot directly interact with the domain.

  29. EQL-Lite(Q) • A FOL query, q, is domain independent if for Ι1 and I2 whose respective domains are a subset of Δ, all atomic relations will have the same evaluations

  30. EQL-Lite(Q) • If a query evaluates to a finite set of tuples, it is said to be ∑-range-restricted • A query is ∑-range-restricted if each of its epistemic atoms involves a ∑-range-restricted query

  31. EQL-Lite(Q) • This says that if a constant that is not in ∑ occurs in the solution set, then such a constant can be replaced with any other constant not in ∑ and still get a tuple in the solution set • This would mean the solution set is infinite

  32. EQL-Lite(Q) • We want to make sure that our solution set is range-restricted. • A range-restricted and domain independent DL will guarantee that we can compute certain answers

  33. EQL-Lite(Q)

  34. EQL-Lite(Q) • This says that ∑-range-restricted queries can be solved in logarithmic time.

  35. Case Studies • The DL was considered • Q is a ∑-range-restricted concept and role expressions • Conjunctive queries with the existential quantification are performed over named items in ABox • Instance checking is coNP-complete • Queries can be performed in logarithmic amount of time

  36. Case Studies • Unions of conjunctive queries are performed • Most expressive subset of FOL for querying KBs • This problem is coNP-complete • Queries can be answered in logarithmic time

  37. Case Studies • A PTime complete DL and a ∑-range-restricted Q with roles and concepts is considered • Queries were solved in polynomial time

  38. Case Studies • A KB formed of ABox expressions with the embedded query language consisting of roles and concepts and extended with the operator K is considered • Instance checking is performed in polynomial time

  39. Case Studies • DL-Lite KB and queries with embedded UCQ • DL-Lite KBs deal with large ABox(data) • Query in DL-Lite tractable due to controlled expressive power of DL-Lite • Answering UCQ(union conjunctive query) in DL-Lite is in LOGSPACE with respect to data complexity

  40. Case Studies • Due to LOGSPACE data complexity of answering UCQ in DL-Lite and tightly controlled expressiveness

  41. Case Studies • Due to Theorem 8 and data complexity being in LOGSPACE - Can use EQL(UCQ) instead of UCQ in DL-Lite

  42. Case Studies • FOL Reducibility : • Query answering FOL reducible  FOL queries over Abox FOL interpretation (infinite to finite FOL interpretation) • Interpretation of ABox (Check ABox)

  43. Case Studies • Domain independent queries can be expressed in relational algebra(SQL). Use DBMS optimization

  44. Constraints • A Boolean EQL-Lite(Q) query can be viewed as an integrity constraint • A DL KB ∑=(T,A) where T is a TBox and A is an ABox satisfies an integrity constraint γ expressed as a Boolean EQL-Lite(Q) query if ans(γ,∑)= true • ∑ satisfies a set of integrity constraints, C, if for all γC, ans(γ,∑)=true

  45. Constraints • The definition of a DL KB can be modified to include the idea of constraints • (T,A,C) • This can be interpreted as • If Mod(∑) is non-empty, the DL KB with constraints is satisfiable • The ideas discussed in this paper can easily be extended to DL KBs with constraints

  46. Critique • Strengths : • Great approach to balance expressiveness and complexity of queries in DL KB that models open world. • Good propositions and theorems.

  47. Critique • Weakness : • Introduction was lacking. • Repetitive sentences. • Flow was choppy in paper. • Lack of concept elaboration. • Use of non standard symbols (PTIME,LOGSPACE, eval, ans, )

  48. Future Research • Extending the concept to DL-Lite KBs. • Implementing this within an existing DL reasoning system. • Possibly try to make it work on DL’s with second order constructs.

  49. Thank you

More Related