1 / 19

Bertram Lud ä scher LUDAESCH@SDSC.EDU

Department of Computer Science & Engineering University of California, San Diego CSE-291: Ontologies in Data Integration Spring 2003. Bertram Lud ä scher LUDAESCH@SDSC.EDU. Tableaux calculus II, introduction to the LeanTAP prover Example: Reasoning about concepts with LeanTAP

spiro
Download Presentation

Bertram Lud ä scher LUDAESCH@SDSC.EDU

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. Department of Computer Science & Engineering University of California, San DiegoCSE-291: Ontologies in Data IntegrationSpring 2003 Bertram Ludäscher LUDAESCH@SDSC.EDU • Tableaux calculus II, introduction to the LeanTAP prover • Example: Reasoning about concepts with LeanTAP • Definitorial terminologies, terminological cycles • BREAK • Q&A to Assignments

  2. c new t arbitrary (Semantic) Tableaux Rules • A branch is closed if it contains complementary formulas • A tableaux is closed if every branch is closed • () rule for F = A  B • () rule for F = A  B • () rule for F = x: A(X,...) • substitute a -variable X with an arbitrary term t • () rules for F = x: A(X,...) • substitute a -variable X with a new constant c

  3. FO Tableaux Calculus Theorem (Soundness, Completeness of Tableaux calculus): Let A1,..., Ak and F be first-order logic sentences. (Recall: a sentence is a closed formula, i.e., has no free variables) Then the following are equivalent: • A1, ..., Ak |= F • A1  ...  Ak  F is unsatisfiable (inconsistent) • There is a closed tableaux for {A1, ..., Ak ,  F}

  4. Example Revisited • Initial Example in FO logic • How can we prove it in the Tableaux Calculus? (Assumption)

  5. Partially closed tableaux [Becker&Haehnle, Automatisches Beweisen, 2001]

  6. Basic description logic Description Logic Revisited • a whole family of DLs is obtained by adding • full existential quantificationR.C • union • ... Source: [F. Baader, W. Nutt. Basic Description Logics. Description Logic Handbook, Cambridge University Press, 2002].

  7. ... Reasoning with the Family ... • concept definition: MyConcept  DL-formula • concept inclusion: MyConcept  DL-formula • finite set of definitions is a terminology or TBox if for every atomic concept A there is at most one axiom whose lhs is A

  8. Definitorial Terminologies • In a Tbox T we distinguish: primitive concepts (occurring only on rhs) and defined concepts (occurring on lhs) • T is definitorial if every interpretation of primitive concepts yields exactly one model of T (and thus for the defined concepts)  meaning of defined concepts is fixed once the primitive concepts are interpreted ! • A directly uses B in T if B appears in the rhs of the definition of A • A uses B is the transitive closure of ‘directly uses’ • T is cyclic if A uses A for some A; else acyclic One can show: If T is acyclic then T is definitorial What about this one?

  9. Expansion of Terminologies • For acyclic T we can “unfold” concept definitions until every defined concepts is specified in terms of primitive concepts only  the expansion of a Tbox T • Example:

  10. Tbox Expansion Reasoning in the Tableaux calculus From this We want to show this In First-order (LeanTap) syntax

  11. LeanTap Demo

  12. Computing the Negation Normal Form • LeanTap Tableaux Prover: • {Axioms} & –( Theorem ) •  FO formula •  formula in NNF •  attempt to close tableaux

  13. The Sound and Complete LeanTap Tableaux Prover

  14. How LeanTAP works • (1) select A; put B in unexpanded list • (3) split branch; creates two new goals • (6) create new instance (X1) from (X) formula, add X1 to free vars; or backtrack if varlimit is reached • (11) close branch for literals; recurse

  15. The Sound and Complete LeanTap Tableaux Prover

  16. Reasoning in Database Mediation • View expansion in Global-as-View mediation is similar to this concept expansion • uncle(X, Y) :- parent(X, Z), brother(Z, Y) ; parent(X, Z), brother_in_law(Z, Y). • aunt(X, Y) :- parent(X, Z), sister(Z, Y) ; parent(X, Z), sister_in_law(Z, Y). • parent(X, Y) :- father(X, Y) ; mother(X, Y). • brother_in_law(X, Y) :- sister(X, Z), spouse(Z, Y) ; spouse(X, Z), brother(Z, Y). ... • Goal: find a “query plan” that expresses the derived relation uncle/2 in terms of only base relations (father/2, mother/2, ..)

  17. Querying vs. Reasoning • Querying: • given a DB instance I (= logic interpretation), evaluate a query expression (e.g. SQL, FO formula, Prolog program, ...) • boolean query: check if I |=  (i.e., if I is a model of ) • (ternary) query: { (X, Y, Z) | I |=  (X,Y,Z) } => check happyFathersin a given database • Reasoning: • check if I |=  impliesI |=  for all databases I, • i.e., if =>  • undecidable for FO, F-logic, etc. • Descriptions Logics aredecidable fragments • concept subsumption, concept hierarchy, classification • semantic tableaux, resolution, specialized algorithms

  18. Mediator Demo: query/view rewriting(aka planning) is reasoning!

  19. Querying (a database) is formula evaluation (aka running the query)

More Related