Transcript
Page 1: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

Semantics and Reasoning Algorithmsfor a Faithful Integration of

Description Logics and Rules

Boris Motik, University of Oxford

Page 2: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

2/32

Contents

• Why Combine DLs with LP?

• Main Challenge: OWA vs. CVA

• Existing Approaches

• Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure

• MKNF Knowledge Bases

• Reasoning and Complexity

• Conclusion

Page 3: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

3/32

Description Logics and OWL

• OWL (Web Ontology Langage) language for ontology modeling in the Semantic Web standard of the W3C (http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/)

• OWL is based on Description Logics (DLs) inspired by semantic networks DLs have a precise semantics based on first-order logics well-understood computational properties

• What can we say in DLs?

UK cities are in UK regions.UK cities are in UK regions. UKCity v 9 isIn.UKRgnUKCity v 9 isIn.UKRgn 8 x : UKCity(x) ! 9 y : isIn(x,y) Æ UKRgn(y)8 x : UKCity(x) ! 9 y : isIn(x,y) Æ UKRgn(y)

UK regions are EU regions.UK regions are EU regions. UKRgn v EURgnUKRgn v EURgn 8 x : UKRgn(x) ! EURgn(x)8 x : UKRgn(x) ! EURgn(x)

Things in EU are parts of EU.Things in EU are parts of EU. 9 isIn.EURgn v EUPart9 isIn.EURgn v EUPart 8 x : [9 y : isIn(x,y) Æ EURgn(y)] ! EUPart(x)8 x : [9 y : isIn(x,y) Æ EURgn(y)] ! EUPart(x)

UK cities are parts of EU.UK cities are parts of EU. UKCity v EUPartUKCity v EUPart 8 x : UKCity(x) ! EUPart(x)8 x : UKCity(x) ! EUPart(x)

We can conclude:

Page 4: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

4/32

• Relational expressivity OWL can express only tree-like axioms

• Polyadic predicates e.g., Flight(From, To, Airline)

• Can be addressed by rules (LP or ASP)

Missing Features (I)

9 S.(9 R.C u 9 R.D) v Q ,8 x:{[9 y: S(x,y) Æ (9 x: R(y,x) Æ C(x)) Æ (9 x: R(y,x) Æ D(x))] ! Q(x)} ,8 x,x1,x2,x3:{ S(x,x1) Æ R(x1,x2) Æ C(x2) Æ R(x1,x3) Æ D(x3) ! Q(x) }

x

x1

S

x2 x3

R R

Page 5: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

5/32

Missing Features (II) – Closed Worlds

flight(MAN,STR)flight(MAN,LHR)flight(MAN,FRA)flight(FRA,ZAG)

Question: is there a flight from MAN to MUC?

Open worlds (=OWL):Don’t know!

We did not specify thatwe know information about

all possible flights.

Closed worlds (=LP):No.

If we cannot prove something,it must be false.

• Partial solution: close off flight8 x,y: flight(x,y) $ (x ¼ MAN Æ y ¼ STR) Ç (x ¼ MAN Æ y ¼ LHR) Ç …

cannot express many things (e.g., transitive closure)

• Closed-world is orthogonal to closed-domain reasoningPerson v 9 father.Person Person(Peter) > v { Peter,Paul }

• CWA is available in various LP formalisms (e.g., ASP)

Page 6: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

6/32

Missing Features (III) – Constraints

• “Each person must have an SSN” naïve attempt:

Person u :(9 hasSSN.SSN) v ? in FOL, this is equivalent to:

Person v 9 hasSSN.SSN

assume that only Person(Peter) is given we expect the constraint to be violated (no SSN) but KB is satisfiable: Peter has some unknown SSN

• FOL formulae… …speak about the general properties of worlds …cannot reason about their own knowledge

• Constraints can be expressed in LP

Page 7: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

7/32

• “The heart is usually on the left, but in some cases it is on the right”

• Naïve approach: Human v HeartOnLeft

Dextrocardiac v HumanDextrocardiac v :HeartOnLeft

the class Dextrocardiac is unsatisfiable

“with no contrary evidence, the heart is on the left”

• Exceptions… …cannot be expressed in FOL

…can be expressed in ASP

Missing Features (IV)

Page 8: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

8/32

The Magic Formula

DLs (= taxonomical reasoning)

+

LP Rules (= relational expressivity + nonmonotonic inferences)

=

The Winning Combination!

Page 9: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

9/32

Contents

• Why Combine DLs with LP?

• Main Challenge: OWA vs. CVA

• Existing Approaches

• Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure

• MKNF Knowledge Bases

• Reasoning and Complexity

• Conclusion

Page 10: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

10/32

Open vs. Closed Worlds

• In DLs we derive Person(a)• The formula is equivalent to

8 x : [Father(x) ! Person(x)] eliminates all models in which x

is a father and not a person

• In LP, : is interpreted as default negation read as “is not provable”

• The example is unsatisfiable• Negation defined using

minimal knowledge

• “It is illegal to state that someone is a father without stating that he is a person”

8 x : [Father(x) Æ :Person(x) ! ?]

Father(a)

Page 11: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

11/32

Idea of Minimal Knowledge

• DLs • LP

Father(a)

M1

Father(a)

M2

Father(a), Person(a)

M Father(a)

8 x : [Father(x) Æ :Person(x) ! ?] kills all models in which the formula does not hold

All models are of equal “quality”.

This is the only minimal model.

(There is no model M’ ½ M.)

• We are left with models that contain Person(a)

• We are left with no model

Page 12: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

12/32

Minimal Knowledge and Negation

• DLs • Rules

Father(a)

8 x : [Father(x) Æ :Person(x) ! Cat(x)] esures Cat(x) in each model where x is a father and not a person

• Does not entail Cat(a) • Does entail Cat(a)

, Cat(a)M1

Father(a)

M2

Father(a), Person(a)

M Father(a), Cat(a)

Nonmonotonic semantics typically prefer certain models.

Page 13: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

13/32

Contents

• Why Combine DLs with LP?

• Main Challenge: OWA vs. CVA

• Existing Approaches

• Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure

• MKNF Knowledge Bases

• Reasoning and Complexity

• Conclusion

Page 14: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

14/32

First-Order Rule Formalisms

• First-order combinations of DLs and rules: SWRL, CARIN, AL-log, DL-safe rules

A1 Æ … Æ An à B1 Æ … Æ Bm

concepts (classes) = unary predicates roles (properties) = binary predicates interpreted as first-order clauses

• Semantics is standard first-order Woman(x) ! Person(x) and :Person(Lassie) imply :Woman(Lassie)

• Easily undecidable decidability achieved by syntactic restrictions; e.g., DL-safety

• Issues addressed: relational expressivity and polyadic predicates nonmonotonic features

Page 15: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

15/32

Loose Integration

• dl-programs [Eiter, Ianni, Lukasiewicz, Schindlauer, Tompits, AIJ 2008]

• A Ã B1 Æ … Æ Bm Æ not Bm+1 Æ … Æ not Bn

A and Bi are first-order atoms over non-DL-predicates

Bi can additionally be a query atom of the form

DL[ S1 [ p1, S2 [ p2, S3 Å p3; Q ]

Si – DL predicates

pi – non-DL-predicates

Q – a DL query understand as conditional queries over a DL ontology

• Rules are layered over a DL KB they do not contribute to DL consequences

+ - -

Page 16: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

16/32

Strong Integration

• A1 Ç … Ç Ak à B1 Æ … Æ Bm Æ not Bm+1 Æ … Æ not

Bn

• DL+log [Rosati, KR2006] DL-atoms cannot occur under negation as failure

semantics: DL-predicates interpreted under OWA

non-DL-predicates interpreted under CWA

no nonmonotonic reasoning over DL-predicates

• dl-programs [Lukasiewicz, ESWC2007] no classical negation cannot capture ASP

faithful extension of LP and DLs only w.r.t. entailment of positive ground atoms

unclear how to extend the semantics to make if faithful w.r.t. arbitrary consequences

Page 17: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

17/32

Autoepistemic Logics

• LP can be encoded into first-order AEL AEL by [Konolige, Fund. Inf. 1991]

Use AEL as a framework for integrating FOL and LP [de Bruijn, Eiter, Polleres, Tompits, IJCAI 2007]

• Various encodings proposed with different levels of faithfulness considers disjunctive datalog and not ASP

• No proof theory yet

Page 18: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

18/32

Contents

• Why Combine DLs with LP?

• Main Challenge: OWA vs. CVA

• Existing Approaches

• Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure

• MKNF Knowledge Bases

• Reasoning and Complexity

• Conclusion

Page 19: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

19/32

Knowledge Operator K

(Researcher t Programmer)(Boris)

Researcher v Employed

Programmer v Employed

² Employed(Boris)² Researcher(Boris)² Programmer(Boris)

• K allows us to reason about FO consequences KB ² K A iff KB ² A KB ² :K A iff KB ² A

² K Employed(Boris)² :K Researcher(Boris)² :K Programmer(Boris)

• K is nonmonotonic if we assert Researcher(Boris), then…

K Researcher(Boris) holds :K Researcher(Boris) does not hold any more

• Used in an algebra-like query language EQL-Lite [Calvanese, De Giacomo, Lembo, Lenzerini, Rosati, IJCAI 2007]

Page 20: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

20/32

Default Negation Operator not

Bird(Tweety)

K Bird(Tweety) Æ not :Flies(Tweety) ! K Flies(Tweety)

• Interpreted as not consequence

• Read as: if

“Tweety is a bird” is a consequence

and “Tweety cannot fly” is not a consequence

then “Tweety can fly” should be a consequence

Page 21: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

21/32

Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure

• Satisfiability defined w.r.t. an MKNF structure (I,M,N) I – a FOL interpretation M and N – sets of FOL interpretations

• M is a model of if: (I,M,M) ² with I 2 M and for each M’ ¾ M, there is some I’ 2 M’ such that (I’,M’,M) ² [Lifschitz, IJCAI 91; Artificial Intelligence 94]

• MKNF explains many nonmonotonic formalisms

(I,M,N) ² A iif A is true in I

(I,M,N) ² : iif is false in I

(I,M,N) ² 1 Æ 2 iif both 1 and 2 are true in I

(I,M,N) ² K iif (J,M,N) ² for each J 2 M

(I,M,N) ² not iif (J,M,N) ² for some J 2 N

Gelfond-Lifschitz reduct!

Page 22: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

22/32

Contents

• Why Combine DLs with LP?

• Main Challenge: OWA vs. CVA

• Existing Approaches

• Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure

• MKNF Knowledge Bases

• Reasoning and Complexity

• Conclusion

Page 23: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

23/32

MKNF Knowledge Bases

• DL-safety: the rules are applicable only to explicitly named objects

H1 Ç … Ç Hn à B1, …, Bm

• Hi are first-order or K-atoms

• Bi are first-order, K-, or not-atoms

P(t1, …, tn) - first-order atom

K P(t1, …, tn) - K-atom

not P(t1, …, tn) - not-atom

• MKNF Rule:

• MKNF Knowledge BaseK = (O, P)• O – a FOL KB in some language DL• P – a finite set of MKNF rules

• Semantics by translation into MKNFK) = K (O) Æ Ær 2 P 8 x1,…,x

n : H1 Ç … Ç Hn ½ B1 Æ … Æ Bm

Page 24: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

24/32

Example (I)

• We derive seasideCity(Barcelona) assuming it does not lead to contradiction deriving seasideCity(Hamburg) would cause a contraction

• We derive Suggest(Barcelona) this involves standard DL reasoning we do not know the name of the beach in Barcelona

default rule

Page 25: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

25/32

Example (II)

• We treat ¼ in a special way we minimize equality along with other predicates this yields intuitive consequences

• The constraint is satisfied HolyFamily is a church, the architect of SagradaFamilia has been specified, and HolyFamily and SagradaFamilia are synonyms

constraint

Page 26: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

26/32

Faithfulness

• MKNF KBs are fully faithful w.r.t. DLs(O, ;) ² iff O ² for any FOL formula

to achieve this, we modified MKNF slightly we must treat equality in a special way

• MKNF KBs are fully faithful w.r.t. ASP(;, P) ² (:)A iff P ² (:)A for A a ground atom

already shown by Lifschitz

• The combination seems quite intuitive

Page 27: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

27/32

Contents

• Why Combine DLs with LP?

• Main Challenge: OWA vs. CVA

• Existing Approaches

• Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure

• MKNF Knowledge Bases

• Reasoning and Complexity

• Conclusion

Page 28: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

28/32

How to Represent Models

• A MKNF model is a set of interpretations = typically infinite! we need a finite representation

• Idea: represent models by FOL formulae find a first-order formula such that

M = { I | I ² }

• We represent using K-atoms (P,N) – a partition of all K-atoms into positive and negative

defines the consequences that must hold in an MKNF model

objective knowledge:

obK,P = O [ { A | K A 2 P }

our main task is to find a partition (P,N) that defines a model

Page 29: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

29/32

Characterization of MKNF Models

Grounding

Guess a partition that defines an MKNF model

Check whether the rules are satisfied in this model.

Check whether this model is consistent with the DL KB.

Check whether this is the model of minimal knowledge.

Check whether the query does not hold in the model.

These are the extensions to the standard algorithm for disjunctive datalog.

Page 30: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

30/32

Data Complexity

• Reasoning is undecidable without DL-safety different sources of undecidability than in the FO case

• If rules have special form, we can… …find (P,N) in an easier way (e.g. deterministically) and/or …check the minimality condition easier

• Data complexity of ground atom entailment:

Page 31: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

31/32

Contents

• Why Combine DLs with LP?

• Main Challenge: OWA vs. CVA

• Existing Approaches

• Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure

• MKNF Knowledge Bases

• Reasoning and Complexity

• Conclusion

Page 32: Semantics and Reasoning Algorithms for a Faithful Integration of Description Logics and Rules

32/32

Conclusion

• MKNF rules… …generalize many known combinations of DLs and rules

…are fully compatible with both DLs and LP

…are intuitive think of K as consequence

think of not as not consequence

…have nice complexity defined by the DL and the LP fragment (in most cases)

• Future challenges implementation

use in applications


Recommended