Part 6: Description Logics

23
Part 6: Description Logics

description

Part 6: Description Logics. Languages for Ontologies. In early days of Artificial Intelligence, ontologies were represented resorting to non-logic-based formalisms Frames systems and semantic networks Graphical representation arguably ease to design - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Part 6: Description Logics

Page 1: Part 6: Description Logics

Part 6: Description Logics

Page 2: Part 6: Description Logics

Languages for Ontologies

• In early days of Artificial Intelligence, ontologies were represented resorting to non-logic-based formalisms– Frames systems and semantic networks

• Graphical representation– arguably ease to design

– but difficult to manage with complex pictures

– formal semantics, allowing for reasoning was missing

Page 3: Part 6: Description Logics

Semantic Networks

• Nodes representing concepts (i.e. sets of classes of individual objects)

• Links representing relationships– IS_A relationship– More complex relationships may have nodes

Person

Female

ParentWoman

Mother

hasChild(1,NIL)

Page 4: Part 6: Description Logics

Logics for Semantic Networks

• Logics was used to describe the semantics of core features of these networks– Relying on unary predicates for describing sets of

individuals and binary predicates for relationship between individuals

• Typical reasoning used in structure-based representation does not require the full power of 1st order theorem provers– Specialized reasoning techniques can be applied

Page 5: Part 6: Description Logics

From Frames to Description Logics

• Logical specialized languages for describing ontologies

• The name changed over time– Terminological systems emphasizing that the language

is used to define a terminology– Concept languages emphasizing the concept-forming

constructs of the languages– Description Logics moving attention to the properties,

including decidability, complexity, expressivity, of the languages

Page 6: Part 6: Description Logics

Description Logic ALC• ALC is the smallest propositionally closed

Description Logics. Syntax:– Atomic type:

• Concept names, which are unary predicates• Role names, which are binary predicates

– Constructs• ¬C (negation)• C1 ⊓ C2 (conjunction)• C1 ⊔ C2 (disjunction)R.C (existential restriction)R.C (universal restriction)

Page 7: Part 6: Description Logics

Semantics of ALC

• Semantics is based on interpretations (I,.I) where .I maps:– Each concept name A to AI ⊆ I

• I.e. a concept denotes set of individuals from the domain (unary predicates)

– Each role name R to AI ⊆ I x I

• I.e. a role denotes pairs of (binary relationships among) individuals

• An interpretation is a model for concept C iffCI ≠ {}

• Semantics can also be given by translating to 1st order logics

Page 8: Part 6: Description Logics

Negation, conjunction, disjunction

• ¬C denotes the set of all individuals in the domain that do not belong to C. Formally– (¬C)I = I – CI

– {x: ¬C(x)}

• C1 ⊔ C2 (resp. C1 ⊓ C2) is the set of all individual that either belong to C1 or (resp. and) to C2– (C1 ⊔ C2)I = C1

I ⋃ C2I resp. (C1 ⊓ C2)I = C1

I ⋂ C2I

– {x: C1(x) ⌵ C2(x)} resp. {x: C1(x) C2(x)}• Persons that are not female

– Person ⊓ ¬Female• Male or Female individuals

– Male ⊔ Female

Page 9: Part 6: Description Logics

Quantified role restrictions

• Quantifiers are meant to characterize relationship between concepts

R.C denotes the set of all individual which relate via R with at least one individual in concept C– (R.C)I = {d ∈ I | (d,e) ∈ RI and e ∈ CI}

– {x | y R(x,y) C(Y)}

• Persons that have a female child– Person ⊓ hasChild.Female

Page 10: Part 6: Description Logics

Quantified role restrictions (cont)

R.C denotes the set of all individual for which all individual to which it relates via R belong to concept C– (R.C)I = {d ∈ I | (d,e) ∈ RI implies e ∈ CI}– {x | y R(x,y) C(Y)}

• Persons whose all children are Female– Person ⊓ hasChild.Female

• The link in the network above– Parents have at least one child that is a person, and

there is no upper limit for children hasChild.Person ⊓ hasChild.Person

Page 11: Part 6: Description Logics

Elephant example

• Elephants that are grey mammal which have a trunck– Mammal ⊓ bodyPart.Trunk ⊓ color.Grey

• Elephants that are heavy mammals, except for Dumbo elephants that are light– Mammal ⊓

(weight.heavy ⊔ (Dumbo ⊓ weight.Light)

Page 12: Part 6: Description Logics

Reasoning tasks in DL

• What can we do with an ontology? What does the logical formalism brings more?

• Reasoning tasks– Concept satisfiability (is there any model for C?)– Concept subsumption (does C1

I ⊆ C2I for all I?)

C1 ⊑ C2

• Subsumption is important because from it one can compute a concept hierarchy

• Specialized (decidable and efficient) proof techniques exist for ALC, that do not employ the whole power needed for 1st order logics– Based on tableau algorithms

Page 13: Part 6: Description Logics

Representing Knowledge with DL

• A DL Knowledge base is made of– A TBox: Terminological (background) knowledge

• Defines concepts.• Eg. Elephant ≐ Mammal ⊓ bodyPart.Trunk

– A ABox: Knowledge about individuals, be it concepts or roles

• E.g. dumbo: Elephant or (lisa,dumbo):haschild

• Similar to eg. Databases, where there exists a schema and an instance of a database.

Page 14: Part 6: Description Logics

General TBoxes

• T is finite set of equation of the form

C1 ≐ C2

• I is a model of T if for all C1 ≐ C2 ∈ T, C1I = C2

I

• Reasoning:– Satisfiability: Given C and T find whether there is a

model both of C and of T?

– Subsumption (C1 ⊑T C2): does C1I ⊆ C2

I holds for all models of T?

Page 15: Part 6: Description Logics

Acyclic TBoxes

• For decidability, TBoxes are often restricted to equations

A ≐ Cwhere A is a concept name (rather than expression)

• Moreover, concept A does not appear in the expression C, nor at the definition of any of the concepts there (i.e. the definition is acyclic)

Page 16: Part 6: Description Logics

ABoxes

• Define a set of individuals, as instances of concepts and roles

• It is a finite set of expressions of the form:– a:C– (a,b):Rwhere both a and b are names of individuals, C is a

concept and R a role• I is a model of an ABox if it satisfies all its

expressions. It satisfies– a:C iff aI ∈ CI

– (a,b):R iff (aI,bI) ∈ RI

Page 17: Part 6: Description Logics

Reasoning with TBoxes and ABoxes

• Given a TBox T (defining concepts) and an ABox A defining individuals– Find whether there is a common model (i.e.

find out about consistency)– Find whether a concept is subsumed by another

concept C1 ⊑T C2

– Find whether an individual belongs to a concept (A,T |= a:C), i.e. whether aI ∈ CI for all models of A and T

Page 18: Part 6: Description Logics

Inference under ALC

• Since the semantics of ALC can be defined in terms of 1st order logics, clearly 1st order theorem provers can be used for inference

• However, ALC only uses a small subset of 1st order logics– Only unary and binary predicates, with a very limited

use of quantifiers and connectives• Inference and algorithms can be much simpler

– Tableau Algorithms are used for ALC and mostly other description logics

• ALC is also decidable, unlike 1st order logics

Page 19: Part 6: Description Logics

More expressive DLs

• The limited use of 1st order logics has its advantages, but some obvious drawbacks: Expressivity is also limited

• Some concept definitions are not possible to define in ALC. E.g.– An elephant has exactly 4 legs

• (expressing qualified number restrictions)– Every mother has (at least) a child, and every son is the

child of a mother• (inverse role definition)

– Elephant are animal• (define concepts without giving necessary and sufficient

conditions)

Page 20: Part 6: Description Logics

Extensions of ALC

• ALCN extends ALC with unqualified number restrictions≤n R and ≥n R and =n R

– Denotes the individuals which relate via R to at least (resp. at most, exactly) n individuals

– Eg. Person ⊓ (≥ 2 hasChild)• Persons with at least two children

• The precise meaning is defined by (resp. for ≥ and =)– (≤n R)I = {d ∈ I | #{(d,e) ∈ RI} ≤ n }

• It is possible to define the meaning in terms of 1st order logics, with recourse to equality. E.g.– ≥2 R is {x: yz, y ≠ z R(x,y) R(x,z)}– ≤2 R is

{x: y,z,w, (R(x,y) R(x,z) R(x,w)) (y=z ⌵ y=w ⌵ z=w)}

Page 21: Part 6: Description Logics

Qualified number restriction

• ALCN can be further extended to include the more expressive qualified number restrictions

(≤n R C) and (≥n R C)and (=n R C)– Denotes the individuals which relate via R to at least (resp. at

most, exactly) n individuals of concept C– Eg. Person ⊓ (≥ 2 hasChild Female)

• Persons with at least two female children– E.g. Mammal ⊓ (=4 bodypart Leg)

• Mammals with 4 legs

• The precise meaning is defined by (resp. for ≥ and =)– (≤n R)I = {d ∈ I | #{(d,e) ∈ RI} ≤ n }

• Again, it is possible to define the meaning in terms of 1st order logics, with recourse to equality. E.g.– (≥2 R C) is {x: yz, y ≠ z C(y) C(z) R(x,y) R(x,z)}

Page 22: Part 6: Description Logics

Further extensions• Inverse relations

– R- denotes the inverse of R: R- (x,y) = R(y,x)• One of constructs (nominals)

– {a1, …, an}, where as are individuals, denotes one of a1, …, an

• Statements of subsumption in TBoxes (rather than only definition)

• Role transitivity– Trans(R) denotes the transitivity closure of R

• SHOIN is the DL resulting from extending ALC with all the above described extensions– It is the underlying logics for the Semantic Web language OWL-

DL– The less expressive language SHIF, without nominal is the basis

for OWL-Lite

Page 23: Part 6: Description Logics

Example

• From the w3c wine ontology– Wine ⊑

PotableLiquid ⊓ (=1 hasMaker) hasMaker.Winery)

• Wine is a potable liquid with exactly one maker, and the maker must be a winery

hasColor-.Wine ⊑ {“white”, “rose”, “red”}• Wines can be either white, rose or red.

– WhiteWine ≐ Wine ⊓ hasColor.{“white”} • White wines are exactly the wines with color white.