Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. Ontology reasoning in the description logic. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

No context found.

Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. Ontology reasoning in the description logic. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001.

No context found.

Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. Ontology reasoning in the description logic. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), pages 199--204, 2001.

....with concrete domains. To this end, we extend the two description logics with concrete domains with key boxes, in this way obtaining respectively. While can be viewed as the basic DL with concrete domains and has already been discussed above, was proposed as an ontology language in [31]. It provides a wealth of expressive possibilities such as general concept inclusion axioms (GCIs) transitive roles, role hierarchies, nominals, and qualifying number restrictions. Moreover, it o#ers a restricted variant of the concrete domain constructor that disallows the use of sequences of ....

....CheckMatch. It is interesting to note that the reduction concept is path free and the key box is simple, i.e. path free and Boolean. Path freeness of concepts is often used to tame the complexity of description logics with concrete domains (although it largely sacrifices their expressive power) [38, 7, 24, 31]. For example, if is augmented with so called general TBoxes, then reasoning with arbitrary concepts is undecidable while reasoning with path free concepts is ExpTime complete if is admissible and 18 is in ExpTime [37] This taming approach does not work in the presence of key boxes ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. Ontology reasoning in the description logic. In B. Nebel, editor, Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'01), pages 199--204. Morgan-Kaufmann, 2001.

....sets (closely related to the one of operator) e.g. if SSN is a key for Human (SSN keyfor Human) then the concept Human with SSN 1234 (Human # #SSN. 1234 ) has at most one instance. In this paper, we extend the well known DLs with concrete domains [Baader and Hanschke, 1991; Horrocks and Sattler, 2001] with key constraints and analyse the complexity of reasoning with the resulting logics SHOQK(D) We show that allowing complex concepts to occur in key constraints dramatically increases the complexity of (which is PSPACEcomplete) it becomes undecidable. Restricting key constraints to ....

....w.r.t. Boolean key boxes. This algorithm yields a NEXPTIME upper complexity bound matching the lower bounds established in Section 3. The second procedure is for w.r.t. path free key boxes and also yields a tight NEXPTIME upper complexity bound. is an extension of the DL introduced in [Horrocks and Sattler, 2001; Pan and Horrocks, 2002] which provides a wealth of expressive possibilities such as transitive roles, role hierarchies, nominals, qualifying number restrictions, and general TBoxes with a path free concrete domain constructor and path free key boxes. Path freeness of SHOQK(D) s concrete ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. Ontology reasoning in the description logic. In Proc. of IJCAI01, Morgan-Kaufmann, 2001.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC