B. Nebel and G. Smolka. Attributive description formalisms . . . and the rest of the world. In O. Herzog and C.-R. Rollinger, editors, Text Understanding in LILOG, pages 439--452. Springer, 1991.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....framework. 1 Introduction Although the paradigms of object oriented programming (OOP) and of object centered knowledge representation (OCKR) have common roots, they took diverging paths over the past years. While knowledge representation formalisms such as terminological or description logics [32, 23] feature clear and elegant semantics and provide powerful subsumption and classification based inference algorithms operating on purely declarative databases, object oriented programming [25, 30, 29] has its strengths in flexible control structures utilizing message passing and in ....

....ones. Note that the specification of statement (2) is still incomplete, since we have not yet accounted for the number agreement property required for the subject and the predicate. In order to appropriately capture this constraint, one would have to introduce an additional terminological operator [23]. Statement (6) also requires the specification of feature agreement. Even worse, this expression would tend to become rather cumbersome, since DL formalisms fail to provide means for explicitly dealing with the quantification of individual variables. Anaphora resolution faces the additional ....

B. Nebel and G. Smolka. Attributive description formalisms . . . and the rest of the world. In O. Herzog and C.-R. Rollinger, editors, Text Understanding in LILOG, pages 439--452. Springer, 1991.

....OE 0 . But the use of regular languages of binary relations has also been considered in the context of terminological logics, which have their roots in the knowledge representation formalism KL one (see Brachman Schmolze (1985) for a comparison of feature logic and terminological logics see Nebel Smolka (1991)) Baader (1990) has consider an extension of the terminological language ALC of Schmidt Schau Smolka (1991) which uses regular languages of roles (binary relations) instead of single roles to build up concept terms. He has shown, that testing satisfiability of this extension is decidable. In ....

Nebel, B., Smolka, G. (1991). Attributive description formalisms ... and the rest of the world. In Herzog, O., Rollinger, C.-R., editors, Text Understanding in LILOG: Integrating Computational Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence, volume 546 of Lectures Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 439--452.

....ones. Note that the specification of statement (2) is still incomplete, since we have not yet accounted for the number agreement property required for the subject and the predicate. In order to appropriately capture this constraint, one would have to introduce an additional terminological operator [23]. Statement (6) also requires the specification of feature agreement. Even worse, this expression would tend to become rather cumbersome, since DL formalisms fail to provide means for explicitly dealing with the quantification of individual variables. Anaphora resolution faces the additional ....

Bernhard Nebel and Gert Smolka. Attributive description formalisms . . . and the rest of the world. In O. Herzog and C.-R. Rollinger, editors, Text Understanding in LILOG, pages 439--

....the great majority rely on description logics or frame like representations. By and large, these representations capture only a subset of the expressive power of standard FOL, and in terms of their inference capabilities are aimed primarily at subsumption checking [Brachman and Levesque, 1984; Nebel and Smolka, 1991; Schmolze and Israel, 1983; Hayes, 1979] 8 8 In lexically oriented work such as [Dorr, 1993] Jackendoff s Lexical Conceptual Structures are gaining Our KR formalisms, especially the el and crt representations for language, were seen to be considerably more expressive than FOL. One might ask ....

Nebel, B. and Smolka, G. (1991). Attributive description formalisms ... and the rest of the world. In Herzog, O. and Rollinger, C., editors, Text Understanding in LILOG. Springer-Verlag.

....this shows that the consequences of rule applications in the classic system would become undecidable, if classic applied rules not only to individuals explicitly present in the ABox, but also to implicit individuals. This result for classic rules has already been mentioned by Nebel and Smolka [21], but without proof. In the next section we shall see that the restriction to explicit individuals leads to a decidable consequence relation even if one allows nonmonotonic default rules instead of classic s monotonic rules. 5 Computing Extensions Because of the problems caused by Skolemization ....

B. Nebel and G. Smolka. Attributive description formalisms . . . and the rest of the world. In C. Rollinger O. Herzog, editor, Text Understanding in LILOG, LNAI 546. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1991.

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