Undecidability of the unification and admissibility problems for modal and description logics

We show that the unification problem `is there a substitution instance of a given formula that is provable in a given logic?' is undecidable for basic modal logics K and K4 extended with the universal modality. It follows that the admissibility problem for inference rules is undecidable for these logics as well. These are the first examples of standard decidable modal logics for which the unification and admissibility problems are undecidable. We also prove undecidability of the unification and admissibility problems for K and K4 with at least two modal operators and nominals (instead of the universal modality), thereby showing that these problems are undecidable for basic hybrid logics. Recently, unification has been introduced as an important reasoning service for description logics. The undecidability proof for K with nominals can be used to show the undecidability of unification for boolean description logics with nominals (such as ALCO and SHIQO). The undecidability proof for K with the universal modality can be used to show that the unification problem relative to role boxes is undecidable for Boolean description logic with transitive roles, inverse roles, and role hierarchies (such as SHI and SHIQ)

Basic Description Logics

This chapter provides an introduction to Description Logics as a formal language for representing knowledge and reasoning about it. It first gives a short overview of the ideas underlying Description Logics. Then it introduces syntax and semantics, covering the basic constructors that are used in systems or have been introduced in the literature, and the way these constructors can be used to build knowledge bases. Finally, it defines the typical inference problems, shows how they are interrelated, and describes different approaches for effectively solving these problems. Some of the topics that are only briefly mentioned in this chapter will be treated in more detail in subsequent chapters

Description Logics as Ontology Languages for the Semantic Web

The vision of a Semantic Web has recently drawn considerable attention, both from academia and industry. Description logics are often named as one of the tools that can support the Semantic Web and thus help to make this vision reality. In this paper, we describe what description logics are and what they can do for the Semantic Web. Descriptions logics are very useful for defining, integrating, and maintaining ontologies, which provide the Semantic Web with a common understanding of the basic semantic concepts used to annotate Web pages. We also argue that, without the last decade of basic research in this area, description logics could not play such an important rˆole in this domain

Адаптивные дескрипционные динамические доксастические логики вопросов

Basic ideas of adaptive logics are described. Incorporation problems of the data adaptation into the systems of epistemic and doxastic logics are analysed. An idea to combine tools of dynamic doxastic and adaptive logics to extend description logics is proposed.Описаны базовые идеи адаптивной логики. Проанализированы трудности применения инструментария адаптации данных в рамках доксастических и эпистемических логик. Сформулирована идея комбинирования аппарата динамических доксастических и адаптивных логик для расширения аппарата дескрипционных логик

A Paraconsistent Higher Order Logic

Classical logic predicts that everything (thus nothing useful at all) follows from inconsistency. A paraconsistent logic is a logic where an inconsistency does not lead to such an explosion, and since in practice consistency is difficult to achieve there are many potential applications of paraconsistent logics in knowledge-based systems, logical semantics of natural language, etc. Higher order logics have the advantages of being expressive and with several automated theorem provers available. Also the type system can be helpful. We present a concise description of a paraconsistent higher order logic with countable infinite indeterminacy, where each basic formula can get its own indeterminate truth value (or as we prefer: truth code). The meaning of the logical operators is new and rather different from traditional many-valued logics as well as from logics based on bilattices. The adequacy of the logic is examined by a case study in the domain of medicine. Thus we try to build a bridge between the HOL and MVL communities. A sequent calculus is proposed based on recent work by Muskens.Comment: Originally in the proceedings of PCL 2002, editors Hendrik Decker, Joergen Villadsen, Toshiharu Waragai (http://floc02.diku.dk/PCL/). Correcte

The Complexity of Satisfiability for Sub-Boolean Fragments of ALC

The standard reasoning problem, concept satisfiability, in the basic description logic ALC is PSPACE-complete, and it is EXPTIME-complete in the presence of unrestricted axioms. Several fragments of ALC, notably logics in the FL, EL, and DL-Lite family, have an easier satisfiability problem; sometimes it is even tractable. All these fragments restrict the use of Boolean operators in one way or another. We look at systematic and more general restrictions of the Boolean operators and establish the complexity of the concept satisfiability problem in the presence of axioms. We separate tractable from intractable cases.Comment: 17 pages, accepted (in short version) to Description Logic Workshop 201

Interval-based Temporal Reasoning with General TBoxes

From the Motivation: „Description Logics (DLs) are a family of formalisms well-suited for the representation of and reasoning about knowledge. Whereas most Description Logics represent only static aspects of the application domain, recent research resulted in the exploration of various Description Logics that allow to, additionally, represent temporal information, see [4] for an overview. The approaches to integrate time differ in at least two important aspects: First, the basic temporal entity may be a time point or a time interval. Second, the temporal structure may be part of the semantics (yielding a multi-dimensional semantics) or it may be integrated as a so-called concrete domain. Examples for multi-dimensional point-based logics can be find in, e.g., [21;29], while multi-dimensional interval-based logics are used in, e.g., [23;2]. The concrete domain approach needs some more explanation. Concrete domains have been proposed by Baader and Hanschke as an extension of Description Logics that allows reasoning about 'concrete qualities' of the entities of the application domain such as sizes, length, or weights of real-worlds objects [5]. Description Logics with concrete domains do usually not use a fixed concrete domain; instead the concrete domain can be thought of as a parameter to the logic. As was first described in [16], if a 'temporal' concrete domain is employed, then concrete domains may be point-based, interval-based, or both. ...

Federated description logics for the semantic web

The thesis deals with a family of federated description logics for creating modular ontologies in the semantic web. All these logics share modularity, the possibility to reuse concept names and role names by importing, and context-sensitive interpretation of all logical connectives. Apart from the main basic language F-ALCI, we present a lattice-based extension LF-ALCI, a probabilistic extension PF-ALCI and an extension that employs knowledge operators F-ALCIK. All languages are based on the ordinary well-known description logic ALCI

A Tableau Calculus for Temporal Description Logic: The Constant Domain Case.

We show how to combine the standard tableau system for the basic description logic ALC and Wolper´s tableau calculus for propositional temporal logic PTL (with the temporal operators ‘next-time’ and ‘until’) in order to design a terminating sound and complete tableau-based satisfiability-checking algorithm for the temporal description logic PTL ALC of [19] interpreted in models with constant domains. We use the method of quasimodels [17, 15] to represent models with infinite domains, and the technique of minimal types [11] to maintain these domains constant. The combination is flexible and can be extended to more expressive description logics or even do decidable fragments of first-order temporal logics

Reasoning about Typicality and Probabilities in Preferential Description Logics

In this work we describe preferential Description Logics of typicality, a nonmonotonic extension of standard Description Logics by means of a typicality operator T allowing to extend a knowledge base with inclusions of the form T(C) v D, whose intuitive meaning is that normally/typically Cs are also Ds. This extension is based on a minimal model semantics corresponding to a notion of rational closure, built upon preferential models. We recall the basic concepts underlying preferential Description Logics. We also present two extensions of the preferential semantics: on the one hand, we consider probabilistic extensions, based on a distributed semantics that is suitable for tackling the problem of commonsense concept combination, on the other hand, we consider other strengthening of the rational closure semantics and construction to avoid the so-called blocking of property inheritance problem.Comment: 17 pages. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1811.0236