Combining Expression and Content in Domains for Dialog Managers

We present work in progress on abstracting dialog managers from their domain in order to implement a dialog manager development tool which takes (among other data) a domain description as input and delivers a new dialog manager for the described domain as output. Thereby we will focus on two topics; firstly, the construction of domain descriptions with description logics and secondly, the interpretation of utterances in a given domain.Comment: 5 pages, uses conference.st

On Bisimulations for Description Logics

We study bisimulations for useful description logics. The simplest among the considered logics is $\mathcal{ALC}_{reg}$ (a variant of PDL). The others extend that logic with inverse roles, nominals, quantified number restrictions, the universal role, and/or the concept constructor for expressing the local reflexivity of a role. They also allow role axioms. We give results about invariance of concepts, TBoxes and ABoxes, preservation of RBoxes and knowledge bases, and the Hennessy-Milner property w.r.t. bisimulations in the considered description logics. Using the invariance results we compare the expressiveness of the considered description logics w.r.t. concepts, TBoxes and ABoxes. Our results about separating the expressiveness of description logics are naturally extended to the case when instead of $\mathcal{ALC}_{reg}$ we have any sublogic of $\mathcal{ALC}_{reg}$ that extends $\mathcal{ALC}$. We also provide results on the largest auto-bisimulations and quotient interpretations w.r.t. such equivalence relations. Such results are useful for minimizing interpretations and concept learning in description logics. To deal with minimizing interpretations for the case when the considered logic allows quantified number restrictions and/or the constructor for the local reflexivity of a role, we introduce a new notion called QS-interpretation, which is needed for obtaining expected results. By adapting Hopcroft's automaton minimization algorithm and the Paige-Tarjan algorithm, we give efficient algorithms for computing the partition corresponding to the largest auto-bisimulation of a finite interpretation.Comment: 42 page

Logics for Unranked Trees: An Overview

Labeled unranked trees are used as a model of XML documents, and logical languages for them have been studied actively over the past several years. Such logics have different purposes: some are better suited for extracting data, some for expressing navigational properties, and some make it easy to relate complex properties of trees to the existence of tree automata for those properties. Furthermore, logics differ significantly in their model-checking properties, their automata models, and their behavior on ordered and unordered trees. In this paper we present a survey of logics for unranked trees

Musings on Encodings and Expressiveness

This paper proposes a definition of what it means for one system description language to encode another one, thereby enabling an ordering of system description languages with respect to expressive power. I compare the proposed definition with other definitions of encoding and expressiveness found in the literature, and illustrate it on a case study: comparing the expressive power of CCS and CSP.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2012, arXiv:1208.244

Remarks on logic for process descriptions in ontological reasoning: A Drug Interaction Ontology case study

We present some ideas on logical process descriptions, using relations from the DIO (Drug Interaction Ontology) as examples and explaining how these relations can be naturally decomposed in terms of more basic structured logical process descriptions using terms from linear logic. In our view, the process descriptions are able to clarify the usual relational descriptions of DIO. In particular, we discuss the use of logical process descriptions in proving linear logical theorems. Among the types of reasoning supported by DIO one can distinguish both (1) basic reasoning about general structures in reality and (2) the domain-specific reasoning of experts. We here propose a clarification of this important distinction between (realist) reasoning on the basis of an ontology and rule-based inferences on the basis of an expert’s view