Reasoning about Minimal Belief and Negation as Failure

We investigate the problem of reasoning in the propositional fragment of MBNF, the logic of minimal belief and negation as failure introduced by Lifschitz, which can be considered as a unifying framework for several nonmonotonic formalisms, including default logic, autoepistemic logic, circumscription, epistemic queries, and logic programming. We characterize the complexity and provide algorithms for reasoning in propositional MBNF. In particular, we show that entailment in propositional MBNF lies at the third level of the polynomial hierarchy, hence it is harder than reasoning in all the above mentioned propositional formalisms for nonmonotonic reasoning. We also prove the exact correspondence between negation as failure in MBNF and negative introspection in Moore's autoepistemic logic

Embedding Non-Ground Logic Programs into Autoepistemic Logic for Knowledge Base Combination

In the context of the Semantic Web, several approaches to the combination of ontologies, given in terms of theories of classical first-order logic and rule bases, have been proposed. They either cast rules into classical logic or limit the interaction between rules and ontologies. Autoepistemic logic (AEL) is an attractive formalism which allows to overcome these limitations, by serving as a uniform host language to embed ontologies and nonmonotonic logic programs into it. For the latter, so far only the propositional setting has been considered. In this paper, we present three embeddings of normal and three embeddings of disjunctive non-ground logic programs under the stable model semantics into first-order AEL. While the embeddings all correspond with respect to objective ground atoms, differences arise when considering non-atomic formulas and combinations with first-order theories. We compare the embeddings with respect to stable expansions and autoepistemic consequences, considering the embeddings by themselves, as well as combinations with classical theories. Our results reveal differences and correspondences of the embeddings and provide useful guidance in the choice of a particular embedding for knowledge combination.Comment: 52 pages, submitte

Towards Closed World Reasoning in Dynamic Open Worlds (Extended Version)

The need for integration of ontologies with nonmonotonic rules has been gaining importance in a number of areas, such as the Semantic Web. A number of researchers addressed this problem by proposing a unified semantics for hybrid knowledge bases composed of both an ontology (expressed in a fragment of first-order logic) and nonmonotonic rules. These semantics have matured over the years, but only provide solutions for the static case when knowledge does not need to evolve. In this paper we take a first step towards addressing the dynamics of hybrid knowledge bases. We focus on knowledge updates and, considering the state of the art of belief update, ontology update and rule update, we show that current solutions are only partial and difficult to combine. Then we extend the existing work on ABox updates with rules, provide a semantics for such evolving hybrid knowledge bases and study its basic properties. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that an update operator is proposed for hybrid knowledge bases.Comment: 40 pages; an extended version of the article published in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 10 (4-6): 547 - 564, July. Copyright 2010 Cambridge University Pres

Local Closed-World Reasoning with Description Logics under the Well-Founded Semantics

An important question for the upcoming Semantic Web is how to best combine open world ontology languages, such as the OWL-based ones, with closed world rule-based languages. One of the most mature proposals for this combination is known as hybrid MKNF knowledge bases (Motik and Rosati, 2010 [52]), and it is based on an adaptation of the Stable Model Semantics to knowledge bases consisting of ontology axioms and rules. In this paper we propose a well-founded semantics for nondisjunctive hybrid MKNF knowledge bases that promises to provide better efficiency of reasoning, and that is compatible with both the OWL-based semantics and the traditional Well-Founded Semantics for logic programs. Moreover, our proposal allows for the detection of inconsistencies, possibly occurring in tightly integrated ontology axioms and rules, with only little additional effort. We also identify tractable fragments of the resulting language

Monotonicity and Persistence in Preferential Logics

An important characteristic of many logics for Artificial Intelligence is their nonmonotonicity. This means that adding a formula to the premises can invalidate some of the consequences. There may, however, exist formulae that can always be safely added to the premises without destroying any of the consequences: we say they respect monotonicity. Also, there may be formulae that, when they are a consequence, can not be invalidated when adding any formula to the premises: we call them conservative. We study these two classes of formulae for preferential logics, and show that they are closely linked to the formulae whose truth-value is preserved along the (preferential) ordering. We will consider some preferential logics for illustration, and prove syntactic characterization results for them. The results in this paper may improve the efficiency of theorem provers for preferential logics.Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for any accompanying file

Negation-as-failure considered harmful

In logic programs, negation-as-failure has been used both for representing negative information and for providing default nonmonotonic inference. In this paper we argue that this twofold role is not only unnecessary for the expressiveness of the language, but it also plays against declarative programming, especially if further negation symbols such as strong negation are also available. We therefore propose a new logic programming approach in which negation and default inference are independent, orthogonal concepts. Semantical characterization of this approach is given in the style of answer sets, but other approaches are also possible. Finally, we compare them with the semantics for logic programs with two kinds of negation.Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

A semantical framework for hybrid knowledge bases

In the ongoing discussion about combining rules and ontologies on the Semantic Web a recurring issue is how to combine first-order classical logic with nonmonotonic rule languages. Whereas several modular approaches to define a combined semantics for such hybrid knowledge bases focus mainly on decidability issues, we tackle the matter from a more general point of view. In this paper, we show how Quantified Equilibrium Logic (QEL) can function as a unified framework which embraces classical logic as well as disjunctive logic programs under the (open) answer set semantics. In the proposed variant of QEL, we relax the unique names assumption, which was present in earlier versions of QEL. Moreover, we show that this framework elegantly captures the existing modular approaches for hybrid knowledge bases in a unified way