Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS

[EN] Nowadays, Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are broadening their applications to open environments, where heterogeneous agents could enter into the system, form agents’ organizations and interact. The high dynamism of open MAS gives rise to potential conflicts between agents and thus, to a need for a mechanism to reach agreements. Argumentation is a natural way of harmonizing conflicts of opinion that has been applied to many disciplines, such as Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) and MAS. Some approaches that apply CBR to manage argumentation in MAS have been proposed in the literature. These improve agents’ argumentation skills by allowing them to reason and learn from experiences. In this paper, we have reviewed these approaches and identified the current contributions of the CBR methodology in this area. As a result of this work, we have proposed several open issues that must be taken into consideration to develop a CBR framework that provides the agents of an open MAS with arguing and learning capabilities.This work was partially supported by CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 under grant CSD2007-00022 and by the Spanish government and FEDER funds under TIN2006-14630-C0301 project.Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2009). Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS. Knowledge Engineering Review. 24(4):327-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888909990178S327352244Willmott S. , Vreeswijk G. , Chesñevar C. , South M. , McGinnis J. , Modgil S. , Rahwan I. , Reed C. , Simari G. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format for multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AAMAS International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 17–34.Sycara, K. P. (1990). Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision, 28(3), 203-242. doi:10.1007/bf00162699Ontañón S. , Plaza E. 2006. Arguments and counterexamples in case-based joint deliberation. In AAMAS-06 Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 36–53.Sadri F. , Toni F. , Torroni P. 2001. Dialogues for negotiation: agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, ATAL-01, Intelligent Agents VIII 2333, 405–421. Springer.Fox J. , Parsons S. 1998. Arguing about beliefs and actions. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1455, 266–302. Springer.Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321-357. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-xAulinas M. , Tolchinsky P. , Turon C. , Poch M. , Cortés U. 2007. Is my spill environmentally safe? Towards an integrated management of wastewater in a river basin using agents that can argue. In 7th International IWA Symposium on Systems Analysis and Integrated Assessment in Water Management. Washington DC, USA.Amgoud L. 2003. A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2711, 552–563. Springer.Armengol E. , Plaza E. 2001. Lazy induction of descriptions for relational case-based learning. In European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML-01, 13–24.Sørmo, F., Cassens, J., & Aamodt, A. (2005). Explanation in Case-Based Reasoning–Perspectives and Goals. Artificial Intelligence Review, 24(2), 109-143. doi:10.1007/s10462-005-4607-7RAHWAN, I., RAMCHURN, S. D., JENNINGS, N. R., McBURNEY, P., PARSONS, S., & SONENBERG, L. (2003). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343-375. doi:10.1017/s0269888904000098Brüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2001. Improving the representation of legal case texts with information extraction methods. In 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-01, 42–51.Parsons, S. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), 261-292. doi:10.1093/logcom/8.3.261Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & Mcburney, P. (2005). A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 153-171. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-1166-xBrüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2003. Predicting the outcome of case-based legal arguments. In 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-03, 233–242.Modgil S. , Tolchinsky P. , Cortés U. 2005. Towards formalising agent argumentation over the viability of human organs for transplantation. In 4th Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, MICAI-05, 928–938.Tolchinsky P. , Atkinson K. , McBurney P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. 2007. Agents deliberating over action proposals using the ProCLAIM model. In 5th International Central and Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, CEEMAS-07, 32–41.Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(2/4), 231-287. doi:10.1023/a:1008278309945Gordon T. F. , Karacapilidis N. 1997. The Zeno argumentation framework. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, ACM Press, 10–18.Tolchinsky P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. 2006a. Argument schemes and critical questions for heterogeneous agents to argue over the viability of a human organ. In AAAI Spring Symposium Series; Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare, 377–384.Aleven V. , Ashley K. D. 1997. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In 8th World Conference of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Society, 87–94.Rahwan, I. (2005). Guest Editorial: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 115-125. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-3079-0RISSLAND, E. L., ASHLEY, K. D., & BRANTING, L. K. (2005). Case-based reasoning and law. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 293-298. doi:10.1017/s0269888906000701Tolchinsky, P., Cortes, U., Modgil, S., Caballero, F., & Lopez-Navidad, A. (2006). Increasing Human-Organ Transplant Availability: Argumentation-Based Agent Deliberation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(6), 30-37. doi:10.1109/mis.2006.116McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S. (2006). The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95-132. doi:10.1002/int.20191Rissland, E. L., Ashley, K. D., & Loui, R. P. (2003). AI and Law: A fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 1-15. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00122-xSoh, L.-K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A Real-Time Negotiation Model and A Multi-Agent Sensor Network Implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215-271. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-0539-5Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C. I., & Simari, G. R. (2005). Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 127-151. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-1354-8Tolchinsky P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. , Sànchez-Marrè M. 2006b. CBR and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA-06, 144, 71–82. IOS Press.Ossowski S. , Julian V. , Bajo J. , Billhardt H. , Botti V. , Corchado J. M. 2007. Open issues in open MAS: an abstract architecture proposal. In Conferencia de la Asociacion Española para la Inteligencia Artificial, CAEPIA-07, 2, 151–160.Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259-277. doi:10.1016/s0306-4379(01)00020-5Aamodt A. 2004. Knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning in Creek. In 7th European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning ECCBR-04, 1–15.Jakobovits H. , Vermeir D. 1999. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-99, ACM Press, 53–62.Díaz-Agudo, B., & González-Calero, P. A. (s. f.). An Ontological Approach to Develop Knowledge Intensive CBR Systems. Ontologies, 173-213. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-37022-4_7Reed C. , Walton D. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-04, 173–188.Sycara K. 1989. Argumentation: planning other agents’ plans. In 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1, 517–523. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 619-641. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1-2), 81-132. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4Amgoud L. , Kaci S. 2004. On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In 1st International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3366, 192–207. Springer.CHESÑEVAR, C., MCGINNIS, MODGIL, S., RAHWAN, I., REED, C., SIMARI, G., … WILLMOTT, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293-316. doi:10.1017/s0269888906001044Rahwan I. , Amgoud L. 2006. An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-06, ACM Press, 347–354.Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730Soh L.-K. , Tsatsoulis C. 2001b. Reflective negotiating agents for real-time multisensor target tracking. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-01, 1121–1127.Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. doi:10.1515/9783110846089Rissland E. L. , Skalak D. B. , Friedman M. T. 1993. Bankxx: a program to generate argument through case-based search. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-93, 117–124.Sycara K. 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods, PhD thesis, School of Information and Computer Science. Georgia Institute of Technology.Ontañón S. , Plaza E. 2007. Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-07, 971–978.Rissland, E. L., & Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 839-887. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-wDaniels J. J. , Rissland E. L. 1997. Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. In 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, 39–47.Brüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2005. Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts. In 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-05, 65–74.Simari G. R. , García A. J. , Capobianco M. 2004. Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 377–384.Soh L.-K. , Tsatsoulis C. 2001a. Agent-based argumentative negotiations with case-based reasoning. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, 16–25.Ashley, K. D. (1991). Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 753-796. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-uHulstijn J. , van der Torre L. 2004, Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Argument, Dialogue and Decision. International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 212–218.Karacapilidis N. , Trousse B. , Papadias D. 1997. Using case-based reasoning for argumentation with multiple viewpoints. In 2nd International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR-97, 541–552.Branting, L. K. (1991). Building explanations from rules and structured cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 797-837. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90012-

PELAYANAN KESEHATAN TERHADAP STANDAR MAKANAN NARAPIDANA DI TINJAU DARI UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 12 TAHUN 1995 TENTANG PEMASYARAKATAN

ABSTRACTA prisoner as a person who is currently serving a sentence in a correctional facility does not mean that the prisoner loses all his rights as a human being or does not even get any rights while being a prisoner. Article 14 paragraph (1) Letter d of the Correctional Law, namely prisoners have the right to get health services and adequate food. Giving food that is not sufficient in quantity and quality can cause various health problems, including it can lead to malnutrition, so susceptible to disease, lack of motivation and apathy. The correctional facility must provide food with quality that meets health requirements. Food that meets health requirements or healthy food is food that is hygienic, nutritious, and sufficient.This research is included in normative legal research through a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The data source used is secondary data consisting of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. The technique of collecting and processing legal materials is carried out by means of literature study, namely by looking for primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials that are relevant to the research. The analysis of the legal materials used is that the legal materials will be collected then the legal materials are processed, then proceed with analyzing the legal materials by means of interpretive, legal reasoning, and argumentation.Based on the results of research and discussion, it is known that Health Services to Food Standards for Prisoners have met standards which are prisoners' rights that must be fulfilled by prisons in accordance with the applicable Law Number 12 of 1995 Concerning Corrections, as for food that meets standards, among others, namely food ingredients. which is processed does not exceed the expiration limit, where the food does not use substances that are harmful to the health of the food and the food served does not endanger health. It can be seen that the number of prisoners is 830 people and it is related to food service which in reality is 3 times a day and 2 times a day. Rights for Prisoners The implementation of this fulfillment, of course, the prison authorities still experience significant obstacles due to several factors that cannot be denied from the correctional ranks, namely what if it happens and what can no longer be avoided if the constraints in question are: 1. related to the delay delivery of food ingredients 2. foodstuffs run out before time 3. limited supply of water. This is an obstacle that is not desired by all parties in the ranks of prisons both in the implementation of health services and the provision of proper food for prisoners.Keywords: Health Services, Prisoners, Correctional Institutio

Designing Normative Theories for Ethical and Legal Reasoning: LogiKEy Framework, Methodology, and Tool Support

A framework and methodology---termed LogiKEy---for the design and engineering of ethical reasoners, normative theories and deontic logics is presented. The overall motivation is the development of suitable means for the control and governance of intelligent autonomous systems. LogiKEy's unifying formal framework is based on semantical embeddings of deontic logics, logic combinations and ethico-legal domain theories in expressive classic higher-order logic (HOL). This meta-logical approach enables the provision of powerful tool support in LogiKEy: off-the-shelf theorem provers and model finders for HOL are assisting the LogiKEy designer of ethical intelligent agents to flexibly experiment with underlying logics and their combinations, with ethico-legal domain theories, and with concrete examples---all at the same time. Continuous improvements of these off-the-shelf provers, without further ado, leverage the reasoning performance in LogiKEy. Case studies, in which the LogiKEy framework and methodology has been applied and tested, give evidence that HOL's undecidability often does not hinder efficient experimentation.Comment: 50 pages; 10 figure

Perlindungan Hukum Negara Terhadap Hak Warga Bekerja Di Era Digital

Perubahan hidup serba digital di era revolusi industri dewasa ini telah mengakibatkan meningkatnya pengangguran. Sebagai sebuah negara, Indonesia bertanggung jawab terhadap warganya untuk menyediakan pekerjaan layak dan mengaturnya agar hak tersebut dapat dipenuhi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bentuk perlindungan hukum negara terhadap tenaga kerja yang terkena PHK akibat digitalisasi industri. Penelitian ini merupakan jenis penelitian hukum yang dilakukan untuk memecahkan problem hukum dengan cara mengidentifikasi problem hukum, melakukan penalaran hukum, menganalisis masalah secara normatif. Pendekatannya kualitatif melalui penelitian pustaka. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa negara Indonesia secara spesifik belum mengatur peraturan terkait PHK akibat digitalisasi industri. Namun Indonesia telah memberikan perlindungan hukum melalui dua bentuk, preventif dan represif. Perlindungan hukum preventif ditunjukkan dengan ditetapkannya UUK Pasal 164 Ayat (3), UUK Pasal 156 ayat (2), Pasal 156 ayat (3), dan Pasal 156 ayat (4). Sementara perlindungan hukum berbentuk represif dilakukan pemerintah untuk menyelesaikan sengketa hubungan industrial antara pengusaha dan tenaga kerja. Aturan ini tertuang dalam UUK Pasal 189. Kata kunci: Perlindungan Hukum, PHK, Era Digital, Preventif, Represif   Changes in human being’s life style today's digital era have increased an unemployment. As a country, Indonesia is responsible for its citizens to provide decent jobs and regulate them so that these rights can be fulfilled. This study aims to determine the form of state legal protection for workers affected by layoffs due to industrial digitalization. This research is a type of legal research conducted to solve legal problems by identifying legal problems, doing legal reasoning, and analyzing problems normatively. The approach is qualitative through library research. The results of the study show that the Indonesian state has not specifically regulated regulations related to layoffs due to industrial digitalization. However, Indonesia has provided legal protection in two forms, preventive and repressive. Preventive legal protection is demonstrated by the enactment of UUK Pasal 164 Ayat (3), Pasal 156 Ayat (2), Pasal 156 Ayat (3), and Pasal 156 Ayat (4). Meanwhile, the government provides repressive legal protection to resolve industrial relations disputes between enterpreneur and workers. This rule is contained in UUK Pasal 189.  Keywords: Legal protection, PHK, digital era, preventive, repressive REFERENCES Abdul Rahmad Budiono, 2009, Hukum Perburuhan, Jakarta: Indeks. Adi Fahrudin, 2012, Pengantar Kesejahteraan Sosial, Bandung: PT. Refika Aditama. Agusmidah, 2011, Dilematika Hukum Ketenagakerjaan, Tinjauan Politik Hukum, Cetakan I, Jakarta: Sofmedia. Barber, Benjamin R. 1939-2017., Strong Democracy : Participatory Politics For A New Age (Twentieth Anniversary Edition With A New Preface Ed.). Berkeley. (2003). ISBN 0520242335. OCLC 54531414. De Vos (et al), 2014, South African Constitutional Law – In Context: Oxford University Press. Jeremy Rifkin, 1995, the End of Work, Putnam Publishing Group. Kartasapoetra, 1992, Hukum Perburuhan di Indonesia, Jakarta:Sinar Grafindo, 1992. Kelly D, Community participation in rangeland management : a report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. (RIRDC: Barton ACT), 2001. Lane J Non-governmental organisations and participatory development: the concept in theory versus the concept in practice. In ‘Power and Participatory Development’. (Ed. S Wright). Intermediate Technology Publications: London, 1995, h. 2. Mardani Wijaya Dkk, Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara Untuk Bekerja Pada Era Revolusi Industri 4.0, Jurnal IUS (Kajian Hukum Dan Keadilan) Volume 7 No. 2, 2019. Mohtar Kusumaatmadja, 1995, Pemantapan Cita Hukum dan Asas-Asas Hukum Nasional di Masa Kini dan Masa Yang Akan Datang, Majalah Hukum Nasional, Edisi Khusus No. 1, Jakarta. Ndekha A, Hansen EH, Molgaard P, Woelk G, Furu P Community participation as an interactive learning process: experiences from a schistosomiasis control project in Zimbabwe. Acta Tropica 85, 2003. Nelson N, Wright S (1995) Participation and power. In ‘Power and participatory development’. (Ed. S Wright). (Intermediate Technology Publications: London) Nur Rofiah, Implementasi Perlindungan Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja bagi Pekerja Proyek Konstruksi di CV Mupakat Jaya Teknik (Tinjauan Undang-Undang No.13 Tahun 2003 dan Mashlahah Mursalah), Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah, Vol.7 No.1 Tahun 2016. Pateman, Carole. "Participatory Democracy Revisited". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (1): 7–19. (March 2012) doi:10.1017/S1537592711004877. ISSN 1541-0986. Pelling M (1998) Participation, social capital and vulnerability to urban flooding in Guyana. Journal of International Development 10. Philipus M. Hadjon, 2007, Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Rakyat di Indonesia, Peradaban:Surabaya. Pratomo Beritno, Perlindungan Hukum terhadap tenaga Kerja yang tidak Mendapatkan BPJS Ketenagakerjaan, Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Tambin Bunga Vol.7 No.1 Maret 2022. Ridwan,H.R., 2003, Hukum Administrasi Negara, Yogyakarta:UII Pres. Satjipto Rahardjo, 2000, Ilmu Hukum, Bandung:Citra Aditya. Suliati Rahmat, 1996, Upaya Peningkatan Perlindungan Hukum Wanita Pekerja di Perusahaan Industri Swasta, Disertasi, Jakarta:Program Pascasarjana UI. Sunindia YW dan Ninik Widayanti, Masalah PHK dan Pemogokan, Jakarta: Bina Aksara, 1988. Tikare S, Youssef D, Donnelly-Roark P, Shah P, Organising participatory processes in the PRSP, (2001). Vértesy, László. "The Public Participation in the Drafting of Legislation in Hungary". Central European Public Administration Review. 14 (4). (2017-01-10) doi:10.17573/ipar.2016.4.06. ISSN 2591-2259. White A ‘Community participation in water and sanitation : concepts, strategies and methods.’ (IRC: The Hague, 1981). Wolfe, Joel D. "A Defense of Participatory Democracy". The Review of Politics. (July 1985). 47 (3): 370–389. doi:10.1017/S0034670500036925. ISSN 1748-6858 Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 Undang-Undang No. 13 tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan, LN Nomor 39 Tahun 2003 Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 19/PUU-IX/2011 https://finance.detik.com/moneter/d-4386840/digantikan-mesin-50000-karyawan-bank-di-ri-kena-phk\ https://www.liputan6.com/bisnis/read/3884432/berpotensi-phk-massal-pemerintah-harus-hati-hati-terapkan-industri-40 www.hukumonline.com, Regulasi Ketenagakerjaan Mesti Adopsi Perkembangan Revolusi Industri 4.0. insanakademiks.blogspot.com/2011/10/teori-welfare-state-menurut-jm-keynes.html

Asymmetric Empirical Similarity

The paper offers a formal model of analogical legal reasoning and takes the model to data. Under the model, the outcome of a new case is a weighted average of the outcomes of prior cases. The weights capture precedential influence and depend on fact similarity (distance in fact space) and precedential authority (position in the judicial hierarchy). The empirical analysis suggests that the model is a plausible model for the time series of U.S. maritime salvage cases. Moreover, the results evince that prior cases decided by inferior courts have less influence than prior cases decided by superior courts

Unifying Class-Based Representation Formalisms

The notion of class is ubiquitous in computer science and is central in many formalisms for the representation of structured knowledge used both in knowledge representation and in databases. In this paper we study the basic issues underlying such representation formalisms and single out both their common characteristics and their distinguishing features. Such investigation leads us to propose a unifying framework in which we are able to capture the fundamental aspects of several representation languages used in different contexts. The proposed formalism is expressed in the style of description logics, which have been introduced in knowledge representation as a means to provide a semantically well-founded basis for the structural aspects of knowledge representation systems. The description logic considered in this paper is a subset of first order logic with nice computational characteristics. It is quite expressive and features a novel combination of constructs that has not been studied before. The distinguishing constructs are number restrictions, which generalize existence and functional dependencies, inverse roles, which allow one to refer to the inverse of a relationship, and possibly cyclic assertions, which are necessary for capturing real world domains. We are able to show that it is precisely such combination of constructs that makes our logic powerful enough to model the essential set of features for defining class structures that are common to frame systems, object-oriented database languages, and semantic data models. As a consequence of the established correspondences, several significant extensions of each of the above formalisms become available. The high expressiveness of the logic we propose and the need for capturing the reasoning in different contexts forces us to distinguish between unrestricted and finite model reasoning. A notable feature of our proposal is that reasoning in both cases is decidable. We argue that, by virtue of the high expressive power and of the associated reasoning capabilities on both unrestricted and finite models, our logic provides a common core for class-based representation formalisms