A Zadeh-Norm Fuzzy Description Logic for Handling Uncertainty: Reasoning Algorithms and the Reasoning System

Similar documents
A Crisp Representation for Fuzzy SHOIN with Fuzzy Nominals and General Concept Inclusions

Chapter 2 Background. 2.1 A Basic Description Logic

An Introduction to Description Logics

Structured Descriptions & Tradeoff Between Expressiveness and Tractability

A Fuzzy Description Logic for Multimedia Knowledge Representation

Fuzzy Description Logics

Phase 1. Phase 2. Phase 3. History. implementation of systems based on incomplete structural subsumption algorithms

Relations to first order logic

Semantic Web Uncertainty Management

Mathematical Logics Description Logic: Introduction

Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation

Description Logics. an introduction into its basic ideas

A MILP-based decision procedure for the (Fuzzy) Description Logic ALCB

A Framework for Reasoning with Expressive Continuous Fuzzy Description Logics

Consistency checking for extended description logics

The Fuzzy Description Logic ALC F LH

Description Logics: an Introductory Course on a Nice Family of Logics. Day 2: Tableau Algorithms. Uli Sattler

Optimization Techniques for Fuzzy Description Logics

The Complexity of Lattice-Based Fuzzy Description Logics

Answering Fuzzy Conjunctive Queries over Finitely Valued Fuzzy Ontologies

Inconsistency-Tolerant Reasoning with OWL DL

Quasi-Classical Semantics for Expressive Description Logics

DESCRIPTION LOGICS. Paula Severi. October 12, University of Leicester

Description Logics. Adrian Groza. Department of Computer Science Technical University of Cluj-Napoca

On the Decidability Status of Fuzzy ALC with General Concept Inclusions

Fuzzy and Rough Sets Part I

Optimizing the Crisp Representation of the Fuzzy Description Logic SROIQ

Knowledge Representation for the Semantic Web

Knowledge Representation and Description Logic Part 2

Semantics and Inference for Probabilistic Ontologies

OUTLINE. Introduction History and basic concepts. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Fuzzy clustering. Fuzzy inference. Fuzzy systems. Application examples

Probabilistic Ontologies: Logical Approach

Motivation. From Propositions To Fuzzy Logic and Rules. Propositional Logic What is a proposition anyway? Outline

Nonmonotonic Reasoning in Description Logic by Tableaux Algorithm with Blocking

Reasoning with Very Expressive Fuzzy Description Logics

FOUNDATIONS OF SEMANTIC WEB TECHNOLOGIES

Gödel Negation Makes Unwitnessed Consistency Crisp

Algebraic Tableau Reasoning for the Description Logic SHOQ

The Bayesian Ontology Language BEL

Where are we? Operations on fuzzy sets (cont.) Fuzzy Logic. Motivation. Crisp and fuzzy sets. Examples

A SHORT GUIDE TO FUZZY DESCRIPTION LOGICS

Description Logics (DLs)

With Question/Answer Animations. Chapter 2

Applied Logic. Lecture 3 part 1 - Fuzzy logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw

Knowledge Representation for the Semantic Web Lecture 2: Description Logics I

ALC Concept Learning with Refinement Operators

Managing Uncertainty and Vagueness in Description Logics for the Semantic Web

Reasoning in Expressive Gödel Description Logics

UPPER AND LOWER SET FORMULAS: RESTRICTION AND MODIFICATION OF THE DEMPSTER-PAWLAK FORMALISM

OPPA European Social Fund Prague & EU: We invest in your future.

Least Common Subsumers and Most Specific Concepts in a Description Logic with Existential Restrictions and Terminological Cycles*

A Survey of Temporal Knowledge Representations

Description Logics with Fuzzy Concrete Domains

2. A tableau algorithm for ALC with TBoxes, number restrictions, and inverse roles. Extend ALC-tableau algorithm from first session with

A Boolean Lattice Based Fuzzy Description Logic in Web Computing

Reasoning with Inconsistent and Uncertain Ontologies

Description logics. Description Logics. Applications. Outline. Syntax - AL. Tbox and Abox

Role-depth Bounded Least Common Subsumers by Completion for EL- and Prob-EL-TBoxes

Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice

Non-Gödel Negation Makes Unwitnessed Consistency Undecidable

arxiv: v2 [cs.lo] 21 Jul 2014

Analyzing fuzzy and contextual approaches to vagueness by semantic games

Reasoning with Qualified Cardinality Restrictions in Fuzzy Description Logics

Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Logic: Theory and Applications in Computing

Introduzione alle logiche descrittive

Fuzzy Answer Set semantics for Residuated Logic programs

Fuzzy Ontologies over Lattices with T-norms

Proving simple set properties...

Rule-Based Fuzzy Model

A Fuzzy Description Logic

Fuzzy OWL: Uncertainty and the Semantic Web

3. Only sequences that were formed by using finitely many applications of rules 1 and 2, are propositional formulas.

On Axiomatic Rejection for the Description Logic ALC

Description Logics. Glossary. Definition

Uncertainty and Rules

The Apparatus of Fuzzy Class Theory

Decidability of SHI with transitive closure of roles

An Introduction to Description Logic III

AE4M33RZN, Fuzzy logic: Introduction, Fuzzy operators

Uncertainty and Rule Extensions to Description Logics and Semantic Web Ontologies

LTCS Report. Decidability and Complexity of Threshold Description Logics Induced by Concept Similarity Measures. LTCS-Report 16-07

Mathematical Logics Description Logic: Tbox and Abox

An Introduction to Description Logics: Techniques, Properties, and Applications. NASSLLI, Day 2, Part 2. Reasoning via Tableau Algorithms.

Lightweight Description Logics: DL-Lite A and EL ++

Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Inverting Proof Systems for Secrecy under OWA

Inference in Probabilistic Ontologies with Attributive Concept Descriptions and Nominals URSW 2008

Fuzzy Expert Systems Lecture 6 (Fuzzy Logic )

EXPLANATION AND DIAGNOSIS SERVICES FOR UNSATISFIABILITY AND INCONSISTENCY IN DESCRIPTION LOGICS

OPPA European Social Fund Prague & EU: We invest in your future.

Learning Goals of CS245 Logic and Computation

AN EXTENSION OF THE PROBABILITY LOGIC LP P 2. Tatjana Stojanović 1, Ana Kaplarević-Mališić 1 and Zoran Ognjanović 2

Artificial Intelligence. Propositional logic

Contents Propositional Logic: Proofs from Axioms and Inference Rules

In N we can do addition, but in order to do subtraction we need to extend N to the integers

Lecture 1: Introduction & Fuzzy Control I

A RESOLUTION DECISION PROCEDURE FOR SHOIQ

ALC + T: a Preferential Extension of Description Logics

Data-Driven Logical Reasoning

Uncertain Logic with Multiple Predicates

Transcription:

1 / 31 A Zadeh-Norm Fuzzy Description Logic for Handling Uncertainty: Reasoning Algorithms and the Reasoning System Judy Zhao 1, Harold Boley 2, Weichang Du 1 1. Faculty of Computer Science, University of New Brunswick Fredericton, NB, E3B 5AC, Canada 2. Institute for Information Technology, National Research Council of Canada Fredericton, NB, E3B 9W4, Canada 10 November 2010

2 / 31 Outline Introduction Motivation Problems Uncertain Knowledge Representation Logic Properties Inference Services Prototype Conclusions and Future Work

3 / 31 Preliminaries The DL Family Basic Description Logic ALC Concepts constructed using boolean operators (,, ) and restricted quantifiers (, ) Only atomic roles S often used for ALC extended with transitive roles (R + ) H for role hierarchy O for nominals (e.g.,{mary, John}) I for inverse roles (e.g., hasfather ) N for number restrictions (e.g., 2hasChild) Q for qualified number restrictions (e.g., 2hasChild.Doctor) R for limited complex role inclusion axioms, role disjointness F for functional properties ALC+R + +I=SI

3 / 31 Preliminaries The DL Family Basic Description Logic ALC Concepts constructed using boolean operators (,, ) and restricted quantifiers (, ) Only atomic roles S often used for ALC extended with transitive roles (R + ) H for role hierarchy O for nominals (e.g.,{mary, John}) I for inverse roles (e.g., hasfather ) N for number restrictions (e.g., 2hasChild) Q for qualified number restrictions (e.g., 2hasChild.Doctor) R for limited complex role inclusion axioms, role disjointness F for functional properties ALC+R + +I=SI

4 / 31 Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic Fuzzy Sets Fuzzy sets and set membership is the key to decision making when faced with uncertainty (Zadeh, 1965) Generalize crisp sets to Fuzzy Sets (concepts) Fuzzy Logic is particularly good at handling vagueness and imprecision Cheetahs run very fast John is young Hotels near Moncton John is tall

4 / 31 Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic Fuzzy Sets Fuzzy sets and set membership is the key to decision making when faced with uncertainty (Zadeh, 1965) Generalize crisp sets to Fuzzy Sets (concepts) Fuzzy Logic is particularly good at handling vagueness and imprecision Cheetahs run very fast John is young Hotels near Moncton John is tall

5 / 31 Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic Membership Functions

5 / 31 Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic Membership Functions

6 / 31 Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic Fuzzy Operations fuzzy intersection (t-norm): min(u(x), u(y)) fuzzy union (s-norm): max(u(x), u(y)) fuzzy set complement (negation): 1 u(x) fuzzy implication: Kleene-Dienes implication: max(1 u(x), u(y)) R-implications: u(y) = min(u(x), z)

6 / 31 Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic Fuzzy Operations fuzzy intersection (t-norm): min(u(x), u(y)) fuzzy union (s-norm): max(u(x), u(y)) fuzzy set complement (negation): 1 u(x) fuzzy implication: Kleene-Dienes implication: max(1 u(x), u(y)) R-implications: u(y) = min(u(x), z)

6 / 31 Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic Fuzzy Operations fuzzy intersection (t-norm): min(u(x), u(y)) fuzzy union (s-norm): max(u(x), u(y)) fuzzy set complement (negation): 1 u(x) fuzzy implication: Kleene-Dienes implication: max(1 u(x), u(y)) R-implications: u(y) = min(u(x), z)

6 / 31 Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic Fuzzy Operations fuzzy intersection (t-norm): min(u(x), u(y)) fuzzy union (s-norm): max(u(x), u(y)) fuzzy set complement (negation): 1 u(x) fuzzy implication: Kleene-Dienes implication: max(1 u(x), u(y)) R-implications: u(y) = min(u(x), z)

7 / 31 Semantic Web Application Architecture Semantic Web Application Architecture

7 / 31 Semantic Web Application Architecture Semantic Web Application Architecture

7 / 31 Semantic Web Application Architecture Semantic Web Application Architecture

7 / 31 Semantic Web Application Architecture Semantic Web Application Architecture

8 / 31 Semantic Web Application Architecture The World is Imprecise Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise. Bertrand Russell British author, mathematician, and philosopher (1872-1970) Nobel Prize in Literature,1950 People work and make decisions with imprecise data in an uncertain world However, classical DLs are limited to dealing with crisp, well-defined concepts and roles

8 / 31 Semantic Web Application Architecture The World is Imprecise Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise. Bertrand Russell British author, mathematician, and philosopher (1872-1970) Nobel Prize in Literature,1950 People work and make decisions with imprecise data in an uncertain world However, classical DLs are limited to dealing with crisp, well-defined concepts and roles

9 / 31 Semantic Web Application Architecture

10 / 31 Problems How to represent uncertain knowledge? Is a knowledge base with uncertainty meaningful or not? Given a knowledge base with uncertainty, what s the certainty value of this assertion? How many individuals belong to this concept description with a confidence greater than 0.5, and which ones are they?

10 / 31 Problems How to represent uncertain knowledge? Is a knowledge base with uncertainty meaningful or not? Given a knowledge base with uncertainty, what s the certainty value of this assertion? How many individuals belong to this concept description with a confidence greater than 0.5, and which ones are they?

10 / 31 Problems How to represent uncertain knowledge? Is a knowledge base with uncertainty meaningful or not? Given a knowledge base with uncertainty, what s the certainty value of this assertion? How many individuals belong to this concept description with a confidence greater than 0.5, and which ones are they?

10 / 31 Problems How to represent uncertain knowledge? Is a knowledge base with uncertainty meaningful or not? Given a knowledge base with uncertainty, what s the certainty value of this assertion? How many individuals belong to this concept description with a confidence greater than 0.5, and which ones are they?

11 / 31 Interval Lower Bound, Upper Bound, Mid-point, and Width of an Interval χ = [l, u] χ = m(χ), w(χ) mid-point m(χ) = 1 2 (l + u), indicates the average membership (truth degree) of the instance to a given concept width w(χ) = 1 2 (u l), implies the certainty of such a membership statement >= n, <= n, = n

11 / 31 Interval Lower Bound, Upper Bound, Mid-point, and Width of an Interval χ = [l, u] χ = m(χ), w(χ) mid-point m(χ) = 1 2 (l + u), indicates the average membership (truth degree) of the instance to a given concept width w(χ) = 1 2 (u l), implies the certainty of such a membership statement >= n, <= n, = n

11 / 31 Interval Lower Bound, Upper Bound, Mid-point, and Width of an Interval χ = [l, u] χ = m(χ), w(χ) mid-point m(χ) = 1 2 (l + u), indicates the average membership (truth degree) of the instance to a given concept width w(χ) = 1 2 (u l), implies the certainty of such a membership statement >= n, <= n, = n

11 / 31 Interval Lower Bound, Upper Bound, Mid-point, and Width of an Interval χ = [l, u] χ = m(χ), w(χ) mid-point m(χ) = 1 2 (l + u), indicates the average membership (truth degree) of the instance to a given concept width w(χ) = 1 2 (u l), implies the certainty of such a membership statement >= n, <= n, = n

12 / 31 f Z SI Syntax Syntax Concept descriptions in f Z SI are formed based on the following syntax: C A A C C D C D R.C R.C Roles in f Z SI has the following forms in syntax: R + R R

12 / 31 f Z SI Syntax Syntax Concept descriptions in f Z SI are formed based on the following syntax: C A A C C D C D R.C R.C Roles in f Z SI has the following forms in syntax: R + R R

13 / 31 f Z SI Syntax f Z SI DL Knowledge Bases A Knowledge Base (KB)=a Tbox (T )+ an Abox (A) A TBox (terminology) is a finite set of concept equivalence axioms C D concept inclusion axiom C D concept implication axiom C D [l, u] (0 l u 1) An ABox (Assertion) is a set of fuzzy assertions about individuals fuzzy concept assertion C(a) [l, u] fuzzy role assertion R(a, b) [l, u] individual inequality a b

13 / 31 f Z SI Syntax f Z SI DL Knowledge Bases A Knowledge Base (KB)=a Tbox (T )+ an Abox (A) A TBox (terminology) is a finite set of concept equivalence axioms C D concept inclusion axiom C D concept implication axiom C D [l, u] (0 l u 1) An ABox (Assertion) is a set of fuzzy assertions about individuals fuzzy concept assertion C(a) [l, u] fuzzy role assertion R(a, b) [l, u] individual inequality a b

13 / 31 f Z SI Syntax f Z SI DL Knowledge Bases A Knowledge Base (KB)=a Tbox (T )+ an Abox (A) A TBox (terminology) is a finite set of concept equivalence axioms C D concept inclusion axiom C D concept implication axiom C D [l, u] (0 l u 1) An ABox (Assertion) is a set of fuzzy assertions about individuals fuzzy concept assertion C(a) [l, u] fuzzy role assertion R(a, b) [l, u] individual inequality a b

f Z SI Semantics Semantics Classic: Standard FO model theory An interpretation I is a tuple ( I, I) I is the domain I is a mapping that maps: Names of individuals to elements of I Names of concept to subsets of I Names of role to subsets of I I Now: Standard FO model theory and Fuzzy Logic A fuzzy interpretation I is a tuple ( I, I) I is the domain I is a mapping that maps: each individual x into an element of I (x I ) each concept C into a partial function C I : I [0, 1] each role R into a partial function R I : I I [0, 1] 14 / 31

f Z SI Semantics Semantics Classic: Standard FO model theory An interpretation I is a tuple ( I, I) I is the domain I is a mapping that maps: Names of individuals to elements of I Names of concept to subsets of I Names of role to subsets of I I Now: Standard FO model theory and Fuzzy Logic A fuzzy interpretation I is a tuple ( I, I) I is the domain I is a mapping that maps: each individual x into an element of I (x I ) each concept C into a partial function C I : I [0, 1] each role R into a partial function R I : I I [0, 1] 14 / 31

15 / 31 f Z SI Semantics Semantics Table: Syntax and Semantics of f Z SI constructors Constructor Syntax Semantics top concept I = 1 bottom concept I = 0 atomic negation A ( A) I (x) = 1 A I (x) concept conjunction C D (C D) I = min(c I (x), D I (x)) concept disjunction C D (C D) I = max(c I (x), D I (x)) exists restriction R.C ( R.C) I (x) = sup y I {min(r I (x, y), C I (y))} value restriction R.C ( R.C) I (x) = inf y I {max(1 R I (x, y), C I (y))} inverse role Inv(R) (Inv(R)) I (y, x) = R I (x, y)

15 / 31 f Z SI Semantics Semantics Table: Syntax and Semantics of f Z SI axioms and assertions Axioms Syntax Semantics concept inclusion C D x I, C I (x) D I (x) axiom concept equivalence C D x I, C I (x) = D I (x) axiom concept implication C x I, D I (x) min(c I (x), [l, u]) axiom D [l, u] transitive role Trans(R) R I (a, c) sup b I min(r I (a, b), R I (b, c)) concept instance C(a) [l, u] l C I (a) u assertion role instance assertion R(a, b) [l, u] l R I (a, b) u individual inequality a b a I b I

Negation Negation equivalence rules Under Zadeh Logic, the following equivalence rules hold. x, y I, C [l, u] C [l, u], (1) (C D) [l, u] C D [l, u], (2) (C D) [l, u] C D [l, u], (3) R.C [l, u] R. C [l, u], (4) R.C [l, u] R. C [l, u], (5) ( nr) [l, u] (n + 1)R [l, u], { (6) (n 1)R [l, u] n > 1 ( nr) [l, u] n = 1, (7) 16 / 31

17 / 31 Transitive Roles Transitive Roles Fuzzy Transitive Role Under Zadeh Logic, a transitive role satisfies: R I (x, z) sup y I min(r I (x, y), R I (y, z)) (8) Role-value-restriction Transitivity If ( R.C) I (x) l (l [0, 1]) and R is transitive, then ( R.( R.C)) I (x) l holds. Role-exists-restriction Transitivity If ( R.C) I (x) u and R is transitive, then ( R.( R.C)) I (x) u holds.

17 / 31 Transitive Roles Transitive Roles Fuzzy Transitive Role Under Zadeh Logic, a transitive role satisfies: R I (x, z) sup y I min(r I (x, y), R I (y, z)) (8) Role-value-restriction Transitivity If ( R.C) I (x) l (l [0, 1]) and R is transitive, then ( R.( R.C)) I (x) l holds. Role-exists-restriction Transitivity If ( R.C) I (x) u and R is transitive, then ( R.( R.C)) I (x) u holds.

17 / 31 Transitive Roles Transitive Roles Fuzzy Transitive Role Under Zadeh Logic, a transitive role satisfies: R I (x, z) sup y I min(r I (x, y), R I (y, z)) (8) Role-value-restriction Transitivity If ( R.C) I (x) l (l [0, 1]) and R is transitive, then ( R.( R.C)) I (x) l holds. Role-exists-restriction Transitivity If ( R.C) I (x) u and R is transitive, then ( R.( R.C)) I (x) u holds.

18 / 31 Inference Services consistency checking Given a knowledge base KB =< T, A >, find an interpretation (model) of KB instance range entailment Given a knowledge base KB and a concept assertion C(a), find 1. the greatest lower bound l min [0, 1] 2. the lowest upper bound u max [0, 1] Such that KB α [l min, u max ] the f-retrieval problem Given a knowledge base KB and a concept description C, find 1. all individuals a such that KB C(a) is greater than 0, or 2. all individuals a with truth degrees above the threshold-θ, or 3. the top-k individuals

18 / 31 Inference Services consistency checking Given a knowledge base KB =< T, A >, find an interpretation (model) of KB instance range entailment Given a knowledge base KB and a concept assertion C(a), find 1. the greatest lower bound l min [0, 1] 2. the lowest upper bound u max [0, 1] Such that KB α [l min, u max ] the f-retrieval problem Given a knowledge base KB and a concept description C, find 1. all individuals a such that KB C(a) is greater than 0, or 2. all individuals a with truth degrees above the threshold-θ, or 3. the top-k individuals

18 / 31 Inference Services consistency checking Given a knowledge base KB =< T, A >, find an interpretation (model) of KB instance range entailment Given a knowledge base KB and a concept assertion C(a), find 1. the greatest lower bound l min [0, 1] 2. the lowest upper bound u max [0, 1] Such that KB α [l min, u max ] the f-retrieval problem Given a knowledge base KB and a concept description C, find 1. all individuals a such that KB C(a) is greater than 0, or 2. all individuals a with truth degrees above the threshold-θ, or 3. the top-k individuals

19 / 31 Consistency Checking Reasoning Procedure

20 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules -rule Condition: {x : ( A) λ} L(x) and {x : A 1 λ} / L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : A 1 λ}} and C(x) C(x) {x A (1 λ)} -rule Condition: {x : (C 1 C 2 ) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, and {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} and C(x) C(x) {x C1 λ, x C2 λ} -rule Condition: {x : (C 1 C 2 ) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, and {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} L(x) = Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : C 1 x 1 }, {x : C 2 x 2 }} and C(x) C(x) {x C1 x 1, x C2 x 2, x 1 + x 2 = λ, x 1 y, x 2 1 y, y {0, 1}, x 1 [0, 1], x 2 [0, 1]}

20 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules -rule Condition: {x : ( A) λ} L(x) and {x : A 1 λ} / L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : A 1 λ}} and C(x) C(x) {x A (1 λ)} -rule Condition: {x : (C 1 C 2 ) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, and {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} and C(x) C(x) {x C1 λ, x C2 λ} -rule Condition: {x : (C 1 C 2 ) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, and {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} L(x) = Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : C 1 x 1 }, {x : C 2 x 2 }} and C(x) C(x) {x C1 x 1, x C2 x 2, x 1 + x 2 = λ, x 1 y, x 2 1 y, y {0, 1}, x 1 [0, 1], x 2 [0, 1]}

20 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules -rule Condition: {x : ( A) λ} L(x) and {x : A 1 λ} / L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : A 1 λ}} and C(x) C(x) {x A (1 λ)} -rule Condition: {x : (C 1 C 2 ) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, and {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} and C(x) C(x) {x C1 λ, x C2 λ} -rule Condition: {x : (C 1 C 2 ) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, and {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} L(x) = Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : C 1 x 1 }, {x : C 2 x 2 }} and C(x) C(x) {x C1 x 1, x C2 x 2, x 1 + x 2 = λ, x 1 y, x 2 1 y, y {0, 1}, x 1 [0, 1], x 2 [0, 1]}

20 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules -rule Condition: {x : ( A) λ} L(x) and {x : A 1 λ} / L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : A 1 λ}} and C(x) C(x) {x A (1 λ)} -rule Condition: {x : (C 1 C 2 ) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, and {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} and C(x) C(x) {x C1 λ, x C2 λ} -rule Condition: {x : (C 1 C 2 ) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, and {{x : C 1 λ}, {x : C 2 λ}} L(x) = Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : C 1 x 1 }, {x : C 2 x 2 }} and C(x) C(x) {x C1 x 1, x C2 x 2, x 1 + x 2 = λ, x 1 y, x 2 1 y, y {0, 1}, x 1 [0, 1], x 2 [0, 1]}

21 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), x is not blocked and has no R λ -neighbor y Action: Create a new node y with L(x, y) = {{< x, y >: R λ}}, L(y) = {{y : C λ}}, C(x, y) = {x R λ}, and C(y) = {x C λ} -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked and x has an R λ1r -neighbor y with {y : C λ} / L(y) Action: L(y) L(y) {{y : C λ}}, if {< x, y >: R oρ λ 1 } conjugates with {< x, y >: R (1 λ)}, then C(y) C(y) {x C λ}, else C(y) C(y) {x C λ, λ 1 > 1 λ} Similarly, we can define the fuzzy completion -rules

21 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), x is not blocked and has no R λ -neighbor y Action: Create a new node y with L(x, y) = {{< x, y >: R λ}}, L(y) = {{y : C λ}}, C(x, y) = {x R λ}, and C(y) = {x C λ} -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked and x has an R λ1r -neighbor y with {y : C λ} / L(y) Action: L(y) L(y) {{y : C λ}}, if {< x, y >: R oρ λ 1 } conjugates with {< x, y >: R (1 λ)}, then C(y) C(y) {x C λ}, else C(y) C(y) {x C λ, λ 1 > 1 λ} Similarly, we can define the fuzzy completion -rules

21 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), x is not blocked and has no R λ -neighbor y Action: Create a new node y with L(x, y) = {{< x, y >: R λ}}, L(y) = {{y : C λ}}, C(x, y) = {x R λ}, and C(y) = {x C λ} -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), x is not indirectly blocked and x has an R λ1r -neighbor y with {y : C λ} / L(y) Action: L(y) L(y) {{y : C λ}}, if {< x, y >: R oρ λ 1 } conjugates with {< x, y >: R (1 λ)}, then C(y) C(y) {x C λ}, else C(y) C(y) {x C λ, λ 1 > 1 λ} Similarly, we can define the fuzzy completion -rules

22 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules,+ -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), Trans(R), x is not indirectly blocked, and x has an R λ1r -neighbor y with {y : ( R.C) λ} / L(y) Action: L(y) L(y) {{y : ( R.C) λ}}, if {< x, y >: R oρ λ 1 } conjugates with {< x, y >: R λ}, then C(y) C(y) {x R.C λ}, else C(y) C(y) {x R.C λ, λ 1 > λ},+ -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), Trans(R), x is not indirectly blocked, and x has an R λ1r -neighbor y with {y : ( R.C) λ} / L(y) Action: L(y) L(y) {{y : ( R.C) λ}}, if {< x, y >: R oρ λ 1 } conjugates with {< x, y >: R (1 λ)}, then C(y) C(y) {x R.C λ}, else C(y) C(y) {x R.C λ, λ 1 > 1 λ}

22 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules,+ -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), Trans(R), x is not indirectly blocked, and x has an R λ1r -neighbor y with {y : ( R.C) λ} / L(y) Action: L(y) L(y) {{y : ( R.C) λ}}, if {< x, y >: R oρ λ 1 } conjugates with {< x, y >: R λ}, then C(y) C(y) {x R.C λ}, else C(y) C(y) {x R.C λ, λ 1 > λ},+ -rule Condition: {x : ( R.C) λ} L(x), Trans(R), x is not indirectly blocked, and x has an R λ1r -neighbor y with {y : ( R.C) λ} / L(y) Action: L(y) L(y) {{y : ( R.C) λ}}, if {< x, y >: R oρ λ 1 } conjugates with {< x, y >: R (1 λ)}, then C(y) C(y) {x R.C λ}, else C(y) C(y) {x R.C λ, λ 1 > 1 λ}

23 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules -rule Condition: {C D λ} T, {x : C λ 1 } L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : D x 1 + x 2 1}, {x : D x 1 + x 2 1}} and C(x) C(x) {x 1 λ, x 2 λ 1, x D = x 1 + x 2 1, x 1 y, x 2 1 y, y {0, 1}, x 1 [0, 1], x 2 [0, 1]} -rule Condition: {C D λ} T, {x : C λ 1 } L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : D λ}, {x : D λ 1 }} and C(x) C(x) {x D λ, x D λ 1 }

23 / 31 Consistency Checking Fuzzy Completion Rules -rule Condition: {C D λ} T, {x : C λ 1 } L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : D x 1 + x 2 1}, {x : D x 1 + x 2 1}} and C(x) C(x) {x 1 λ, x 2 λ 1, x D = x 1 + x 2 1, x 1 y, x 2 1 y, y {0, 1}, x 1 [0, 1], x 2 [0, 1]} -rule Condition: {C D λ} T, {x : C λ 1 } L(x) Action: L(x) L(x) {{x : D λ}, {x : D λ 1 }} and C(x) C(x) {x D λ, x D λ 1 }

24 / 31 Consistency Checking Example1: -rule Consider there are two assertions in a fuzzy knowledge base: ( hasfriend.student)(john) [0.75, 1] and hasfriend(john, Mary) [0.7, 1] where hasfriend is a transitive role. Following the preprocessing steps, we have {John : ( hasfriend.student) 0.75} L(John) and {[John, Mary] : hasfriend 0.7}. Since {[John, Mary] : hasfriend 0.7} conjugates with {[John, Mary] : hasfriend 0.25}, the,+ -rule is applicable, thus {Mary : ( hasfriend.student) 0.75} is added to L(Mary).

24 / 31 Consistency Checking Example1: -rule Consider there are two assertions in a fuzzy knowledge base: ( hasfriend.student)(john) [0.75, 1] and hasfriend(john, Mary) [0.7, 1] where hasfriend is a transitive role. Following the preprocessing steps, we have {John : ( hasfriend.student) 0.75} L(John) and {[John, Mary] : hasfriend 0.7}. Since {[John, Mary] : hasfriend 0.7} conjugates with {[John, Mary] : hasfriend 0.25}, the,+ -rule is applicable, thus {Mary : ( hasfriend.student) 0.75} is added to L(Mary).

25 / 31 Consistency Checking Example2: Consistency Checking KB = {Trans(R), C(a) [0.7, 1], D(b) [0.8, 1], R(a, b) [0.6, 1], R(b, c) [0.7, 1], ( Inv(R).C Inv(R).D)(c) [0, 0.5]}

25 / 31 Consistency Checking Example2: Consistency Checking

25 / 31 Consistency Checking Example2: Consistency Checking

26 / 31 Instance Range Entailment The Instance Range Entailment Problem rangeent(kb, α) Input: a fuzzy knowledge base KB, an assertion α Output: the greatest lower degree l min and the lowest upper degree u max l min =0, u max =1; N=findMemDeg(KB); ascend numbers in N; for each m N if KB α m l min =m; else break; next m; descend numbers in N; for each n N if KB α n u max =n; else break; next n; return [l min, u max ]

26 / 31 Instance Range Entailment The Instance Range Entailment Problem rangeent2(kb, α) Input: a fuzzy knowledge base KB, an assertion α Output: the greatest lower degree l min and the lowest upper degree u max l min =0, u max =1; KB =KB { α [1 x max, 1 x min ]}; If consistency(kb )=true { l min =minimize(constaintset, x min ); u max =maximize(constaintset, x max )}; return [l min, u max ]

27 / 31 f-retrieval The f-retrieval Problem

28 / 31 f-retrieval The f-retrieval Problem fretrieval(kb, C, Value, Mode) Input: KB, concept description C, Mode, and Value Output: a set of individuals along with their truth degrees IndSet=findNamedIndividuals(KB); CandiSet = RetSet = ; for each Ind IndSet [l min, u max ]=rangeent2(kb, C(Ind)); CandiSet CandiSet {Ind [l min, u max ]}; next Ind; If Mode is threshold-θ Value=[MidPoint, Width] for each Ind [l min, u max ] in CandiSet If 1 2 (l min + u max ) MidPoint and 1 2 (umax l min) Width RetSet RetSet {Ind [l min, u max ]}; next; else Sorting the elements in CandiSet (Call preferedinterval(χ 1, χ 2 ) to rank any two intervals) {Idx = min(value, CandiSet ); RetSet=subSet(CandiSet, Idx)} return RetSet

29 / 31 Architecture of the falcas System

30 / 31 Conclusions and Future Work Conclusions A fuzzy Description Logic formalism Decidable reasoning algorithms for several inference services Future Work other inference services, e.g., role assertions retrieval optimization techniques

30 / 31 Conclusions and Future Work Conclusions A fuzzy Description Logic formalism Decidable reasoning algorithms for several inference services Future Work other inference services, e.g., role assertions retrieval optimization techniques

31 / 31 Questions? Ask Dr. Know...