Skip to main content

Reasoning About Actions Using Description Logics with General TBoxes

  • Conference paper
Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2006)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4160))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Action formalisms based on description logics (DLs) have recently been introduced as decidable fragments of well-established action theories such as the Situation Calculus and the Fluent Calculus. However, existing DL action formalisms fail to include general TBoxes, which are the standard tool for formalising ontologies in modern description logics. We define a DL action formalism that admits general TBoxes, propose an approach to addressing the ramification problem that is introduced in this way, show that our formalism is decidable and perform a detailed investigation of its computational complexity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Areces, C., Blackburn, P., Marx, M.: A road-map on complexity for hybrid logics. In: Flum, J., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (eds.) CSL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1683, pp. 307–321. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Baader, F., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Sattler, U., Wolter, F.: Integrating description logics and action formalisms: First results. In: Proc. of AAAI 2005. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baader, F., McGuiness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. de Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: On the update of description logic ontologies at the instance level. In: Proc. of AAAI 2006. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R., Lespérance, Y., Lin, F., Scherl, R.B.: GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31(1-3), 59–83 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Lin, F.: Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In: Proc. of IJCAI 1995, pp. 1985–1991. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Liu, H., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Wolter, F.: Description logic actions with general TBoxes: a pragmatic approach. LTCS-Report 06-03, TU Dresden, Germany (2006), See: http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/research/reports.html

  8. Pratt, V.R.: Models of program logics. In: Proc. of the Twentieth FoCS, San Juan, Puerto Rico (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pratt-Hartmann, I.: Complexity of the two-variable fragment with counting quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 14(3), 369–395 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Thielscher, M.: Ramification and causality. Artificial Intelligence Journal 89(1-2), 317–364 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Thielscher, M.: Introduction to the Fluent Calculus. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 2(3-4), 179–192 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Thielscher, M.: FLUX: A logic programming method for reasoning agents. TPLP 5(4-5), 533–565 (2005)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Thomason, S.K.: The logical consequence relation of propositional tense logic. Z. Math. Logik Grundl. Math. 21, 29–40 (1975)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Tobies, S.: The complexity of reasoning with cardinality restrictions and nominals in expressive description logics. JAIR 12, 199–217 (2000)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Winslett, M.: Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In: AAAI 1988, pp. 89–93 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  17. A list of DL reasoners: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~sattler/reasoners.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Liu, H., Lutz, C., Miličić, M., Wolter, F. (2006). Reasoning About Actions Using Description Logics with General TBoxes. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4160. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_23

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-39625-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-39627-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics