Abstract
This paper investigates the possibility of adding machinery to description logic which allows one to define self-referential concepts. An example of such a concept is a narcissist, someone who loves himself. With domains in which the natural ontology is a graph instead of a tree, this extra expressive power is often desired (e.g., when writing an ontology about web pages or molecular structures). Our results show that one has to be very careful with such additions. We add self-reference to ALC with inverse. Then we obtain all well known difficulties of having individual concepts or nominals together with inverse relations and even worse, checking for concept consistency becomes undecidable. Most of this expressive power seems not to be needed and we can identify a useful fragment whose complexity does not exceed that of ALC.
Research supported by NWO grant 612.000.106. A preliminary version appeared in the proceedings of the 2002 workshop on description logic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
H. Andréka, J. van Benthem, and I. Németi. Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic. J. of Philosophical Logic, 27(3):217–274, 1998.
C. Areces. Logic Engineering. PhD thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, 2000.
C. Areces, P. Blackburn, and M. Marx. Hybrid logics: Characterization, interpolation and complexity. J. of Symbolic Logic, 66(3):977–1010, 2001.
E. Börger, E. Grädel, and Y. Gurevich. The Classical Decision Problem. Springer Verlag, 1997.
A. Borgida. On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics. Artificial Intelligence, 82:353–367, 1996.
E. Grädel. On the restraining power of guards. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 64(4):1719–1742, 1999.
N. Kurtonina and M. de Rijke. Classifying description logics. In M.-C. Rousset et al, editor, Proc. International Workshop on Description Logics (DL’97), pages 49–53, LRI, CNRS, Gif sur Yvette, 1997.
M. Marx. Tolerance logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10:353–373, 2001.
M. Vardi. Why is modal logic so robustly decidable? In DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 31, pages 149–184. American Math. Society, 1997.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Marx, M., Dastani, M. (2002). Anaphoric Definitions in Description Logic. In: Shafazand, H., Tjoa, A.M. (eds) EurAsia-ICT 2002: Information and Communication Technology. EurAsia-ICT 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2510. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36087-5_48
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36087-5_48
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00028-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36087-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive