Abstract
Contemporary approaches for the Semantic Web include hybrid knowledge bases that combine ontologies with rule-based languages. Despite a number of existing combination approaches, little attention has been given to change mechanisms for hybrid knowledge bases that can appropriately handle the dynamics of information on the Web. We present here three methods for revising hybrid knowledge bases in light of new information. We show by means of representation theorems that two of them fit properly into the classic belief change framework and that each of the two generalises the third method.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)
Binnewies, S., Zhuang, Z., Wang, K.: Partial meet revision and contraction in logic programs. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2015, pp. 1439–1445. AAAI Press, Palo Alto (2015)
de Bruijn, J., Pearce, D., Polleres, A., Valverde, A.: A semantical framework for hybrid knowledge bases. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 81–104 (2010)
Colmerauer, A., Roussel, P.: The birth of prolog. In: Bergin Jr., T.J., Gibson Jr., R.G. (eds.) History of Programming Languages–II, pp. 331–367. ACM, New York (1996)
Dalal, M.: Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 475–479 (1988)
Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: A model-theoretic approach to belief change in answer set programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 14(2), 14:1–14:46 (2013)
Drabent, W., Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Małuszyński, J.: Hybrid reasoning with rules and ontologies. In: Bry, F., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) Semantic Techniques for the Web. LNCS, vol. 5500, pp. 1–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04581-3_1
Fuhrmann, A.: Theory contraction through base contraction. J. Philos. Logic 20(2), 175–203 (1991)
Guarino, N., Oberle, D., Staab, S.: What is an ontology? In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 1–17. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2009)
Hansson, S.O.: New operators for theory change. Theoria 55(2), 114–132 (1989)
Hansson, S.O.: Reversing the levi identity. J. Philos. Logic 22(6), 637–669 (1993)
Hitzler, P., Parsia, B.: Ontologies and rules. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 111–132. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2009)
Kowalski, R.: Predicate logic as a programming language. In: Proceedings of the IFIP Congress, pp. 569–574 (1974)
Krisnadhi, A., Maier, F., Hitzler, P.: OWL and Rules. In: Polleres, A., d’Amato, C., Arenas, M., Handschuh, S., Kroner, P., Ossowski, S., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2011. LNCS, vol. 6848, pp. 382–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23032-5_7
Lisi, F.A.: Learning onto-relational rules with inductive logic programming. In: Lehmann, J., Völker, J. (eds.) Perspectives on Ontology Learning, pp. 93–111. IOS Press Amsterdam, Studies on the Semantic Web (2014)
Makinson, D.: Screened revision. Theoria 63(1–2), 14–23 (1997)
Nebel, B.: Belief revision and default reasoning: syntax-based approaches. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91). pp. 417–428. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)
Pearce, D., Valverde, A.: Quantified equilibrium logic and foundations for answer set programs. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89982-2_46
Rott, H.: Modellings for belief change: base contraction, multiple contraction, and epistemic entrenchment (preliminary report). In: Pearce, D., Wagner, G. (eds.) JELIA 1992. LNCS, vol. 633, pp. 139–153. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). doi:10.1007/BFb0023426
Satoh, K.: Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, pp. 455–462 (1988)
Slota, M., Leite, J., Swift, T.: On updates of hybrid knowledge bases composed of ontologies and rules. Artif. Intell. 229, 33–104 (2015)
Wang, Y., Zhuang, Z., Wang, K.: Belief change in nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: Cabalar, P., Son, T.C. (eds.) LPNMR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8148, pp. 543–555. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40564-8_54
Wassermann, R.: On AGM for non-classical logics. J. Philos. Logic 40(2), 271–294 (2011)
Zhuang, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, K., Qi, G.: DL-lite contraction and revision. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 56(1), 329–378 (2016)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Binnewies, S., Zhuang, Z., Wang, K. (2017). Three Methods for Revising Hybrid Knowledge Bases. In: Costantini, S., Franconi, E., Van Woensel, W., Kontchakov, R., Sadri, F., Roman, D. (eds) Rules and Reasoning. RuleML+RR 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10364. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61252-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61252-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61251-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61252-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)