Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Answers to modal and hypothetical questions in knowledge base systems

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes a computational model which is geared towards providing helpful answers to modal and hypothetical questions in knowledge base systems (KBSs). The model is an essential component of a more complete model which aims at giving helpful answers to questions presented in a natural language. The overall work touches on formal semantic theories on modality and question answering (which have been mainly addressed by linguists and semanticists), intensionality, partiality and belief revision. In this paper, we shall mainly be concerned with the question of partiality where we present a three-valued logic, to which we shall refer as K-T, for reasoning with incomplete information and a proof method for the logic. Along the way, we shall lightly touch on other issues such as answerhood, modality, context and helpfulness.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof, “Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers,” University of Amsterdam, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1984.

  2. D. Sperber and D. Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Basil Blackwell: Oxford, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Ball, E. K. Brown, A. De Roeck, C. Fox, M. Groefsema, N. Obeid and R. Turner, “Helpful answers to modal and hypothetical questions: Final report,” University of Essex, Cognitive Science Centre Memo, 1990.

  4. A. De Roeck, R. Ball, E. K. Brown, C. Fox, M. Groefsema, N. Obeid and R. Turner, “Helpful answers to modal and hypothetical questions,” Fifth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1991.

  5. F. R. Palmer, Modality and the English Modals, Longman: London, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  6. F. R. Palmer, Mood and Modality, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Quirk et al., A grammar of English, Longman: London, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Coates, The semantics of the modal auxiliaries, London, 1983.

  9. A. L. Walton, “The pragmatics of English modals,” University of London, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1988.

  10. A. Krazer, “What “must” and “can” must and can mean,” Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 1, pp. 337–355, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  11. I. Heim, “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1982.

  12. A. Kratzer, “The notional category of modality,” in Words, Worlds and Contexts, edited by Eikmeyer and Reiser, Berlin, 1981.

  13. J. Allen, Natural Language Understanding, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1987.

  14. R. Moore, “Semantical consideration of non-monotonic logic,” International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 272–279, 1983.

  15. R. Turner, “A theory of properties,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 455–472, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. G. Chirechia, B. Partee and R. Turner, Properties, Types and Meaning, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Groefsema, C. Fox and N. Obeid, “Can, may, must and should: A division of labour, LAGB, Somerville College: Oxford, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. McDermott, “Non-monotonic logic II: Non-monotonic modal theories,” JACM, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 35–57, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. McDermott and J. Doyle, “Non-monotonic logic I,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 13, pp. 41–72, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. Moore, “Possible world semantics for autoepistemic logic,” Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, New Paltz: New York, pp. 344–354, 1984.

  21. R. Reiter, “A logic for default reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 13, pp. 81–132, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  22. E. W. Beth, Formal Methods, Reidel: Dordrecht, 1962. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1987. pp. 252–255.

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. C. Jeffrey, Formal Logic, Its Scope and Limits, McGraw-Hill: London, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. Waltz, “An English language question answering system for a large relational database,” in Reading in Natural Language Processing, edited by B. Grosz, K. Jones and B. Webber, 1978.

  25. S. Kaplan, “Cooperative responses from a portable natural language database query system,” in Computational Models of Discourse, edited by M. Brady and R. C. Berwick, MIT Press, pp. 167–208, 1983.

  26. E. Rich, “Natural language interfaces,” IEEE, pp. 39–47, 1984.

  27. F. Pereira and D. Warren, “Definite clause grammars for language analysis—A Survey of the formalism and a comparison with augmented transition networks,” Artificial Intelligence 13, 3, pp. 231–278, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  28. L. Harris, “The ROBOT system: Natural language processing applied to database query,” ACM, pp. 165–172, 1978.

  29. L. Harris, “ROBOT: A high performance natural language interface for database query,” in Natural Language Based Computer Systems, edited by L. Bolc, C. Verlag and M. Wien, pp. 285–318, 1980.

  30. W. Woods, “Lunar rocks in natural English: Exploration in natural language question answering,” in Linguistic Structures Processing, edited by Z. Zampoli, Elsevier North-Holland: New York, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  31. B. Grosz, Appelt, Douglas, Martin and Pereira, “TEAM: An experiment in the design of transportable natural language interface,” AI 32, pp. 173–243, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  32. W. Woods, “Procedural semantics for question answering,” Proc. AFIPS Conf. 33, pp. 457–471, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  33. D. Etherington, Reasoning with Incomplete Information, Pitman: London, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  34. W. Van Melle, E. Shortliffe and B. Bachanan, “EMYCIN: A knowledge engineer's tool for constructing rule-based expert systems,” in Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, edited by B. G. Bachanan and E. Shortliffe, pp. 302–313, 1984.

  35. A. C. Scott, W. J. Clancey, R. Davis and E. Shortliffe, “Methods for generating explanations,” in Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, edited by B. G. Bachanan and E. Shortliffe, pp. 338–362, 1984.

  36. N. Obeid, “Towards a model of learning via dialogue,” IEA/AIE-89, Tennessee, pp. 831–837, 1989.

  37. R. Turner, Truth, Modality and Knowledge Representation, Pitman and MIT Press: London, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, CO4 3SQ, Colchester, England, UK

    Nadim Obeid

Authors
  1. Nadim Obeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Obeid, N. Answers to modal and hypothetical questions in knowledge base systems. Appl Intell 2, 353–367 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00058651

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00058651

Key words