Skip to main content
Log in

Consistency checking reduced to satisfiability of concepts in terminological systems

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the inference problem in knowledge representation systems of theKl-one family. These systems, also called terminological systems, are equipped with concept languages that are used to express the conceptual knowledge of a problem domain in a structured way. In order to reason with the represented knowledge, terminological systems provide a couple of inference services. In this paper we show that the main reasoning problems in expressive concept languages can be reduced to a particular inference problem, namely checking satisfiability of concepts. This result has two important applications. From a practical point of view, our reduction together with the existence of relatively efficient implementations of satisfiability algorithms strongly simplifies the implementation of inference algorithms in terminological systems. Even from a complexity point of view, the result shows that in the underlying concept language interesting inference problems such as consistency checking or query answering are not harder (in terms of the worst case complexity) than satisfiability checking of concepts.

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

Access this article

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

References

  1. F. Baader and B. Hollunder,KRIS:KnowledgeRepresentation andInferenceSystem,SIGART Bulletin 2(3) (1991) 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  2. F. Baader and B. Hollunder, A terminological knowledge representation system with complete inference algorithms, in:International Workshop on Processing Declarative Knowledge, Vol. 567, eds. M. Richter and H. Boley (Springer, 1991).

  3. F. Baader and B. Hollunder, Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms, in:Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, Mass. (1992).

  4. R.J. Brachman and J.G. Schmolze, An overview of theKl-one knowledge representation system,Cognitive Science 9(2) (1985) 171–216.

    Google Scholar 

  5. F. Donini, B. Hollunder, M. Lenzerini, A.M. Spaccamela, D. Nardi and W. Nutt, The complexity of existential quantification in concept languages,Artificial Intelligence 2–3 (1992) 309–327.

    Google Scholar 

  6. F. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi and W. Nutt, The complexity of concept languages, in:Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, Mass. (1991).

  7. F. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi and W. Nutt, Tractable concept languages, in:Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sydney, Australia (1991).

  8. F.M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi and A. Schaerf, From subsumption to instance checking, Technical Report 15.92, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza” (1992).

  9. B. Hollunder,Algorithmic Foundations of Terminological Knowledge Representation Systems, PhD Thesis, University of Saarbrücken (1994).

  10. B. Hollunder and F. Baader, Qualifying number restrictions in concept languages, in:Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, Mass. (1991).

  11. B. Hollunder, W. Nutt and M. Schmidt-Schauß, Subsumption algorithms for concept description languages, in:Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden (1990) pp. 348–353.

  12. H.J. Levesque and R.J. Brachman, Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning,Computational Intelligence 3 (1987) 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. MacGregor, Inside the LOOM description classifier,SIGART Bulletin 2(3) (1991) 88–92.

    Google Scholar 

  14. B. Nebel,Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems, LNAI 422 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  15. B. Nebel, Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable,Artificial Intelligence 43(2) (1990) 235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P.F. Patel-Schneider, D.L. McGuinness, R.J. Brachman, L.A. Resnick and A. Borgida, TheClassic knowledge representation system: Guiding principles and implementation rational,SIGART Bulletin 2(3) (1991) 108–113.

    Google Scholar 

  17. C. Peltason, TheBack system — an overview,SIGART Bulletin 2(3) (1991) 114–119.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Schmidt-Schauß and G. Smolka, Attributive concept descriptions with complements,Artificial Intelligence 47 (1991).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This work has been carried out while the author was an employee of the German Research Center for AI (DFKI GmbH), Saarbrücken, Germany.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hollunder, B. Consistency checking reduced to satisfiability of concepts in terminological systems. Ann Math Artif Intell 18, 133–157 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02127745

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02127745

Keywords

Navigation