TY - JOUR
T1 - Extensible knowledge representation
T2 - the case of description reasoners
AU - Borgida, Alex
PY - 1999
Y1 - 1999
N2 - This paper offers an approach to extensible knowledge representation and reasoning for the Description Logic family of formalisms. The approach is based on the notion of adding new concept constructors, and includes a heuristic methodology for specifying the desired extensions, as well as a modularized software architecture that supports implementing extensions. The architecture detailed here falls in the normalize-compared paradigm, and supports both intentional reasoning (subsumption) involving concepts, and extensional reasoning involving individuals after incremental updates to the knowledge base. The resulting approach can be used to extend the reasoner with specialized notions that are motivated by specific problems or application areas, such as reasoning about dates, plans, etc. In addition, it provides an opportunity to implement constructors that are not currently yet sufficiently well understood theoretically, but are needed in practice. Also, for constructors that are provably hard to reason with (e.g., ones whose presence would lead to undecidability), it allows the implementation of incomplete reasoners where the incompleteness is tailored to be acceptable for the application at hand.
AB - This paper offers an approach to extensible knowledge representation and reasoning for the Description Logic family of formalisms. The approach is based on the notion of adding new concept constructors, and includes a heuristic methodology for specifying the desired extensions, as well as a modularized software architecture that supports implementing extensions. The architecture detailed here falls in the normalize-compared paradigm, and supports both intentional reasoning (subsumption) involving concepts, and extensional reasoning involving individuals after incremental updates to the knowledge base. The resulting approach can be used to extend the reasoner with specialized notions that are motivated by specific problems or application areas, such as reasoning about dates, plans, etc. In addition, it provides an opportunity to implement constructors that are not currently yet sufficiently well understood theoretically, but are needed in practice. Also, for constructors that are provably hard to reason with (e.g., ones whose presence would lead to undecidability), it allows the implementation of incomplete reasoners where the incompleteness is tailored to be acceptable for the application at hand.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033330286&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033330286&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1613/jair.584
DO - 10.1613/jair.584
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0033330286
VL - 10
SP - 399
EP - 434
JO - Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
JF - Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
SN - 1076-9757
ER -