=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2373/paper-38
|storemode=property
|title=Contextual Rational Closure for Defeasible ALC (Extended Abstract)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2373/paper-38.pdf
|volume=Vol-2373
|authors=Arina Britz,Ivan Varzinczak
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/dlog/BritzV19a
}}
==Contextual Rational Closure for Defeasible ALC (Extended Abstract)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2373/paper-38.pdf
Contextual rational closure for defeasible ALC
(Extended Abstract)
Katarina Britz1 and Ivan Varzinczak2,1
1
CAIR, Stellenbosch Univ., South Africa
2
CRIL, Univ. Artois & CNRS, France
abritz@sun.ac.za, varzinczak@cril.fr
Abstract. Description logics have been extended in a number of ways to
support defeasible reasoning in the KLM tradition. Such features include
preferential or rational defeasible concept inclusion, and defeasible roles
in complex concept descriptions. Semantically, defeasible subsumption
is obtained by means of a preference order on objects, while defeasible
roles are obtained by adding a preference order to role interpretations. In
this paper, we address an important limitation in defeasible extensions
of description logics, namely the restriction in the semantics of defea-
sible concept inclusion to a single preference order on objects. We do
this by inducing a modular preference order on objects from each mod-
ular preference order on roles, and using these to relativise defeasible
subsumption. This yields a notion of contextual rational defeasible sub-
sumption, with contexts described by roles. We also provide a semantic
construction for rational closure and a method for its computation, and
present a correspondence result between the two.
Keywords: description logics, non-monotonic reasoning, defeasible sub-
sumption, preferential semantics, rational closure, context
Given the special status of concept inclusion in description logics (DLs), and
the historical importance of entailment in logic in general, past research efforts
to extend DLs with non-monotonic reasoning capabilities have focused primar-
ily on accounts of defeasible subsumption and the characterisation of defeasible
entailment. Semantically, the latter usually takes as point of departure an order-
ing on a class of first-order interpretations [16, 18], whereas the former usually
assume a preference order on objects of the domain [5, 14].
Recently, we proposed a new direction to introduce defeasibility to DLs [6,
7]. This built on previous work to resolve two important ontological limitations
of the preferential approach to defeasible DLs — the assumption of a single pref-
erence order on all objects in the domain of interpretation, and the assumption
that defeasibility is intrinsically linked to arguments or conditionals [8, 9].
We achieved this by introducing defeasibility in the concept language via
an intuitive notion of normality for roles [6]. This parameterised the idea of
preference while at the same time introducing the notion of defeasible class
membership — defeasible subsumption allows for the expression of statements
2 Britz and Varzinczak
of the form “C is usually subsumed by D”, for example, “Chenin blanc wines are
usually unwooded”. In the extended language, one can also refer directly to, for
example, “Chenin blanc wines that usually have a wood aroma”. These notions
can also be combined seamlessly, as in: “Chenin blanc wines that usually have a
wood aroma are usually wooded”. This cannot be expressed in terms of defea-
sible subsumption alone, nor can it be expressed w.l.o.g. using typicality-based
operators [2, 14, 15, 20] on concepts, because the semantics of the expression is
inextricably tied to the two distinct uses of the term ‘usually’.
Nevertheless, even this generalisation left open the question of different, pos-
sibly incompatible, semantic characterisations of defeasibility in subsumption. A
single ordering on individuals, as is usually assumed, does not suffice when pref-
erences depend on context. In this paper, we therefore propose to induce multiple
preference orders on objects derived from preference orders on role interpreta-
tions, and use these to relativise defeasible subsumption. This yields a notion of
contextual defeasible subsumption, with contexts indicated by role names.
Building on previous work in the KLM tradition, we show that restricting the
preferential semantics to a modular semantics allows us to define and compute a
notion of rational entailment from a defeasible knowledge base. Rational closure
is a form of inferential closure studied by Lehmann and Magidor [19], which is
based on modular entailment but it extends its inferential power. Our proposal
is a generalisation of the DL version of propositional rational closure. We present
a proof-theoretic characterisation, based on the work of Casini and Straccia [13],
as well as a semantic characterisation, based on the work of Booth and Paris [3]
in the propositional case, and of Britz et al. [4] and Giordano et al. [17, 18] in
the DL case. We then state and prove a correspondence result which relates the
computation of rational closure to the semantic construction.
Defeasibility introduces a new facet of contextual reasoning not present in de-
ductive reasoning in that preference orders can be used to indicate context. While
an account of deductive reasoning with contexts in knowledge representation is
not intrinsically linked to defeasible reasoning, its integration with contextual
defeasible description logics warrants further investigation [1]. The present pa-
per [11] is a revised and extended version of a paper presented at FoIKS 2018 [10].
In related work [12], we address another important open question, namely the
creation of a tableau-based proof procedure for defeasible ALC.
References
1. Bonatti, P.: Rational closure for all description logics. Artificial Intelligence 274,
197–223 (2019)
2. Booth, R., Meyer, T., Varzinczak, I.: PTL: A propositional typicality logic. In: Far-
iñas del Cerro, L., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th European
Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA). pp. 107–119. No. 7519 in
LNCS, Springer (2012)
3. Booth, R., Paris, J.: A note on the rational closure of knowledge bases with both
positive and negative knowledge. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7(2),
165–190 (1998)
Contextual rational closure for defeasible ALC 3
4. Britz, K., Casini, G., Meyer, T., Moodley, K., Varzinczak, I.: Ordered interpre-
tations and entailment for defeasible description logics. Tech. rep., CAIR, CSIR
Meraka and UKZN, South Africa (2013), http://tinyurl.com/cydd6yy
5. Britz, K., Heidema, J., Meyer, T.: Semantic preferential subsumption. In: Lang, J.,
Brewka, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles
of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR). pp. 476–484. AAAI Press/MIT
Press (2008)
6. Britz, K., Varzinczak, I.: Introducing role defeasibility in description logics. In:
Michael, L., Kakas, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on
Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA). pp. 174–189. No. 10021 in LNCS, Springer
(2016)
7. Britz, K., Varzinczak, I.: Toward defeasible SROIQ. In: Artale, A., Glim, B.,
Kontchakov, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th International Workshop on Descrip-
tion Logics. vol. 1879. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2017)
8. Britz, K., Varzinczak, I.: From KLM-style conditionals to defeasible modalities,
and back. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics (JANCL) 28(1), 92–121 (2018)
9. Britz, K., Varzinczak, I.: Preferential accessibility and preferred worlds. Journal of
Logic, Language and Information (JoLLI) 27(2), 133–155 (2018)
10. Britz, K., Varzinczak, I.: Rationality and context in defeasible subsumption. In:
Ferrarotti, F., Woltran, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium
on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems (FoIKS). pp. 114–132. No.
10833 in LNCS, Springer (2018)
11. Britz, K., Varzinczak, I.: Contextual rational closure for defeasible ALC. Annals
of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI) (2019), submitted
12. Britz, K., Varzinczak, I.: Reasoning with contextual defeasible ALC. In: Proceed-
ings of the 32nd International Workshop on Description Logics. CEUR Workshop
Proceedings (2019)
13. Casini, G., Straccia, U.: Defeasible inheritance-based description logics. Journal of
Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 48, 415–473 (2013)
14. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.: Preferential description logics.
In: Dershowitz, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelli-
gence, and Reasoning (LPAR). pp. 257–272. No. 4790 in LNAI, Springer (2007)
15. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.: Reasoning about typicality
in preferential description logics. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.)
Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence
(JELIA). pp. 192–205. No. 5293 in LNAI, Springer (2008)
16. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.: A minimal model semantics for
nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Fariñas del Cerro, L., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.)
Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence
(JELIA). pp. 228–241. No. 7519 in LNCS, Springer (2012)
17. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.: A non-monotonic description
logic for reasoning about typicality. Artificial Intelligence 195, 165–202 (2013)
18. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.: Semantic characterization of ra-
tional closure: From propositional logic to description logics. Artificial Intelligence
226, 1–33 (2015)
19. Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Arti-
ficial Intelligence 55, 1–60 (1992)
20. Varzinczak, I.: A note on a description logic of concept and role typicality for
defeasible reasoning over ontologies. Logica Universalis 12(3-4), 297–325 (2018)