Thomas Schneider

AI
h-index25
4papers
126citations
Novelty29%
AI Score19

4 Papers

5.7AINov 19, 2020
Conservative Extensions in Horn Description Logics with Inverse Roles

Jean Christoph Jung, Carsten Lutz, Mauricio Martel et al.

We investigate the decidability and computational complexity of conservative extensions and the related notions of inseparability and entailment in Horn description logics (DLs) with inverse roles. We consider both query conservative extensions, defined by requiring that the answers to all conjunctive queries are left unchanged, and deductive conservative extensions, which require that the entailed concept inclusions, role inclusions, and functionality assertions do not change. Upper bounds for query conservative extensions are particularly challenging because characterizations in terms of unbounded homomorphisms between universal models, which are the foundation of the standard approach to establishing decidability, fail in the presence of inverse roles. We resort to a characterization that carefully mixes unbounded and bounded homomorphisms and enables a decision procedure that combines tree automata and a mosaic technique. Our main results are that query conservative extensions are 2ExpTime-complete in all DLs between ELI and Horn-ALCHIF and between Horn-ALC and Horn-ALCHIF, and that deductive conservative extensions are 2ExpTime-complete in all DLs between ELI and ELHIF_\bot. The same results hold for inseparability and entailment.

11.3AIJun 1, 2016
A Survey of Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Calculi -- Algebraic and Computational Properties

Frank Dylla, Jae Hee Lee, Till Mossakowski et al.

Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning (QSTR) is concerned with symbolic knowledge representation, typically over infinite domains. The motivations for employing QSTR techniques range from exploiting computational properties that allow efficient reasoning to capture human cognitive concepts in a computational framework. The notion of a qualitative calculus is one of the most prominent QSTR formalisms. This article presents the first overview of all qualitative calculi developed to date and their computational properties, together with generalized definitions of the fundamental concepts and methods, which now encompass all existing calculi. Moreover, we provide a classification of calculi according to their algebraic properties.

7.7AIMay 31, 2013
Algebraic Properties of Qualitative Spatio-Temporal Calculi

Frank Dylla, Till Mossakowski, Thomas Schneider et al.

Qualitative spatial and temporal reasoning is based on so-called qualitative calculi. Algebraic properties of these calculi have several implications on reasoning algorithms. But what exactly is a qualitative calculus? And to which extent do the qualitative calculi proposed meet these demands? The literature provides various answers to the first question but only few facts about the second. In this paper we identify the minimal requirements to binary spatio-temporal calculi and we discuss the relevance of the according axioms for representation and reasoning. We also analyze existing qualitative calculi and provide a classification involving different notions of a relation algebra.

2.4AIJul 6, 2012
Syntactic vs. Semantic Locality: How Good Is a Cheap Approximation?

Chiara Del Vescovo, Pavel Klinov, Bijan Parsia et al.

Extracting a subset of a given OWL ontology that captures all the ontology's knowledge about a specified set of terms is a well-understood task. This task can be based, for instance, on locality-based modules (LBMs). These come in two flavours, syntactic and semantic, and a syntactic LBM is known to contain the corresponding semantic LBM. For syntactic LBMs, polynomial extraction algorithms are known, implemented in the OWL API, and being used. In contrast, extracting semantic LBMs involves reasoning, which is intractable for OWL 2 DL, and these algorithms had not been implemented yet for expressive ontology languages. We present the first implementation of semantic LBMs and report on experiments that compare them with syntactic LBMs extracted from real-life ontologies. Our study reveals whether semantic LBMs are worth the additional extraction effort, compared with syntactic LBMs.