Paper detail

Model Theoretic Characterisations of Description Logics

This thesis studies the model theoretic properties of the Description Logics (DLs) ALC, ALCI, ALCQ, as well as ALCO, ALCQO, ALCQIO and EL. TBoxes of ALC, ALCI and ALCQ are characterised as fragments of FO which are invariant under global bisimulation and disjoint unions. The logics ALCO, ALCQO and ALCQIO, which incorporate individuals, are characterised w.r.t. to the class K of all interpretations which interpret individuals as singleton sets. The characterisations for TBoxes of ALCO and ALCQO both require additionally that an FO-sentence is, under certain circumstances, preserved under forward generated subinterpretations. FO-sentences equivalent to ALCQIO-TBoxes, are - due to ALCQIO's inverse roles - characterised similarly but are required to be preserved under generated subinterpretations. EL as sub-boolean DL is characterised on concept level as the FO-fragment which is preserved under simulation and preserved under direct products. Equally valid is the characterisation by being preserved under simulation and having minimal models. For EL-TBoxes, a global version of simulation was not sufficient but FO-sentences of EL-TBoxes are invariant under global equi-simulation, disjoint unions and direct products. For each of these description logics, the characteristic concepts are explicated and the characterisation is accompanied by an investigation under which notion of saturation the logic in hand enjoys the Hennessy-and-Milner-Property. As application of the results we determine the minimal globally bisimilar companion w.r.t. ALCQO-bisimulation and introduce the L1-to-L2-rewritability problem for TBoxes, where L1 and L2 are (description) logics. The latter is the problem to decide whether or not an L1-TBox can be equivalently expressed as L2-TBox. We give algorithms which decide ALCI-to-ALC-rewritability and ALC-to-EL-rewritability. (See also abstract in the thesis.)

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.