Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nonstandard Inferences in Description Logics: The Story So Far

  • Chapter
Mathematical Problems from Applied Logic I

Part of the book series: International Mathematical Series ((IMAT,volume 4))

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu, Foundations of Databases, Amsterdam, Addison-Wesley, 1995.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. F. Baader, Augmenting concept languages by transitive closure of roles: An alternative to terminological cycles, In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference (Sydney/Australia 1991), 1991, pp. 446–451.

    Google Scholar 

  3. F. Baader, A formal definition for the expressive power of terminological knowledge representation languages, J. Log. Comput. 6 (1996), no. 1, 33–54.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. F. Baader, Using automata theory for characterizing the semantics of terminological cycles, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 18 (1996), no. 2–4, 175–219.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. F. Baader, Computing the least common subsumer in the description logic EL w.r.t. terminological cycles with descriptive semantics, In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 2746 (2003), pp. 117–130.

    Google Scholar 

  6. F. Baader, The instance problem and the most speci.c concept in the description logic EL w.r.t. terminological cycles with descriptive semantics, In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual German Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 2821 (2003), pp. 64–78.

    Google Scholar 

  7. F. Baader, Least common subsumers and most specific concepts in a description logic with existential restrictions and terminological cycles, In: G. Gottlob and T. Walsh (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 2003, pp. 319–324.

    Google Scholar 

  8. F. Baader, Terminological cycles in a description logic with existential restrictions, In: G. Gottlob and T. Walsh (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 2003, pp. 325–330.

    Google Scholar 

  9. F. Baader, A graph-theoretic generalization of the least common subsumer and the most specific concept in the description logic EL, In: J. Hromkovic and M. Nagl (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science (WG 2004), Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  10. F. Baader, S. Brandt, and R. Küsters, Matching under side conditions in description logics, In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 2001, pp. 213–218.

    Google Scholar 

  11. F. Baader, M. Buchheit, and B. Hollunder, Cardinality restrictions on concepts, Artif. Intell. 88 (1996), no. 1–2, 195–213.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider (eds.), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. F. Baader and Ph. Hanschke, A schema for integrating concrete domains into concept languages, In: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), 1991, pp. 452–457.

    Google Scholar 

  14. F. Baader and B. Hollunder, A terminological knowledge representation system with complete inference algorithm, In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Processing Declarative Knowledge (PDK-91), Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 567 (1991), pp. 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. F. Baader, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler, Description logics for the semantic web, KI — K.unstl iche Intelligenz, 4, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  16. F. Baader, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler, Description logics, In: S. Staab and R. Studer (eds.), Handbook on Ontologies, International Handbooks in Information Systems, pages 3–28. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  17. F. Baader and R. Küsters, Computing the least common subsumer and the most specific concept in the presence of cyclic ALN-concept descriptions, In: Proceedings of the 22nd German Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 1504 (1998), pp. 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  18. F. Baader and R. Küsters, Matching in description logics with existential restrictions, In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2000), 2000, pp. 261–272.

    Google Scholar 

  19. F. Baader and R. Küsters, Unification in a description logic with transitive closure of roles, In: R. Nieuwenhuis and A. Voronkov (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (LPAR 2001), Lect. Notes Artif. Intell., 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. F. Baader and R. Küsters, Unification in a description logic with inconsistency and transitive closure of roles, In: Proceedings of the 2002 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2002), 2002. [http://sunsite.informatik.rwthaachen. de/Publications/CEUR-WS/]

    Google Scholar 

  21. F. Baader, R. Küsters, A. Borgida, and D. L. McGuinness, Matching in description logics, J. Log. Comput. 9 (1999), no. 3, 411–447.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. F. Baader, R. Küsters, and R. Molitor, Computing least common subsumers in description logics with existential restrictions, In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99), 1999, pp. 96–101.

    Google Scholar 

  23. F. Baader, R. Küsters, and R. Molitor, Rewriting concepts using terminologies, In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2000), 2000, pp. 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  24. F. Baader, R. Küsters, and F. Wolter, Extensions to description logics, In: F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider (eds.), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003, pp. 219–261.

    Google Scholar 

  25. F. Baader and P. Narendran, Unification of concept terms in description logics, In: H. Prade (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Eur. Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-98), John Wiley & Sons, 1998, pp. 331–335.

    Google Scholar 

  26. F. Baader and P. Narendran, Unification of concepts terms in description logics. J. Symbolic Comput. 31 (2001), no. 3, 277–305.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. F. Baader and W. Nutt, Basic description logics, In: F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider (eds.), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003, pp. 43–95.

    Google Scholar 

  28. F. Baader and U. Sattler, Expressive number restrictions in description logics, J. Log. Comput., 9 (1999), no. 3, 319–350.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. F. Baader and U. Sattler, An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica, 69:5–40, 2001.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. F. Baader, B. Sertkaya, and A.-Ya. Turhan, Computing the least common subsumer w.r.t. a background terminology, In: J. J. Alferes and J. A. Leite (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2004), Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 3229 (2004), 400–412.

    Google Scholar 

  31. F. Baader and A.-Ya. Turhan, On the problem of computing small representations of least common subsumers, In: Proceedings of the 25th German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI 2002), Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 2479 (2002), pp. 99–113.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. S. Bechhofer, I. Horrocks, C. Goble, and R. Stevens, OilEd, A reasonable ontology editor for the semantic web, In: F. Baader, Gerhard Brewka, and Thomas Eiter (eds.), KI 2001: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, Springer, Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 2174, 2001, pp. 396–408.

    Google Scholar 

  33. T. Berners-Lee, J. A. Hendler, and O. Lassila, The semantic Web, Sci. American, 284 (2001), no. 5, 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. P. Blackburn, M. de Rijke, and Yde Venema, Modal Logic, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001, Cambridge Tracts Theoret. Comput. Sci. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  35. R. Bogusch, B. Lohmann, and W. Marquardt, Computer-aided process modeling with MODKIT, In: Proceedings of Chemputers Europe III, Frankfurt, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. Borgida, R. J. Brachman, D. L. McGuinness, and L. A. Resnick, CLASSIC: A structural data model for objects, In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1989, pp. 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  37. A. Borgida and D. L. McGuinness, Asking queries about frames, In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-96), 1996, pp. 340–349.

    Google Scholar 

  38. A. Borgida and P. F. Patel-Schneider, A semantics and complete algorithm for subsumption in the CLASSIC description logic, J. Artif. Intell. Res. 1 (1994), 277–308.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. R. J. Brachman and H. J. Levesque Eds. Readings in Knowledge Representation, Morgan Kaufmann, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R._J. Brachman and J. G. Schmolze, An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, 9(2):171–216, 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. S. Brandt, Implementing matching in ALE —.rst results, In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2003), CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, 2003. [http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-81/]

    Google Scholar 

  42. S. Brandt, R. Küsters, and A.-Ya. Turhan, Approximation and difference in description logics, In: D. Fensel, F. Giunchiglia, D. McGuiness, and M.-A. Williams (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2002), San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann, 2002, pp. 203–214.

    Google Scholar 

  43. S. Brandt and H. Liu, Implementing matching in ALN, In: Proceedings of the KI-2004 Workshop on Applications of Description Logics (KI-ADL-04). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, 2004. [http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-115/]

    Google Scholar 

  44. S. Brandt and A.-Ya. Turhan, Using nonstandard inferences in description logics — what does it buy me? In: Proceedings of the KI-2001 Workshop on Applications of Description Logics (ADL-01). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, 2001. [http://CEURWS.org/Vol-44/]

    Google Scholar 

  45. P. Bresciani, E. Franconi, and S. Tessaris, Implementing and testing expressive description logics: Preliminary report, In: Proceedings of the 1995 Description Logic Workshop (DL-95), 1995, pp. 131–139.

    Google Scholar 

  46. M. Buchheit, F. M. Donini, and A. Schaerf, Decidable reasoning in terminological knowledge representation systems, J. Artif. Intell. Res. 1 (1993), 109–138.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. M. Chein and M.-L. Mugnier, Conceptual graphs: Fundamental notions, Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 6 (1992), no. 4, 365–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. W. W. Cohen and H. Hirsh, Learning the CLASSIC description logics: Theoretical and experimental results, In: J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-94), 1994, pp. 121–133.

    Google Scholar 

  49. F. Donini, Complexity of reasoning, In: F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider (eds.), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003, pp. 96–136.

    Google Scholar 

  50. F. M. Donini, B. Hollunder, M. Lenzerini, A. M. Spaccamela, D. Nardi, and W. Nutt, The complexity of existential quantification in concept languages, Artif. Intell., (1992), no. 2–3, 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and A. Schaerf, Deduction in concept languages: From subsumption to instance checking, J. Log. Comput., 4 (1994), no. 4, 423–452.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability — A guide to NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco (CA, USA), 1979.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. V. Haarslev and R. Möller, High performance reasoning with very large knowledge bases: A practical case study, In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  54. V. Haarslev and R. Möller, RACER system description, In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ph. Hanschke, Specifying role interaction in concept languages, In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-92), Morgan Kaufmann, 1992, pp. 318–329.

    Google Scholar 

  56. B. Hollunder, Hybrid inferences in KL-ONE-based knowledge representation systems, In: Proceedings of the German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp.38–47.

    Google Scholar 

  57. B. Hollunder, Consistency checking reduced to satis.ability of concepts in terminological systems, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 18 (1996), no. 2–4, 133–157.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  58. B. Hollunder and F. Baader, Qualifying number restrictions in concept languages, In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-91), 1991, pp. 335–346.

    Google Scholar 

  59. B. Hollunder, W. Nutt, and M. Schmidt-Schauß, Subsumption algorithms for concept description languages, In: Proceedings of the 9th Eur. Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-90), Ptiman, 1990, pp. 348–353.

    Google Scholar 

  60. I. Horrocks, The FaCT system, In: H. de Swart (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX-98), Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 1397 (1998), pp. 307–312.

    Google Scholar 

  61. I. Horrocks, Using an expressive description logic: FaCT or fiction? In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-98), 1998, pp. 636–647.

    Google Scholar 

  62. I. Horrocks, Implementation and optimization techniques, In: F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider (eds.), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003, pp. 306–346.

    Google Scholar 

  63. I. Horrocks and P. F. Patel-Schneider, DL systems comparison, In: Proceedings of the 1998 Description Logic Workshop (DL-98), 1998, pp. 55–57. CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, [http://ceurws.org/Vol-11/]

    Google Scholar 

  64. I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and F. van Harmelen, From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language, J. Web Semantics, 1 (2003), no. 1, 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  65. I. Horrocks and U. Sattler, A description logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies, J. Log. Comput., 9 (1999), no. 3, 385–410.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  66. I. Horrocks and U. Sattler, Ontology reasoning in the SHOQ(D) description logic In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  67. I. Horrocks, U. Sattler, and S. Tobies, Practical reasoning for very expressive description logics, Log. J. IGPL, 8 (2003), no. 3, 239–264.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  68. Ye. Kazakov and H. de Nivelle, Subsumption of concepts in F L0 for (cyclic) terminologies with respect to descriptive semantics is PSPACE-complete, In: Proceedings of the 2003 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2003), 2003, CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings [http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-81/].

    Google Scholar 

  69. H. Knublauch, R. W. Fergerson, N. F. Noy, and M. A. Musen, The Protégé OWL plugin: An open development environment for semantic web applications, In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference, Hiroshima, Japan, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  70. R. Küsters, Characterizing the semantics of terminological cycles in ALN using.nite automata, In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-98), 1998, pp. 499–510.

    Google Scholar 

  71. R. Küsters, Non-standard Inferences in Description Logics, Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 2100 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  72. R. Küsters and A. Borgida, What’s in an attribute? Consequences for the least common subsumer, J. Artif. Intell. Res. 14 (2001), 167–203.

    Google Scholar 

  73. R. Küsters and R. Molitor, Approximating most specific concepts in description logics with existential restrictions. In: F. Baader, G. Brewka, and T. Eiter (eds.), Proceedings of the Joint German/ Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI 2001), Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 2174 (2001), pp. 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  74. R. Küsters and R. Molitor, Computing least common subsumers in ALE N, In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), 2001, pp. 219–224.

    Google Scholar 

  75. C. Lutz, Complexity of terminological reasoning revisited, In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR-99), Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 1705 (1999), 181–200.

    Google Scholar 

  76. R. MacGregor, The evolving technology of classification-based knowledge representation systems, In: J. F. Sowa (ed.), Principles of Semantic Networks, Morgan Kaufmann, 1991, pp. 385–400.

    Google Scholar 

  77. W. Marquardt, L. von Wedel, and B. Bayer, Perspectives on Lifecycle Process Modeling, In: Proceedings of the.fth International Conference on Foundations of Computer-Aided (FOCAPD-99), Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, 1999. Process Design.

    Google Scholar 

  78. E. Mays, R. Dionne, and R. Weida, K-REP system overview, SIGART Bull., 2 (1991), no. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  79. M. Minsky, A framework for representing knowledge, In: J. Haugeland (ed.), Mind Design. The MIT Press, 1981. [A longer version appeared in The Psychology of Computer Vision (1975). Republished in [39].]

    Google Scholar 

  80. R. Molitor, Unterst. utzung der Modellierung verfahrenstechnischer Prozesse durch Nicht-Standardinferenzen in Beschreibungslogiken (Supporting the Modelling of of Chemical Processes by Using Non-Standard Inferences in Description Logics) [In German], PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH-Aachen, Germany,2000.

    Google Scholar 

  81. R. Möller and V. Haarslev, Description logic systems, In: F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider (eds.), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003, pp. 282–305.

    Google Scholar 

  82. B. Nebel, Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable, Artif. Intell. 43 (1990), 235–249.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  83. Ch. Peltason, The BACK system — an overview, SIGART Bull. 2 (1991), no. 3, 114–119.

    Google Scholar 

  84. M._R. Quillian, Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic capabilities, Behavioral Sci. 12 (1967), 410–430. [Republished in [39]]

    Google Scholar 

  85. A. Rector and I. Horrocks, Experience building a large, re-usable medical ontology using a description logic with transitivity and concept inclusions, In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontological Engineering, AAAI Spring Symposium (AAAI-97), Stanford, CA, 1997. AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  86. S. W. Reyner, An analysis of a good algorithm for the subtree problem, SIAM J. Comput., 6 (1977), no. 4, 730–732.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  87. U. Sattler, Terminological Knowledge Representation Systems in a Process Engineering Application, PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  88. K. Schild, A correspondence theory for terminological logics: Preliminary report, In: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), 1991, pp. 466–471.

    Google Scholar 

  89. M. Schmidt-Schauß and G. Smolka, Attributive concept descriptions with complements, Artif. Intell. 48 (1991), no. 1, 1–26.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  90. S. Schultz and U. Hahn, Knowledge engineering by large-scale knowledge reuse-experience from the medical domain, In: A. G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2000), Morgan Kaufmann, 2000, pp.601–610.

    Google Scholar 

  91. G. Teege, Making the Difference: A Subtraction Operation for Description Logics, In: J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-94), Bonn, Germany, 1994. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994, pp. 540–550.

    Google Scholar 

  92. A.-Ya. Turhan and Ch. Kissig, Sonic-nonstandard inferences go oiled, In: D. Basin and M. Rusinowitch (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR-04), Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 3097 (2004), pp. 321–325.

    Google Scholar 

  93. A.-Ya. Turhan and Ch. Kissig, Sonic-system description, In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2004). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, [http://CEURWS.org/Vol-104/] 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  94. L. von Wedel and W. Marquardt, ROME: A Repository to Support the Integration of Models over the Lifecycle of Model-based Engineering Processes, In: Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering (ESCAPE-10), 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  95. W. A. Woods and J. G. Schmolze, The KL-ONE family, In: F. W. Lehmann (ed.), Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, Pergamon Press, 1992, pp. 133–178. [Published as a special issue of Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23, no. 2–9.]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technischer Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Franz Baader

  2. Institut für Informatik und Praktische Mathematik, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Ralf Küsters

Authors
  1. Franz Baader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ralf Küsters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK

    Dov M. Gabbay  & Michael Zakharyaschev  & 

  2. Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, SB Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

    Sergei S. Goncharov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baader, F., Küsters, R. (2006). Nonstandard Inferences in Description Logics: The Story So Far. In: Gabbay, D.M., Goncharov, S.S., Zakharyaschev, M. (eds) Mathematical Problems from Applied Logic I. International Mathematical Series, vol 4. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-31072-X_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation