Search
1994 Volume 9
Article Contents
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Research developments in multiple inheritance with exceptions

More Information
  • Abstract: The inheritance problem can be simply stated: for any instantiation of an inheritance network, say a specific hierarchy Γ, find a conclusion set for Γ. In other words, find out what is logically entailed by Γ. This can be done in two ways: either by defining a deductive or proof theoretic definition to determine what paths are entailed by a network; or by translating the individual links in the network to a more general nonmonotonic logic and using its model and proof theory to generate entailments that correspond to what one would expect from “viewing” the inheritance hierarchy. Two approaches to a solution to the inheritance problem structure this paper. The first is widely known as the “path-based” or “proof theoretic”, and the second, the “Model-based” or “model theoretic”. The two approaches result in both a different interpretation of default links as well as a variation in the entailment strategy for a solution to teh inheritance problem. In either case, the entailments produced need some intuitive interpretation, which can be either credulous or skeptical. The semantics of both skeptical and credulous inheritance reasoners are examined.
  • 加载中
  • Bacchus F, 1988. Representing and reasoning with probabilistic knowledge. PhD theseis, Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar

    Bacchus F, 1989. “A modest, but semantically well founded, inheritance reasoner”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 1104–1109.

    Google Scholar

    Belnap N, 1976. “How a computer should think”. In: Ryle G (ed.), Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, pp 30–55. Oriel Press.

    Google Scholar

    Belnap N, 1977. “A useful four valued logic”. In: Dunn J and Epstein G (eds.), Modern Uses of Multiple Valued Logic, pp 8–37. Reidel.

    Google Scholar

    Bläsius K, Hedück U and Rollinger C (eds.), 1990. Sorts and Types in Artificial Intelligence: Lectures Notes on AI Vol 418. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Boutilier C, 1989. “A semantical approach to stable inheritance reasoning”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 1134–1139.

    Google Scholar

    Brachman R, 1985. “I lied about the trees or defaults and definitions in knowledge representation”. AI Magazine, Fall80–93.

    Google Scholar

    Buchanan B and Shortliffe E, 1984. Rule-bases Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar

    Borgida A and Williamson K, 1985. “Accommodating exceptions in databases and refining the schema by learning from them”. In: Proceedings of VLDB. Stockholm.

    Google Scholar

    Cross C and Thomason R, 1987. “Update and conditionals”. In: International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligence Systems.

    Google Scholar

    Doherty P, 1989. “A correspondence between inheritance hierarchies and a logics of preferential entailment”. In: International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems.

    Google Scholar

    Doherty P, 1991. NML: A nonmonotonic formalism with explicit defaults. Phd, Institutionen för Datavetenskap, University of Linköping.

    Google Scholar

    Eklund P, 1991. “Negotiating inheritance taxonomies in conceptual structures”. In: 3rd Scandinavian Conference on AI, pp 211–221. Roskilde, Denmark.

    Google Scholar

    Etherington D and Reiter R, 1983. “On inheritance hierarchies with exceptions”. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 104–108.

    Google Scholar

    Etherington D, 1987a. “Formalizing nonmonotonic reasoning systems”. Artificial Intelligence3141–85.

    Google Scholar

    Etherington D, 1987b. “More on inheritance hierarchies with exceptions”. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 352–357.

    Google Scholar

    Etherington D, 1988. Reasoning with Incomplete Information: Research Notes in AI. See Mateo, CA: Morgan-Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar

    Fahlman S, 1979. NETL: A System for Representing and Using Real-World Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar

    Lenzerini M, Donini F and Nardi D, 1991. “Tractable concept languages”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 458–463.

    Google Scholar

    Froidevaux C and Kayser D, 1988. “Inheritance in semantic networks and default logicz”. In: Smets P, Mamdani E, Dubious D and Prade H (eds.), Non-Standard Logics for Automated Reasoning, pp 179–212. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar

    Gabbay D, 1985. “Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems”. In: Krzysztof R (ed), Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pp 439–457. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Geffner H, 1989. Default reasoning: Causal and conditional theories. PhD thesis, Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, UCLA, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Ginsberg M, 1990. “A local formalization of inheritance: Preliminary report”. In: 3rd International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp 119–1292. Lake Tahoe, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Gelfond M and Przymusinska H, 1990. “Formalization of inheritance reasoning in autoepistemic logic”. In: 3rd International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 73–107. Lake Tahoe, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Gelfond M and Przymusinska H, 1990. “Formalization of inheritance reasoning in autoepistemic logic”. Fundamenta Informaticae13 (4) 403–444.

    Google Scholar

    Geffner H and Verma T, 1989. “Inheritance = chaining + defeat”. In: International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems.

    Google Scholar

    Hägglund S, 1989. “Iterative design and adaptive maintenance of knowledge-based office systems”. Office information Systems: The Design Process. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar

    Haugh B, 1988. “Tractable theories of multiple defeasible inheritance in ordinary nonmonotonic logics”. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 421–426.

    Google Scholar

    Hayes P, 1977. “In defence of logic”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 559–564.

    Google Scholar

    Horty J, 1990a. “A credulous theory of mixed inheritance”. In: Lenzerini M (ed), Inheritance Hierarchies in Knowledge Representation. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar

    Horty J, 1990b. “A skeptical theory of mixed inheritance”. In: Dunn J and Cupta A (eds.), Truth or Consequences, pp 267–281. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar

    Horty J and Thomasen R, 1988. “Mixing strict and defeasible inheritance”. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 427–432.

    Google Scholar

    Horty J, Thomason R and Touretzky D, 1990. “A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks”. Artificial Intelligence42311–348.

    Google Scholar

    Krishnaprasad T and Kifer M, 1989. “An evidence-based framework for a theory of inheritance”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 1093–1098.

    Google Scholar

    Krishnaprasad T, Kifer M and Warren D, 1989. “On the declarative semantics of inheritance network”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 1099–1103.

    Google Scholar

    Krishnaprasad T, 1989. The semantics of inheritance networks. Phd thesis, Department of Computer Science, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.

    Google Scholar

    Loui R, 1986. “Defeat among arguments: A system of defeasible inference”. Technical Report TR190, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester.

    Google Scholar

    McCarthy J and Hayes P, 1981. “Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of AI”. In: Webber B L and Nilsson N (eds.), Readings in AI, pp 431–451. Los Angeles, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar

    Moore R, 1988. “Autoepistemic logic”. In: Smets P, Mamdani E, Dubious D and Prade H (eds.), Non-Standard Logics for Automated Reasoning, pp 105–127. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar

    Makinson D and Schlechta K, 1989. “Floating conclusions and zombie paths”. In: 2nd International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Sankt Augustin, FRG.

    Google Scholar

    Makinson D and Schlechta K.1991. “Floating conclusions and zombie paths: Two deep difficulties in the directly skeptical approach to defeasible inheritance nets”. 48199–209.

    Google Scholar

    Nebel B, 1990. “Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable”. Artificial Intelligence43 (2) 235–249.

    Google Scholar

    Padgham I, 1988. “A model and representation for type information and its use in reasoning with defaults”. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 409–414.

    Google Scholar

    Padgham L, 1989a. “Negative reasoning using inheritance”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 1086–1092.

    Google Scholar

    Padgham L, 1989b. Non-monotonic inheritance for an object-orientated knowledge-base. Phd thesis. Institutionen för datavetenskap, University of Linköping.

    Google Scholar

    Pearl J, 1987. “Deciding consistency in inheritance networks”. Technical Report CSD 870053: R96, UCLA.

    Google Scholar

    Pearl J, 1988. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan-Kaufman.

    Google Scholar

    Poole D, 1985. “On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 144–150.

    Google Scholar

    Patel-Scheider P, 1989. “Undecidability of subsumption in nikl*”. Artificial Intelligence39263–271.

    Google Scholar

    Reiter R and Crisuolo G, 1981. “On interacting defaults”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 270–276.

    Google Scholar

    Reiter R, 1980. “A logic for default reasoning”. AI Journal1381–132.

    Google Scholar

    Sandewall E, 1986. “Nonmonotonic inference rules for multiple inheritance with exception”. In: IEEE, pp 1345–1353.

    Google Scholar

    Schubert L, 1976. “Extending the expressive power of semantic networks”. Artificial Intelligence7163–198.

    Google Scholar

    Schlechta K, 1989. “Directly sceptical inheritance cannot capture the intersection of extension”. In: Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Sankt Augustin, FRG.

    Google Scholar

    Shoham Y, 1988. Reasoning about Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar

    Selman B and Kautz H, 1988. “The complexity of model-preference default theories”. In: Reinfrank M, de Kleer J, Ginsberg M and Sandewall E (eds.), 2nd International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp 115–130. Springer-Verlag. Grassau, FRG.

    Google Scholar

    Lehmann D, Kraus S and Magidor M.1990. “Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics”. 44 167–207.

    Google Scholar

    Selman B and Levesque H, 1989. “The tractibility of path-based inheritance”. In: International Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence, pp 1140–1145.

    Google Scholar

    Stein LA, 1989. “Skeptical inheritance: Computing the intersection of credulous extensions”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 1153–1158.

    Google Scholar

    Stein I, 1990. “A preference-based approach to inheritance”. In: 3rd International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp 233–245. Lake Tahoe, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Thomason R, Horty J and Touretzky D, 1987. “A calculus for inheritance in monotonic semantic nets”. In: International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pp 282–287. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar

    Touretzky D, Horty J and Thomason R, 1987. “A clash of intuitions: The current state of nonmonotonic multiple inheritance systems”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 476–482.

    Google Scholar

    Touretzky D, Horty J and Thomason R, 1987. “A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks”. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 358–363.

    Google Scholar

    Touretzky D, 1984a. “Implicit ordering of defaults in inheritance systems”. In: International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 322–325.

    Google Scholar

    Touretzky D, 1984b. “The mathematics of inheritance systems”. Technical Report CMU-CS-84–136, CMU.

    Google Scholar

    Touretzky D, 1986. The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems: Research Notes in Al. San Mateo, CA: Morgan-Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar

    Touretzky D and Thomason R, 1988. “Nonmonotonic inheritance and generic reflexives”. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 433–438.

    Google Scholar

    Thomason R and Touretzky D, 1990. “Inheritance theory and networks with roles”. Technical Report CMU-CS-90–139, CMU.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Peter W. Eklund. 1994. Research developments in multiple inheritance with exceptions. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 9:6561 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900006561
    Peter W. Eklund. 1994. Research developments in multiple inheritance with exceptions. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 9:6561 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900006561

Article Metrics

Article views(14) PDF downloads(195)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Research developments in multiple inheritance with exceptions

The Knowledge Engineering Review  9 Article number: 10.1017/S0269888900006561  (1994)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: The inheritance problem can be simply stated: for any instantiation of an inheritance network, say a specific hierarchy Γ, find a conclusion set for Γ. In other words, find out what is logically entailed by Γ. This can be done in two ways: either by defining a deductive or proof theoretic definition to determine what paths are entailed by a network; or by translating the individual links in the network to a more general nonmonotonic logic and using its model and proof theory to generate entailments that correspond to what one would expect from “viewing” the inheritance hierarchy. Two approaches to a solution to the inheritance problem structure this paper. The first is widely known as the “path-based” or “proof theoretic”, and the second, the “Model-based” or “model theoretic”. The two approaches result in both a different interpretation of default links as well as a variation in the entailment strategy for a solution to teh inheritance problem. In either case, the entailments produced need some intuitive interpretation, which can be either credulous or skeptical. The semantics of both skeptical and credulous inheritance reasoners are examined.

    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 19941994Cambridge University Press
References (68)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Peter W. Eklund. 1994. Research developments in multiple inheritance with exceptions. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 9:6561 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900006561
    Peter W. Eklund. 1994. Research developments in multiple inheritance with exceptions. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 9:6561 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900006561
  • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return