2004
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-30504-0_9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semantic Web Reasoning with Conceptual Logic Programs

Abstract: Abstract. We extend Answer Set Programming with, possibly infinite, open domains. Since this leads, in general, to undecidable reasoning, we restrict the syntax of programs, while carefully guarding useful knowledge representation mechanisms such as negation as failure and inequalities. Reasoning with the resulting Conceptual Logic Programs can be reduced to finite, normal Answer Set Programming, for which reasoners are available. We argue that Conceptual Logic Programming is a useful tool for uniformly repres… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(16 reference statements)
0
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A different approach is presented in [23,22], which proposes Conceptual Logic Programming (CLP), an extension of answer set programming (i.e., Datalog ¬∨ ) towards infinite domains. In order to keep reasoning decidable, a syntactic restriction on CLP program rules is imposed.…”
Section: Loose Integrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A different approach is presented in [23,22], which proposes Conceptual Logic Programming (CLP), an extension of answer set programming (i.e., Datalog ¬∨ ) towards infinite domains. In order to keep reasoning decidable, a syntactic restriction on CLP program rules is imposed.…”
Section: Loose Integrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One would thus wrongfully conclude that there can never be bad individuals. In [17], this was solved by considering open domains, i.e. the program may be grounded with any superset of the present constants: grounding with a universe {x , heather } yields bad (heather ) ← not good (heather ); bad (x ) ← not good (x ) and good (heather ) ← , which has an answer set {bad (x ), good (heather )}, correctly capturing the intended meaning of the program.…”
Section: Answer Set Programming With Open Domainsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We briefly recall the open answer set semantics from [17]. We call individual names constants and write them as lowercase letters, variables will be denoted with uppercase letters.…”
Section: Answer Set Programming With Open Domainsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations