Download A proof theory for description logics by Alexandre Rademaker PDF

By Alexandre Rademaker

Creation -- historical past -- The Sequent Calculus for ALC -- evaluating SC ALC SC with different ALC Deduction platforms -- A common Deduction for ALC -- in the direction of an explanation idea for ALCQI -- Proofs and causes -- A Prototype Theorem Prover -- end

Show description

Read or Download A proof theory for description logics PDF

Similar theory books

Pattern Recognition Theory and Applications

This ebook is the end result of a NATO complicated learn Institute on development Recog­ nition idea and functions held in Spa-Balmoral, Belgium, in June 1986. This Institute used to be the 3rd of a chain which begun in 1975 in Bandol, France, on the initia­ tive of Professors okay. S. Fu and A. Whinston, and endured in 1981 in Oxford, united kingdom, with Professors okay.

Application and Theory of Petri Nets 2002: 23rd International Conference, ICATPN 2002 Adelaide, Australia, June 24–30, 2002 Proceedings

This publication constitutes the refereed complaints of the twenty third overseas convention on software and thought of Petri Nets, ICATPN 2002, held in Adelaide, Australia, in June 2002. The 18 common papers and one software presentation offered including six invited paper have been conscientiously reviewed and chosen from forty five submissions.

Modeling and Optimization: Theory and Applications: MOPTA, Bethlehem, PA, USA, August 2014 Selected Contributions

​This quantity features a collection of contributions that have been awarded on the Modeling and Optimization: thought and purposes convention (MOPTA) held at Lehigh college in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, united states on August 13-15, 2014. The convention introduced jointly a various crew of researchers and practitioners, engaged on either theoretical and functional elements of constant or discrete optimization.

Extra resources for A proof theory for description logics

Example text

On the other hand, a subsumption Φ Ψ has no concept associate to it. It states, instead, a truth-value statement, depending on whether the interpretation of Φ is included in the corresponding interpretation of Ψ . In terms of a logical system, DL has no concept internalizing . 2 The NDALC System 53 As we will see on the next section, this imposes quite particular features on the form of the normal proofs in NDALC . L 2 β only depends on the assumption L 1 α and no other In the rule -i, L 1 α hypothesis.

3 are obtained from a SCALC without cut-rule, we are actually proving the completeness of SCALC without the cut-rule. Given that, the results can also be considered an alternative method of cut-elimination for A. 1007/978-1-4471-4002-3_4, © The Author(s) 2012 37 4 Comparing SCALC with Other ALC Deduction Systems 38 the SCALC presented in Sect. 4, where we followed Gentzen’s original proof for cut elimination. 2 Comparing SALC With the Structural Subsumption Algorithm The structural subsumption algorithms (SSA) presented in [1] compare the syntactic structure of two normalized concept descriptions in order to verify if the first one is subsumed by the second one.

Moreover, weak rules will be used with the unique purpose of enabling promotion rules applications. 44 4 Comparing SCALC with Other ALC Deduction Systems A more insightful definition of the last item above would be possible if we replace the weak rules in SC[] ALC by the weak ∗ rule below. [Δ ], [Δ, Δ1 ]k , Δ ⇒ Γ, [Γ1 , Γ ]k , [Γ ] [Δ ], Δ, Δ1 ⇒ Γ1 , Γ, [Γ ] weak ∗ Lemma 6 The weak ∗ rule is a derived rule in SC[] ALC . Proof To prove Lemma 6, given a derivation fragment Π with a weak ∗ rule application, we show how to replace it by successive weak-l and weak-r applications.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.32 of 5 – based on 43 votes