Abstract
The aim of this talk is to present a detailed, self-contained and comprehensive account of the state of the art in representing and reasoning with structured fuzzy knowledge. Fuzzy knowledge comes into play whenever one has to deal with concepts for which membership is a matter of degree (e.g., the degree of illness is a function of, among others, the body temperature). Specifically, we address the case of the fuzzy variants of conceptual languages of the OWL 2 family.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
1 Introduction
Managing uncertainty and fuzziness is growing in importance in Semantic Web research as recognised by a large number of research efforts in this direction [155, 160]. Semantic Web Languages (SWL) are the languages used to provide a formal description of concepts, terms, and relationships within a given domain, among which the OWL 2 family of languages is a major player [116]. OWL 2 has its logical grounding in Description Logics (DLs) [3] and the main aim of fuzzifying DLs is then to allow dealing with fuzzy concepts occurring in real world applications.
Uncertainty versus Fuzziness. One of the major difficulties, for those unfamiliar on the topic, is to understand the conceptual differences between uncertainty and fuzziness. Specifically, we recall that there has been a long-lasting misunderstanding in the literature of artificial intelligence and uncertainty modelling, regarding the role of probability/possibility theory and vague/fuzzy theory. A clarifying paper is [56]. We recall here the salient concepts.
Uncertainty. Under uncertainty theory fall all those approaches in which statements rather than being either true or false, are true or false to some probability or possibility (for example, “it will rain tomorrow”). That is, a statement is true or false in any world/interpretation, but we are “uncertain” about which world to consider as the right one, and thus we speak about e.g. a probability distribution or a possibility distribution over the worlds. For example, we cannot exactly establish whether it will rain tomorrow or not, due to our incomplete knowledge about our world, but we can estimate to which degree this is probable, possible, or necessary.
To be somewhat more formal, consider a propositional statement (formula) \(\phi \) (“tomorrow it will rain”) and a propositional interpretation (world) \(\mathcal {I} \). We may see \(\mathcal {I} \) as a function mapping propositional formulae into \(\{0,1\}\), i.e. \(\mathcal {I} (\phi ) \in \{0,1\}\). If \(\mathcal {I} (\phi ) = 1\), denoted also as \(\mathcal {I} \,\models \,\phi \), then we say that the statement \(\phi \) under \(\mathcal {I} \) is true, false otherwise. Now, each interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) depicts some concrete world and, given n propositional letters, there are \(2^n\) possible interpretations. In uncertainty theory, we do not know which interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) is the actual one and we say that we are uncertain about which world is the real one that will occur.
To deal with such a situation, one may construct a probability distribution over the worlds, that is a function \( Pr \) mapping interpretations in [0, 1], i.e. \( Pr (\mathcal {I}) \in [0,1]\), with \(\sum _\mathcal {I} Pr (\mathcal {I}) = 1\), where \( Pr (\mathcal {I})\) indicates the probability that \(\mathcal {I} \) is the actual world under which to interpret the propositional statement at hand. Then, the probability of a statement \(\phi \) in \( Pr \), denoted \( Pr (\phi )\), is the sum of all \( Pr (\mathcal {I})\) such that \(\mathcal {I} \,\models \,\phi \), i.e.
Fuzziness. On the other hand, under fuzzy theory fall all those approaches in which statements (for example, “heavy rain”) are true to some degree, which is taken from a truth space (usually [0, 1]). That is, the convention prescribing that a proposition is either true or false is changed towards graded propositions. For instance, the compatibility of “heavy” in the phrase “heavy rain” is graded and the degree depends on the amount of rain is falling.Footnote 1 Often we may find rough definitions about rain types, such as:Footnote 2
-
Rain. Falling drops of water larger than 0.5 mm in diameter. In forecasts, “rain” usually implies that the rain will fall steadily over a period of time;
-
Light Rain. Rain falls at the rate of 2.6 mm or less an hour;
-
Moderate Rain. Rain falls at the rate of 2.7 mm to 7.6 mm an hour;
-
Heavy Rain. Rain falls at the rate of 7.7 mm an hour or more.
It is evident that such definitions are quite harsh and resemble a bivalent (two-valued) logic: e.g. a precipitation rate of \(7.7\,\mathrm{mm}{/}\mathrm{h}\) is a heavy rain, while a precipitation rate of \(7.6\,\mathrm{mm}{/}\mathrm{h}\) is just a moderate rain. This is clearly unsatisfactory, as quite naturally the more rain is falling, the more the sentence “heavy rain” is true and, vice-versa, the less rain is falling the less the sentence is true.
In other words, this means essentially, that the sentence “heavy rain” is no longer either true or false as in the definition above, but is intrinsically graded.
A more fine grained way to define the various types of rains is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Light rain, moderate rain and heavy rain are called Fuzzy Sets in the literature [176] and are characterised by the fact that membership is a matter of degree. Of course, the definition of fuzzy sets is frequently context dependent and subjective: e.g. the definition of heavy rain is quite different from heavy person and the latter may be defined differently among human beings.
From a logical point of view, a propositional interpretation maps a statement \(\phi \) to a truth degree in [0, 1], i.e. \(\mathcal {I} (\phi ) \in [0,1]\). Essentially, we are unable to establish whether a statement is entirely true or false due to the involvement of vague/fuzzy concepts, such as “heavy”.
Note that all fuzzy statements are truth-functional, that is, the degree of truth of every statement can be calculated from the degrees of truth of its constituents, while uncertain statements cannot always be a function of the uncertainties of their constituents [55]. For the sake of illustrative purpose, an example of truth functional interpretation of propositional statements is as follows:
In such a setting one may be interested in the so-called notions of minimal (resp. maximal) degree of satisfaction of a statement, i.e. \(\min _\mathcal {I} \mathcal {I} (\phi )\) (resp. \(\max _\mathcal {I} \mathcal {I} (\phi )\)).
Uncertain Fuzzy Sentences. Let us recap: in a probabilistic setting each statement is either true or false, but there is e.g. a probability distribution telling us how probable each interpretation is, i.e. \(\mathcal {I} (\phi ) \in \{0,1\}\) and \( Pr (\mathcal {I}) \in [0,1]\). In fuzzy theory instead, sentences are graded, i.e. we have \(\mathcal {I} (\phi ) \in [0,1]\).
A natural question is: can we have sentences combining the two orthogonal concepts? Yes, for instance, “there will be heavy rain tomorrow” is an uncertain fuzzy sentence. Essentially, there is uncertainty about the world we will have tomorrow, and there is fuzziness about the various types of rain we may have tomorrow.
From a logical point of view, we may model uncertain fuzzy sentences in the following way:
-
we have a probability distribution over the worlds, i.e. a function \( Pr \) mapping interpretations in [0, 1], i.e. \( Pr (\mathcal {I}) \in [0,1]\), with \(\sum _\mathcal {I} Pr (\mathcal {I}) = 1\);
-
sentences are graded. Specifically, each interpretation is truth functional and maps sentences into [0, 1], i.e. \(\mathcal {I} (\phi ) \in [0,1]\);
-
for a sentence \(\phi \), we are interested in the so-called expected truth of \(\phi \), denoted \(ET(\phi ),\) namely
$$\begin{aligned} ET(\phi ) = \sum _\mathcal {I} Pr(\mathcal {I})\cdot \mathcal {I} (\phi ). \end{aligned}$$
Note that if \(\mathcal {I} \) is bivalent (that is, \(\mathcal {I} (\phi ) \in \{0,1\}\)) then \(ET(\phi ) = Pr (\phi )\).
Talk Overview. We present here some salient aspects dealing with fuzzy knowledge in the context of the OWL 2 family of languages, specifically we address fuzzy DLs. We refer the reader to [160] for an extensive presentation concerning fuzzy OWL and other semantic web languages.
In the following, we briefly sketch the basic notions about Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic, which we require then in the subsequent section about fuzzy DLs.
2 Basics: From Fuzzy Sets to Mathematical Fuzzy Logic
2.1 Fuzzy Sets Basics
The aim of this section is to introduce the basic concepts of fuzzy set theory. To distinguish between fuzzy sets and classical (nonfuzzy) sets, we refer to the latter as crisp sets. For an in-depth treatment we refer the reader to, e.g. [54, 86].
From Crisp Sets to Fuzzy Sets. To better highlight the conceptual shift from classical sets to fuzzy sets, we start with some basic definitions and well-known properties of classical sets. Let X be a universal set containing all possible elements of concern in each particular context. The power set, denoted \(2^{A}\), of a set \(A \subset X\), is the set of subsets of A, i.e., \(2^{A} = \{ B \mid B \subseteq A \}\). Often sets are defined by specifying a property satisfied by its members, in the form \(A = \{x \mid P(x) \}\), where P(x) is a statement of the form “x has property P” that is either true or false for any \(x\in X\). Examples of universe X and subsets \(A,B \in 2^{X}\) may be
In the above case we have \(B \subseteq A \subseteq X\).
The membership function of a set \(A \subseteq X\), denoted \(\chi _{A}\), is a function mapping elements of X into \(\{0,1\}\), i.e. \(\chi _{A}:X \rightarrow \{0,1\}\), where \(\chi _{A}(x) = 1\) iff \(x \in A\). Note that for any sets \(A,B \in 2^{X}\), we have that
The complement of a set A is denoted \(\bar{A}\), i.e. \(\bar{A} = X \setminus A\). Of course, \(\forall x\in X. \ \chi _{\bar{A}}(x) = 1 - \chi _{A}(x)\). In a similar way, we may express set operations of intersection and union via the membership function as follows:
The Cartesian product, \(A \times B\), of two sets \(A, B \in 2^{X}\) is defined as \(A \times B = \{\langle a,b \rangle \mid a \in A, b \in B \}\). A relation \(R \subseteq X \times X\) is reflexive if for all \(x\in X\) \( \chi _{R}(x,x)=1\), is symmetric if for all \(x,y\in X\) \( \chi _{R}(x,y) = \chi _{R}(y,x)\). The inverse of R is defined as function \( \chi _{R^{-1}}:X \times X \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) with membership function \( \chi _{R^{-1}}(y,x) = \chi _{R}(x,y)\).
As defined so far, the membership function of a crisp set A assigns a value of either 1 or 0 to each individual of the universe set and, thus, discriminates between being a member or not being a member of A.
A fuzzy set [176] is characterised instead by a membership function \(\chi _{A}:X \rightarrow [0,1]\), or denoted simply \(A:X \rightarrow [0,1]\). With \(\tilde{2}^{X}\) we denote the fuzzy power set over X, i.e. the set of all fuzzy sets over X. For instance, by referring to Fig. 1, the fuzzy set
is defined via the membership function
As pointed out previously, the definition of the membership function may depend on the context and may be subjective. Moreover, also the shape of such functions may be quite different. Luckily, the trapezoidal (Fig. 2(a)), the triangular (Fig. 2(b)), the L-function (left-shoulder function, Fig. 2(c)), and the R-function (right-shoulder function, Fig. 2(d)) are simple, but most frequently used to specify membership degrees.
The usefulness of fuzzy sets depends critically on our capability to construct appropriate membership functions. The problem of constructing meaningful membership functions is a difficult one and we refer the interested reader to, e.g. [86, Chap. 10]. However, one easy and typically satisfactory method to define the membership functions (for a numerical domain) is to uniformly partition the range of, e.g. precipitation rates values (bounded by a minimum and maximum value), into 5 or 7 fuzzy sets using either trapezoidal functions (e.g. as illustrated in Fig. 3), or using triangular functions (as illustrated in Fig. 4). The latter one is the more used one, as it has less parameters.
The standard fuzzy set operations are defined for any \(x\in X\) as in Eqs. (2) and (3). Note also that the set inclusion defined as in Eq. (1) is indeed crisp in the sense that either \(A \subseteq B\) or \(A \not \subseteq B\).
Norm-Based Fuzzy Set Operations. Standard fuzzy set operations are not the only ones that can be conceived to be suitable to generalise the classical Boolean operations. For each of the three types of operations there is a wide class of plausible fuzzy version. The most notable ones are characterised by the so-called class of t-norms \(\otimes \) (called triangular norms), t-conorms \(\oplus \) (also called s-norm), and negation \(\ominus \) (see, e.g. [85]). An additional operator is used to define set inclusion (called implication \(\Rightarrow \)). Indeed, the degree of subsumption between two fuzzy sets A and B, denoted \(A \sqsubseteq B\), is defined as \(\inf _{x \in X} A(x) \Rightarrow B(x)\), where \(\Rightarrow \) is an implication function.
An important aspect of such functions is that they satisfy some properties that one expects to hold (see Tables 1 and 2). Usually, the implication function \(\Rightarrow \) is defined as r-implication, that is,
Of course, due to commutativity, \(\otimes \) and \(\oplus \) are monotone also in the first argument. We say that \(\otimes \) is indempotent if \(a \otimes a = a\), for any \(a\in [0,1]\). For any \(a\in [0,1]\), we say that a negation function \(\ominus \) is involutive iff \(\ominus \ominus a = a\). Salient negation functions are:
-
Standard or Łukasiewicz Negation: \(\ominus _{l} a = 1-a\);
-
Gödel Negation: \(\ominus _{g} a\) is 1 if \(a=0\), else is 0.
Of course, Łukasiewicz negation is involutive, while Gödel negation is not.
Salient t-norm functions are:
-
Gödel t-norm: \(a \otimes _{g}b = \min (a,b)\);
-
Bounded Difference or Łukasiewicz t-norm: \(a \otimes _{l} b = \max (0, a+ b -1)\);
-
Algebraic Product or Product t-norm: \(a \otimes _{p} b = a \cdot b\);
-
Drastic Product: \(a \otimes _{d} b = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 &{} \text{ when } (a,b) \in [0,1[ \times [0,1[\\ \min (a,b) &{} \text{ otherwise } \end{array}\right. \)
Salient s-norm functions are:
-
Gödel s-norm: \(a \oplus _{g}b = \max (a,b)\);
-
Bounded Sum or Łukasiewicz s-norm: \(a \oplus _{l} b = \min (1, a+ b)\);
-
Algebraic Sum or Product s-norm: \(a \oplus _{p} b = a + b - ab\);
-
Drastic sum: \(a \oplus _{d} b = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 &{} \text{ when } (a,b) \in ]0,1] \times ]0,1]\\ \max (a,b) &{} \text{ otherwise } \end{array}\right. \)
We recall that the following important properties can be shown about t-norms and s-norms.
-
1.
There is the following ordering among t-norms (\(\otimes \) is any t-norm):
$$\begin{aligned}&\otimes _{d} \le \otimes \le \otimes _{g} \\&\otimes _{d} \le \otimes _{l} \le \otimes _{p} \le \otimes _{g}. \end{aligned}$$ -
2.
The only idempotent t-norm is \(\otimes _{g}\).
-
3.
The only t-norm satisfying \(a \otimes a = 0\) for all \(a \in [0,1[\) is \(\otimes _{d}\).
-
4.
There is the following ordering among s-norms (\(\oplus \) is any s-norm):
$$\begin{aligned}&\oplus _{g} \le \oplus \le \oplus _{d} \\&\oplus _{g} \le \oplus _{p} \le \oplus _{l} \le \oplus _{d}. \end{aligned}$$ -
5.
The only idempotent s-norm is \(\oplus _{g}\).
-
6.
The only s-norm satisfying \(a \oplus a = 1\) for all \(a \in ]0,1]\) is \(\oplus _{d}\).
The dual s-norm of \(\otimes \) is defined as
Some t-norms, s-norms, implication functions, and negation functions are shown in Table 3. One usually distinguishes three different sets of fuzzy set operations (called fuzzy logics), namely, Łukasiewicz, Gödel, and Product logic; the popular Standard Fuzzy Logic (SFL) is a sublogic of Łukasiewicz logic as \( \min (a,b) = a \otimes _{l} (a \Rightarrow _{l} b)\) and \(\max (a,b) = 1 - \min (1-a, 1-b)\). The importance of these three logics is due to the Mostert–Shields theorem [114] that states that any continuous t-norm can be obtained as an ordinal sum of these three (see also [67]).
The implication \(x \Rightarrow y = \max (1-x,y)\) is called Kleene-Dienes implication in the fuzzy logic literature. Note that we have the following inferences: let \(a \ge n\) and \(a \Rightarrow b \ge m\). Then, under Kleene-Dienes implication, we infer that if \(n > 1-m\) then \(b \ge m\). Under r-implication relative to a t-norm \(\otimes \), we infer that \(b \ge n\otimes m\).
The composition of two fuzzy relations \(R_{1}:X\times X \rightarrow [0,1]\) and \(R_{2}:X\times X \rightarrow [0,1]\) is defined as \((R_{1} \circ R_{2})(x,z) = \sup _{y\in X} R_{1}(x,y) \otimes R_{2}(y,z)\). A fuzzy relation R is transitive iff \(R(x,z) \,{\geqslant }\,(R\circ R)(x,z)\).
Fuzzy Modifiers. Fuzzy modifiers are an interesting feature of fuzzy set theory. Essentially, a fuzzy modifier, such as \(\mathtt {very}\), \(\mathtt {more\_or\_less}\), and \(\mathtt {slightly}\), apply to fuzzy sets to change their membership function.
Formally, a fuzzy modifier m represents a function
For example, we may define \(f_\mathtt {very}(x) \,{=}\,x^{2}\) and \(f_\mathtt {slightly}(x) = \sqrt{x}\). In this way, we may express the fuzzy set of very heavy rain by applying the modifier very to the fuzzy membership function of “heavy rain” i.e.
A typical shape of modifiers is the so-called linear modifiers, as illustrated in Fig. 5. Note that such a modifier can be parameterized by means of one parameter c only, i.e. \(lm(a,b) = lm(c)\), where \(a = c/(c+1), \ b=1/(c+1)\).
2.2 Mathematical Fuzzy Logic Basics
Given that the OWL 2 family of languages is grounded on Mathematical Logic, it is quite natural to look at Mathematical Fuzzy Logic [67] to get inspiration for a fuzzy logic extensions of the OWL family. So, we recap here briefly that in Mathematical Fuzzy Logic, the convention prescribing that a statement is either true or false is changed and is a matter of degree measured on an ordered scale that is no longer \(\{0, 1\}\), but [0, 1]. This degree is called degree of truth of the logical statement \(\phi \) in the interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \). Fuzzy statements have the form \(\langle \phi , r \rangle \), where \(r \,{\in }\,[0,1]\) (see, e.g. [66, 67]) and \(\phi \) is a statement, which encodes that the degree of truth of \(\phi \) is greater or equal r. A fuzzy interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) maps each basic statement \(p_i\) into [0, 1] and is then extended inductively to all statements:
where \({\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \) is the domain of \(\mathcal {I} \), and \(\otimes \), \(\oplus \), \(\Rightarrow \), and \(\ominus \) are the t-norms, t-conorms, implication functions, a negation functions we have seen in the previous section.Footnote 3
One may also consider the following abbreviations:
In case \(\Rightarrow \) is the r-implication based on \(\otimes \), then \(\wedge _{g}\) (resp. \(\vee _{g}\)) is interpreted as Gödel t-norm (resp. s-norm), while \(\lnot _{\otimes }\) is interpreted as the negation function related to \(\otimes \).
A fuzzy interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) satisfies a fuzzy statement \(\langle \phi , r \rangle \), or \(\mathcal {I} \) is a model of \(\langle \phi , r \rangle \), denoted \(\mathcal {I} \,{\models }\,\langle \phi , r \rangle \), iff \(\mathcal {I} (\phi ) \ge r\). We say that \(\mathcal {I} \) is a model of \(\phi \) if \(\mathcal {I} (\phi ) = 1\). A fuzzy knowledge base (or simply knowledge base, if clear from context) is a set of fuzzy statements and an interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) satisfies (is a model of) a knowledge base, denoted \(\mathcal {I} \,\models \,{\mathcal{K}}\), iff it satisfies each element in it.
We say \(\langle \phi , n \rangle \) is a tight logical consequence of a set of fuzzy statements \({\mathcal{K}}\) iff n is the infimum of \(\mathcal {I} (\phi )\) subject to all models \(\mathcal {I} \) of \({\mathcal{K}}\). Notice that the latter is equivalent to \(n\,{=}\,\sup \,\{ r \,{\mid }\,{\mathcal{K}}\,{\models }\,\langle \phi , r \rangle \}\). n is called the best entailment degree of \(\phi \) w.r.t. \({\mathcal{K}}\) (denoted \(bed({\mathcal{K}},\phi )\)), i.e.
On the other hand, the best satisfiability degree of \(\phi \) w.r.t. \({\mathcal{K}}\) (denoted \(bsd({\mathcal{K}},\phi )\)) is
Of course, the properties of Table 4 immediately translate into equivalence among formulae. For instance, the following equivalences hold (in brackets we indicate the logic for which the equivalences holds)
Remark 1
Unlike the classical case, in general, we do not have that \(\forall x. \phi \) and \(\lnot \exists x. \lnot \phi \) are equivalent. They are equivalent for Łukasiewicz logic and SFL, but are neither equivalent for Gödel nor for Product logic. For instance, under Gödel negation, just consider an interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) with domain \(\{a\}\) and \(\mathcal {I} (p(a)) = u\), with \(0 < u < 1\). Then \(\mathcal {I} (\forall x. p(x)) = u\), while \(\mathcal {I} (\lnot \exists x. \lnot p(x)) = 1\) and, thus, \(\forall x. p(x) \not \equiv \lnot \exists x. \lnot p(x)\).
We refer the reader to [160] for an overview of reasoning algorithms for fuzzy propositional and First-Order Logics.
On Witnessed Models. We say that a fuzzy interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) is a witnessed interpretation iff
These equations say that the supremum (resp. infimum) are attained at some point for a witnessed interpretation. Now, unlike the classical case, it may not be true that Eqs. (11) and (12) hold for all \(\mathcal {I} \), i.e. \(\mathcal {I} \) may not be witnessed. For instance, for \(\mathcal {I} \) with domain the natural numbers and \(\mathcal {I} _{x}^{n}(A(x)) = 1 - 1/n\), we have that \(\mathcal {I} (\exists x. A(x)) = \sup _{n} \mathcal {I} _{x}^{n}(A(x)) = \sup _{n} 1 - 1/n = 1\), while in no point \(\mathcal {I} _{x}^{n}(A(x))\) is 1. So, \(\mathcal {I} \) is not witnessed (the argument for \(\forall \) is similar). The following important property can be shown (see, e.g. [67–70]) stating that in Łukasiewicz logic and, thus, in SFL, a fuzzy statement \(\langle \phi , r \rangle \) has a witnessed fuzzy model iff it has a fuzzy model. This is not true for Gödel and product logic however. Therefore, for Łukasiewicz logic, we may restrict our attention to witnessed models only. That is, Łukasiewicz has the so-called witnessed model property (there is a model iff there is witnessed model). Of course, if the truth space is finite then any fuzzy logic has the witnessed model property as well.
3 Fuzzy Description Logics and OWL 2
We have seen in the previous sections how to “fuzzify” classical sets and FOL. In the latter case, fuzzy statements are of the form \(\langle \phi , n \rangle \), where \(\phi \) is a statement and \(n \in [0,1]\).
The natural extension to fuzzy DLs [160] consists then in replacing \(\phi \) with appropriate expressions belonging to the DL family of languages, as we will illustrate next.
3.1 Fuzzy DLs
Description Logics (DLs) [3] are the logical counterpart of the family of OWL languages. So, to illustrate the basic concepts of fuzzy OWL, it suffices to show the fuzzy DL case (see [108, 160], for a survey). We recap that the basic ingredients are the descriptions of classes, properties, and their instances, such as
-
\(a{:}{C}\), such as \(\mathsf {a}{:}{\mathsf {Person} \sqcap \forall \mathsf {hasChild}.\mathsf {Femal}}\), meaning that individual a is an instance of concept/class C (here C is seen as a unary predicate);
-
\((a,b)\text{: }R\), such as \((\mathsf {tom},\mathsf {mary})\text{: }\mathsf {hasChild}\), meaning that the pair of individuals \(\langle a,b \rangle \) is an instance of the property/role R (here R is seen as a binary predicate);
-
\(C \sqsubseteq D\), such as \(\mathsf {Person} \sqsubseteq \forall \mathsf {hasChild}.\mathsf {Person}\), meaning that the class C is a subclass of class D;
So far, several fuzzy variants of DLs have been proposed: they can be classified according to
-
the description logic resp. ontology language that they generalize [10, 15, 17, 18, 21, 53, 103–107, 109, 110, 128–130, 134, 140, 146, 147, 150, 154, 170, 175];
-
the underlying fuzzy logic [12, 13, 19, 68, 69, 145, 149, 152];
-
their reasoning algorithms and computational complexity results [4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 26–36, 39, 40, 117, 135, 138, 139, 143, 144, 148, 151, 153, 161, 162, 174, 178].
We also refer the reader to [160] for a comprehensive survey.
In general, fuzzy DLs allow expressions of the form \(\langle a{:}{C}, n \rangle \), stating that a is an instance of concept/class C with degree at least n, i.e. the FOL formula C(a) is true to degree at least n. Similarly, \(\langle C_{1} \sqsubseteq C_{2}, n \rangle \) states a vague subsumption relationships. Informally, \(\langle C_{1} \sqsubseteq C_{2}, n \rangle \) dictates that the FOL formula \(\forall x. C_{1}(x) \rightarrow C_{2}(x)\) is true to degree at least n. Essentially, fuzzy DLs are then obtained by interpreting the statements as fuzzy FOL formulae and attaching a weight n to DL statements, thus, defining so fuzzy DL statements.
As matter of example, consider the DL \(\mathcal{ALC}\) (\(\mathcal A\)ttributive \(\mathcal L\)anguage with \(\mathcal C\)omplement), a major DL representative used to introduce new extensions to DLs: the table below shows its syntax, semantics and provides examples. In the table, a fuzzy interpretation \(\mathcal {I} = ({\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} , {\cdot }^\mathcal{I} )\) consists of a nonempty set \({\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \) (the domain) and of a fuzzy interpretation function \({\cdot }^\mathcal{I} \) that assigns
-
to each atomic concept A a function \({A}^\mathcal{I} :{\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \rightarrow [0,1]\);
-
to each abstract role R a function \({R}^\mathcal{I} :{\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \times {\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \rightarrow [0,1]\);
-
to each individual a an element \({a}^\mathcal{I} \,{\in }\,{\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \) such that \({a}^\mathcal{I} \ne {b}^\mathcal{I} \) if \(a\ne b\) (unique Name Assumption, UNA).
\(C^{\mathcal {I}}\) denotes the membership function of the fuzzy concept C with respect to the fuzzy interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \). For \(x \in {\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \), \(C^{\mathcal {I}}(x)\) gives us the degree of being x an element of the fuzzy concept C under \(\mathcal {I} \). Similarly, \(R^{\mathcal {I}}\) denotes the membership function of the fuzzy role R with respect to \(\mathcal {I} \). For \(x,y \in {\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \), \(R^{\mathcal {I}}(x,y)\) gives us the degree of being (x, y) an element of the fuzzy role R.
The upper pane describes how concepts/classes can be formed, while the lower pane shows the form of statements/axioms a knowledge base may be build of. Axioms of the form \(C \sqsubseteq D\), called, General Inclusion Axioms (GCIs), dictated that the class C is a subclass of the class D, \(a{:}{C}\) dictates that individual a is an instance of class C, while \((a,b)\text{: }R\) states that \(\langle a,b \rangle \) is an instance of the binary relation R. The definition \(A=C\), is used in place of having both \(A \sqsubseteq C\) and \(C \sqsubseteq A\), stating that class A is defined to be equivalent to C.
Fuzzy DLs [160] are then obtained by interpreting the statements as fuzzy FOL formulae and attaching a weight n to DL statements, yielding fuzzy DL statements, such as \(\langle C \sqsubseteq D, n \rangle , \langle a{:}{C}, n \rangle \) and \(\langle (a,b)\text{: }R, n \rangle \). The former is called fuzzy GCI, while the latter two are called fuzzy assertions.
It is worth noting that one may find in fuzzy DLs also fuzzy statements of the form \(\langle {\alpha } {\,{\geqslant }\,} {n} \rangle \), \(\langle {\alpha } {\,{\leqslant }\,} {n} \rangle \), \(\langle {\alpha } {\,{>}\,} {n} \rangle \), \(\langle {\alpha } {\,{<}\,} {n} \rangle \), and \(\langle {\alpha } {=} {n} \rangle \), stating that the degree of truth of axiom \(\alpha \) is bounded by \(\bullet n\), where \(\bullet \in \{\,{\geqslant }\,, \,{\leqslant }\,, \,{>}\,, \,{<}\,, =\}\). We stick here to the form \(\langle \alpha , n \rangle \), i.e. \(\langle {\alpha } {\,{\geqslant }\,} {n} \rangle \) only, by reminding that as graded axioms are intended to be produced semi- or automatically, it is hardly conceivable that they may have, e.g. the form \(\langle {\alpha } {\,{\leqslant }\,} {n} \rangle \), \(\langle {\alpha } {\,{>}\,} {n} \rangle \) or \(\langle {\alpha } {\,{<}\,} {n} \rangle \).
A fuzzy knowledge base is a tuple \({\mathcal{K}}= \langle \mathcal{T},\mathcal{A} \rangle \), where now fuzzy axioms occur in place of classical DL axioms. \(\mathcal{T}, \mathcal{A}\) are called now fuzzy TBox (that is a finite set of fuzzy GCIs) and fuzzy ABox (that is a finite set of fuzzy assertions), respectively. An interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) is a model of a fuzzy statement \(\langle \phi , n \rangle \), denoted \(\mathcal {I} \,\models \,\langle \phi , n \rangle \) if \({\phi }^\mathcal{I} \ge n\). We say that a fuzzy interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) satisfies (is a model of) a fuzzy KB \({\mathcal{K}}= \langle \mathcal{T},\mathcal{A} \rangle \) iff it satisfies each element in \(\mathcal {A}\) and \(\mathcal {T}\). A fuzzy KB \({\mathcal{K}}= \langle \mathcal{T},\mathcal{A} \rangle \) entails an axiom E, denoted \({\mathcal{K}}\models E\), iff every model of \({\mathcal{K}}\) satisfies E. We say that two concepts C and D are equivalent, denoted \(C \equiv _{{\mathcal{K}}} D\) iff in evry model \(\mathcal {I} \) of \({\mathcal{K}}\) and for all \(x\in {\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \), \({C}^\mathcal{I} (x) = {D}^\mathcal{I} (x)\).
As for the fuzzy FOL case, for concept assertion, role assertion, GCI or role inclusion axiom \(\phi \), we say that \(\langle \phi , n \rangle \) is a tight logical consequence of \({\mathcal{K}}\) iff n is the infimum of \({\phi }^\mathcal{I} \) subject to all models \(\mathcal {I} \) of \({\mathcal{K}}\). Notice that the latter is equivalent to
n is called the best entailment degree of \(\phi \) w.r.t. \({\mathcal{K}}\) (denoted \(bed({\mathcal{K}},\phi )\)), i.e.
On the other hand, the best satisfiability degree of \(\phi \) w.r.t. \({\mathcal{K}}\) (denoted \(bsd({\mathcal{K}},\phi )\)) is
For a concept C, we also say that the best satisfiability degree of C w.r.t. \({\mathcal{K}}\) (denoted \(bsd({\mathcal{K}},C)\)) is
Example 1
Consider the following background knowledge about cars encoded as the fuzzy TBox:
Essentially, the vague concepts here are CheapPrice, ModeratePrice, and ExpensivePrice and the graded GCIs declare to which extent there is a relationship among them.
The facts about two specific cars a and b are encoded with the following fuzzy ABox \(\mathcal{A}\):
So, a is a sedan having a cheap price, while b is a van with a moderate price.
Under Gödel semantics it can be shown that
Informally, in the former case the reasoning is as follows. As a is a sedan (at least to degree 0.7), it is a car (at least to degree 0.7) and, thus, a is a car with a cheap price (at least to degree 0.7). Therefore, by the definition of a cheap car, a is, thus, a cheap car (at least to degree 0.7). In the latter case, as b is a van (at least to degree 0.8), it is a car (at least to degree 0.8) and, thus, b is a car with a moderate price (at least to degree 0.8). Therefore, as a moderate price is to some degree an expensive price, b has, thus, an expensive price (at least to degree \(\min (0.8, 0.4) = 0.4\)). Eventually, by the definition of expensive car, b is, thus, an expensive car (at least to degree 0.4).
Remark 2
Like for the fuzzy FOL case, for which \(\forall \) and \(\exists \) are not complementary in general (see Remark 1), also for fuzzy DLs we have that \(\forall R.C\) and \(\lnot \exists R.\lnot C\) are not equivalent in general, unlike the classical case. However, they are equivalent under Łukasiewicz logic and SFL.
Remark 3
It is worth noting that, w.l.o.g., an axiom \(\langle C \sqsubseteq D, n \rangle \) may be rewritten as \(\langle \top \sqsubseteq C \rightarrow D, n \rangle \)
Remark 4
(Fuzzy DLs under SFL). [143], which presents fuzzy \(\mathcal{ALC}\) under SFL, proposes a slightly different semantics for fuzzy GCIs. In fact, in [143] a fuzzy GCI is of the form \(C \sqsubseteq D\) with semantics: \(\mathcal {I} \) is a model of \(C \sqsubseteq D\) iff for every \(x \in {\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \) we have that \({C}^\mathcal{I} (x) \le {D}^\mathcal{I} (x)\). This is the same of any fuzzy axiom of the form \(\langle \top \sqsubseteq C \rightarrow _{x} D, 1 \rangle \), where \(\rightarrow _{x}\) is an r-implication.
Acyclic Fuzzy Ontologies. Acyclic fuzzy ontologies play an important role in fuzzy DLs both as they occur often in practice as well as from a computational complexity point of view. Specifically, let us also introduce a restricted form of TBoxes, i.e. acyclic TBoxes. That is, let \(\mathcal{T}\) be a TBox in which the GCIs have one of the following form
where A is a concept name, C is a concept, and \(A \sqsubseteq _{n} C\) is a shorthand for \(\langle \top \sqsubseteq A \rightarrow C, n \rangle \). We call the former two GCIs primitive and call the latter definitional. We say that A is the head of these axioms and C is the body. Furthermore, we also assume that no concept name A is in the head of more than one axiom. Now, we say that
-
concept name A directly uses concept name B w.r.t. \(\mathcal {T}\), denoted \(A\rightarrow _{\mathcal{T}}B\), if A is the head of some axiom \(\tau \in \mathcal{T}\) such that B occurs in the body of \(\tau \);
-
concept name A uses concept name B w.r.t. \(\mathcal {T}\), denoted \(A\rightsquigarrow _{\mathcal{T}}B\), if there exist concept names \(A_{1},\ldots ,A_{n}\), such that \(A_{1}=A\), \(A_{n}=B\) and, for every \(1\le i<n\), it holds that \(A_{i} \rightarrow _{\mathcal{T}}A_{i+1}\).
Eventually, we say that a TBox \(\mathcal{T}\) is cyclic (acyclic) if there is (no) A such that \(A \rightsquigarrow _{\mathcal{T}}A\). We say also that a fuzzy TBox is unfoldable if it is an acyclic TBox which only contains inclusion axioms of the form \(A \tilde{\sqsubseteq }C\) and if there is an \(A \tilde{=}C\) then A does not occur in the head of any other axiom.
On Witnessed Models. As for fuzzy FOL, the use of infima (universal quantification \(\forall \)) and suprema (existential quantification \(\exists \)) may lead to counterintuitive behaviours (see also, e.g. [67–70]). For instance, consider the concept assertion \(\langle a{:}{\exists R.A}, 1 \rangle \). Consider the interpretation \(\mathcal {I} \) with domain \(\mathbb {N}\), \({a}^\mathcal{I} = 1\), and for all \(n,m \in \mathbb {N}\)
Then for any \(n \in N\), \({R}^\mathcal{I} ({a}^\mathcal{I} ,n) \otimes {A}^\mathcal{I} (n) = {A}^\mathcal{I} (n) = 1 - \frac{1}{n} < 1\). However,
That is, unlike the crisp case, notwithstanding there is no individual n of the domain of \(\mathcal {I} \) satisfying \({R}^\mathcal{I} ({a}^\mathcal{I} ,n) \otimes {A}^\mathcal{I} (n) = 1\), still, \(\mathcal {I} \) satisfies the assertion \(\langle a{:}{\exists R.A}, 1 \rangle \). Similar arguments apply to all of the expressions involving infima and suprema. While such interpretations may exist in theory, they unlikely may model any practical knowledge representation domain. Therefore, it is customary to restrict the attention to witnessed models only.
Eventually, we recall from [7] the following property: in Łukasiewicz logic, thus, in SFL, an acyclic knowledge base \(\mathcal {K}\) is satisfiable iff \({\mathcal{K}}\) has a finite model. This property is not true if we drop the acyclicity condition, i.e., if arbitrary CGIs may occur in the TBox (see [7], Theorem 3.3).
3.2 Salient Language Extensions
One may use additionally some special constructs to enhance the expressivity of fuzzy DLs [14, 23, 25, 146, 160] such as fuzzy concrete domains, modifiers and aggregation functions.
Fuzzy Concrete Domains. We rely on [146]. In general, a fuzzy concrete domain, also called a fuzzy datatype theory \({\mathbf {D}}\,{=}\,\langle \varDelta ^{{\mathbf {D}}}, {\,\cdot \,}^{{\mathbf {D}}} \rangle \) consists of a datatype domain \(\varDelta ^{{\mathbf {D}}}\) and a mapping \({\,\cdot \,}^{{\mathbf {D}}}\) that assigns to each data value an element of \(\varDelta ^{{\mathbf {D}}}\), and assigns to every n-ary datatype predicate d an n-ary fuzzy relation over \(\varDelta _{{\mathbf {D}}}\). More specifically, fuzzy DLs do support unary datatypes only. Therefore, \({\,\cdot \,}^{{\mathbf {D}}}\) maps indeed each datatype predicate into a function from \(\varDelta ^{{\mathbf {D}}}\) to [0, 1]. Typical examples of datatype predicates \(\mathbf {d}\) are the well known fuzzy membership functions
and the crisp membership functions
where, e.g. \(\ge _{v}\) corresponds to the crisp set of data values that are greater than or equal to the value v.
Concerning roles, a role R is either an object property or a datatype property. An interpretation maps an object property into a function \({\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \times {\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \rightarrow [0,1]\), while it maps a datatype property into a function \({\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \times \varDelta ^{{\mathbf {D}}} \rightarrow \{0,1\}\). A datatype property does not have an inverse, but may be functional.
We also use an alphabet for concrete individuals, denoted v, and extend an interpretation to concrete individuals by mapping them into \(\varDelta ^{{\mathbf {D}}}\). As for individuals, we adopt the UNA, i.e., \({v_{1}}^\mathcal{I} \ne {v_{2}}^\mathcal{I} \) if \(v_{1}\ne v_{2}\).
We can now extend concept expressions according to the following syntax:
where \(\mathbf {d}\) is a datatype and T is a datatype property.
For instance, the definition
where the datatype property hasPrecipitationRate has been declared functional, corresponds to our definition of heavy rain seen in Sect. 1.
Modifiers. Fuzzy modifiers (see also [14, 52, 71–75, 169]) such as \(\mathtt {very}\) and \(\mathtt {slightly}\), apply to fuzzy concepts to change their membership function. We recall from Sect. 2.1 that a fuzzy modifier m represents a function \(f_{m}:[0,1]\rightarrow [0,1]\). Now, we extend the language of fuzzy concept constructors by allowing to apply a modifier m to a concept C or a concrete domain predicate \(\mathbf {d}\): i.e.
allowing, e.g. to define
From a semantics point of view, we extend fuzzy interpretations in the obvious way
Aggregation Operators. Eventually, we may extend fuzzy DLs by allowing aggregation operators (such as the mean, median, weighted sum operators) to aggregate concepts, as illustrated, e.g. in [23, 24]. Given an n-ary aggregation operator \(@:[0,1]^n\rightarrow [0,1]\), then we extend the language of fuzzy concepts by allowing to apply \(@\) to n concepts \(C_{1}, \ldots , C_{n}\), i.e.
allowing, e.g. to express the concept
denoting the fuzzy set of expensive and luxurious hotels, whose membership function is the weighted sum of being an expensive and luxurious hotel.
From a semantics point of view, we extend fuzzy interpretations in the obvious way
Applications. Fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic [176] have proved to be suitable formalisms to handle fuzzy knowledge. Not surprisingly, fuzzy ontologies already emerge as useful in several applications, such as information retrieval [2, 37, 101, 166, 167, 171, 177], recommendation systems [38, 90, 118, 173], image interpretation [47–49, 113, 137, 141, 142], the Semantic Web and the Internet [44, 120, 131], ambient intelligence [50, 51, 100, 127], ontology merging [42, 168], matchmaking [1, 43, 121–125, 164, 165], decision making [156], summarization [89], robotics [57, 58], machine learning [92–99, 163] and many others [6, 46, 59, 76, 88, 91, 102, 112, 119, 126, 132, 157].
3.3 Representing Fuzzy OWL Ontologies in OWL
OWL [115] and its successor OWL 2 [45, 116] are standard W3C languages for defining and instantiating Web ontologies whose logical counterpart are classical DLs. So far, several fuzzy extensions of DLs exists and some fuzzy DL reasoners have been implemented, such as fuzzyDL [14], DeLorean [10], Fire [60, 136], SoftFacts [159], GURDL [64], GERDS [65], YADLR [87], FRESG [172] and DLMedia [158, 167].
Not surprisingly, each reasoner uses its own fuzzy DL language for representing fuzzy ontologies and, thus, there is a need for a standard way to represent such information.
A first possibility would be to adopt as a standard one of the fuzzy extensions of the languages OWL and OWL 2 that have been proposed, such as [63, 133, 134]. However, as it is not expected that a fuzzy OWL extension will become a W3C proposed standard in the near future, [20, 22, 25] identifies the syntactic differences that a fuzzy ontology language has to cope with, and proposes to use OWL 2 itself to represent fuzzy ontologies. More precisely, [25] uses OWL 2 annotation properties to encode fuzzy \(\mathcal {SROIQ}\mathbf {(D)}\) [160] ontologies. The use of annotation properties makes it possible (i) to use current OWL 2 editors for fuzzy ontology representation, and (ii) that OWL 2 reasoners discard the fuzzy part of a fuzzy ontology, producing almost the same results as if it would not exist. In order to support this methodology for fuzzy ontology representation, [25] describes an implementation of a Protégé plug-in to edit fuzzy ontologies and some parsers that translate fuzzy ontologies represented using this methodology into the languages supported by some fuzzy DL reasoners.
Furthermore, the plug-in is integrated with the fuzzyDL [61] reasoner [9] and makes it possible to submit queries to it. For the moment, such queries must be expressed using the particular syntax supported by fuzzyDL.
We are not going into more detail here and refer the reader to [25] and the FuzzyOWL2 web site [62], from which one may download some fuzzy OWL 2 ontologies as well, such as a fuzzy wine ontology, an ontology for matchmaking, and multi-criteria decision making.
3.4 Reasoning Problems and Algorithms
In fuzzy DLs the following problems are of interest.
-
Consistency Problem:
-
Is \({\mathcal{K}}\) satisfiable?
-
Is C coherent, i.e. is \({C}^\mathcal{I} (x) > 0\) for some model \(\mathcal {I} \) of \({\mathcal{K}}\) and \(x \in {\varDelta }^\mathcal{I} \)?
-
Instance Checking Problem:
-
Does \({\mathcal{K}}\,\models \,\langle a{:}{C}, n \rangle \) hold?
-
Subsumption Problem:
-
Does \({\mathcal{K}}\,\models \,\langle C\sqsubseteq D, n \rangle \) hold?
-
Best Entailment Degree Problem:
-
What is \(bed({\mathcal{K}},\phi )\)?
-
Best Satisfiability Degree Problem:
-
What is \(bsd({\mathcal{K}},\phi )\)?
-
Instance Retrieval Problem:
-
Compute the set \(\{\langle a, n \rangle \mid n = bed({\mathcal{K}},a{:}{C}) \}\).
Similarly as for the crisp case, all the above problems can be reduced to satisfiability degree problems as long as the below presented reductions are supported by the underlying DL language (if not then specific algorithms have been developed): indeed, we have
Remark 5
(Fuzzy DL problem reductions). The following problem reductions hold:
-
\({\mathcal{K}}\) is satisfiable iff \(bsd({\mathcal{K}},a{:}{\perp }) > 0\), where a is a new individual.
-
C is coherent w.r.t. \({\mathcal{K}}\) iff one of the following holds:
-
\({\mathcal{K}}\cup \{\langle {a{:}{C}} {>} {0} \rangle \}\) is satisfiable, where a is a new individual;
-
\({\mathcal{K}}\not \,\models \,\langle C \sqsubseteq \perp , 1 \rangle \);
-
\(bsd({\mathcal{K}},a{:}{C}) > 0\), where a is a new individual.
-
-
\({\mathcal{K}}\,\models \,\langle a{:}{C}, n \rangle \) iff one of the following holds:
-
\({\mathcal{K}}\cup \{\langle {a{:}{C}} {<} {n} \rangle \}\) is not satisfiable;
-
\(bed({\mathcal{K}},a{:}{C}) \ge n\).
-
-
\({\mathcal{K}}\,\models \,\langle C\sqsubseteq D, n \rangle \) iff one of the following holds:
-
\({\mathcal{K}}\cup \{\langle {a{:}{C \rightarrow D}} {<} {n} \rangle \}\) is not satisfiable, where a is a new individual;
-
\(bed({\mathcal{K}},C\sqsubseteq D) \ge n\).
-
-
We have that
$$\begin{aligned} bed({\mathcal{K}},\phi )= & {} \min x. \text{ such } \text{ that } {\mathcal{K}}\cup \{ \langle {\phi } {\le } {x} \rangle \} \text{ satisfiable } \end{aligned}$$(15)$$\begin{aligned} bsd({\mathcal{K}},\phi )= & {} \max x. \text{ such } \text{ that } {\mathcal{K}}\cup \{ \langle {\phi } {\ge } {x} \rangle \} \text{ satisfiable } . \end{aligned}$$(16)
Various reasoning methods have been worked out for fuzzy DLs (see [160]), which can be classified in the following categories:
-
Tableaux algorithms, extending the tableaux algorithms for classical DLs to the fuzzy case.
-
Tableaux algorithms and optimisation problems, using a tableaux algorithm to reduce the reasoning to an optimisation problem.
-
Automata-based algorithms, adopting similar ideas used to prove some results in the classical case.
-
Reduction to classical DLs, for which existing reasoning algorithms are well-known.
-
Reduction to propositional fuzzy logics, for which reasoning has been widely studied.
We are not going to detail them here. However, let us point out that recently there have been some unexpected surprises [4, 5, 7, 41]. Reference [7] shows that \(\mathcal{ALC}\) with GCIs (i) does not have the finite model property under Łukasiewicz Logic or Product Logic, contrary to the classical case; (ii) illustrates that some developed algorithms are neither complete not correct; and (iii) shows some interesting conditions under which decidability is still guaranteed. References [4, 5] show that knowledge base satisfiability is an undecidable problem for Product Logic. The same holds for Łukasiewicz Logic as well [41]. In case the truth-space is finite and defined a priori, decidability is guaranteed (see, e.g. [12, 16, 144]).
The generalisation of fuzzy OWL to the case in which an annotation \(n \in [0,1]\) is replaced with an annotation value \(\lambda \) taken from another structure such as a complete lattice has been addressed in [149]. From a computational complexity point of view, similar results hold as for the [0, 1] case [31, 33, 149]. While [149] provides a decidability result in case the lattice is finite, [31] further improves the decidability result by characterising the computational complexity of KB satisfiability problem for \(\mathcal{ALC}\) with GCIs over finite lattices being EXPTIME-complete, as for the crisp variant, while [33] shows that the KB satisfiability problem for \(\mathcal{ALC}\) with GCIs over non finite lattices is undecidable.
4 Conclusions
We have provided a “crash course” through fuzzy DLs, by illustrating the basic concepts involved in. For a more in depth presentation, we refer the reader to [160].
Notes
- 1.
More concretely, the intensity of precipitation is expressed in terms of a precipitation rate R: volume flux of precipitation through a horizontal surface, i.e. \(m^3/ m^2 s = m s^{-1}\). It is usually expressed in mm / h.
- 2.
- 3.
The function \(\mathcal {I} _{x}^{a}\) is as \(\mathcal {I} \) except that x is interpreted as a.
References
Agarwal, S., Lamparter, S.: Smart: a semantic matchmaking portal for electronic markets. In: CEC 2005: Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology (CEC 2005), pp. 405–408. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2005)
Andreasen, T., Bulskov, H.: Conceptual querying through ontologies. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 160(15), 2159–2172 (2009)
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Baader, F., Peñaloza, R.: Are fuzzy description logics with general concept inclusion axioms decidable? In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (Fuzz-IEEE 2011). IEEE Press (2011)
Baader, F., Peñaloza, R.: GCIs make reasoning in fuzzy DLs with the product T-norm undecidable. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-11). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings (2011)
Balaj, R., Groza, A.: Detecting influenza epidemics based on real-time semantic analysis of Twitter streams. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Modelling and Development of Intelligent Systems (MDIS 2013), pp. 30–39 (2013)
Bobillo, F., Bou, F., Straccia, U.: On the failure of the finite model property in some fuzzy description logics. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 172(1), 1–12 (2011)
Bobillo, F., Delgado, M., Gómez-Romero, J.: A crisp representation for fuzzy \({\cal SHOIN}\) with fuzzy nominals and general concept inclusions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web (URSW-06), November 2006
Bobillo, F., Delgado, M., Gómez-Romero, J.: A crisp representation for fuzzy \(\cal SHOIN\) with fuzzy nominals and general concept inclusions. In: da Costa, P.C.G., d’Amato, C., Fanizzi, N., Laskey, K.B., Laskey, K.J., Lukasiewicz, T., Nickles, M., Pool, M. (eds.) URSW 2005–2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5327, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Bobillo, F., Delgado, M., Gómez-Romero, J.: Delorean: a reasoner for fuzzy OWL 1.1. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web (URSW 2008), October 2008, vol. 423. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2008)
Bobillo, F., Delgado, M., Gómez-Romero, J.: Optimizing the crisp representation of the fuzzy description logic \(\cal \cal SROIQ\cal \). In: da Costa, P.C.G., d’Amato, C., Fanizzi, N., Laskey, K.B., Laskey, K.J., Lukasiewicz, T., Nickles, M., Pool, M. (eds.) URSW 2005–2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5327, pp. 189–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Bobillo, F., Delgado, M., Gómez-Romero, J., Straccia, U.: Fuzzy description logics under Gödel semantics. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 50(3), 494–514 (2009)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: A fuzzy description logic with product T-norm. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (Fuzz-IEEE-07), pp. 652–657. IEEE Computer Society (2007)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: fuzzyDL: an expressive fuzzy description logic reasoner. In: 2008 International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-08), pp. 923–930. IEEE Computer Society (2008)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: On qualified cardinality restrictions in fuzzy description logics under Łukasiewicz semantics. In: Magdalena, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., Luis Verdegay, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU 2008), June 2008, pp. 1008–1015 (2008)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Towards a crisp representation of fuzzy description logics under Łukasiewicz semantics. In: An, A., Matwin, S., Raś, Z.W., Ślzak, D. (eds.) Foundations of Intelligent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4994, pp. 309–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Extending datatype restrictions in fuzzy description logics. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA-09), pp. 785–790. IEEE Computer Society (2009)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Fuzzy description logics with fuzzy truth values. In: Carvalho, J.P.B., Dubois, D., Kaymak, U., Sousa, J.M.C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th World Congress of the International Fuzzy Systems Association and 6th Conference of the European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology (IFSA-EUSFLAT 2009), July 2009, pp. 189–194 (2009)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Fuzzy description logics with general T-norms and datatypes. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 160(23), 3382–3402 (2009)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: An OWL ontology for fuzzy OWL 2. In: Rauch, J., Raś, Z.W., Berka, P., Elomaa, T. (eds.) ISMIS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5722, pp. 151–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Supporting fuzzy rough sets in fuzzy description logics. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 676–687. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Representing fuzzy ontologies in OWL 2. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2010), July 2010, pp. 2695–2700. IEEE Press (2010)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Aggregation operators and fuzzy OWL 2. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2011), June 2011, pp. 1727–1734. IEEE Press (2011)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Fuzzy ontologies and fuzzy integrals. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA 2011), November 2011, pp. 1311–1316. IEEE Press (2011)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Fuzzy ontology representation using OWL 2. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 52, 1073–1094 (2011)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: On partitioning-based optimisations in expressive fuzzy description logics. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2015), 2–5 August 2015. IEEE Press (2015)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: Optimising fuzzy description logic reasoners with general concept inclusions absorption. Fuzzy Sets Syst. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165011414004850
Bonatti, P.A., Tettamanzi, A.G.B.: Some complexity results on fuzzy description logics. In: Di Gesú, V., Masulli, F., Petrosino, A. (eds.) WILF 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2955, pp. 19–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Borgwardt, S., Distel, F., Peñaloza, R.: How fuzzy is my fuzzy description logic? In: Gramlich, B., Miller, D., Sattler, U. (eds.) IJCAR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7364, pp. 82–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Borgwardt, S., Distel, F., Peñaloza, R.: Non-Gödel negation makes unwitnessed consistency undecidable. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-2012), vol. 846. CEUR-WS.org (2012)
Borgwardt, S., Peñaloza, R.: Description logics over lattices with multi-valued ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-11), pp. 768–773 (2011)
Borgwardt, S., Peñaloza, R.: Finite lattices do not make reasoning in \({\cal ALCI}\) harder. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web (URSW-11), vol. 778, pp. 51–62. CEUR-WS.org (2011)
Borgwardt, S., Peñaloza, R.: Fuzzy ontologies over lattices with T-norms. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-11). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings (2011)
Borgwardt, S., Peñaloza, R.: A tableau algorithm for fuzzy description logics over residuated de morgan lattices. In: Krötzsch, M., Straccia, U. (eds.) RR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7497, pp. 9–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Borgwardt, S., Peñaloza, R.: Undecidability of fuzzy description logics. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-12), pp. 232–242. AAAI Press, Rome (2012)
Bou, F., Cerami, M., Esteva, F.: Finite-valued Łukasiewicz modal logic is PSPACE-complete. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-11), pp. 774–779 (2011)
Calegari, S., Sanchez, E.: Object-fuzzy concept network: an enrichment of ontologies in semantic information retrieval. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(13), 2171–2185 (2008)
Carlsson, C., Brunelli, M., Mezei, J.: Decision making with a fuzzy ontology. Soft Comput. 16(7), 1143–1152 (2012)
Cerami, M., Esteva, F., Bou, F.: Decidability of a description logic over infinite-valued product logic. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-10). AAAI Press (2010)
Cerami, M., Straccia, U.: On the undecidability of fuzzy description logics with GCIs with Lukasiewicz T-norm. Technical report, Computing Research Repository (2011). Available as CoRR technical report at http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4212
Cerami, M., Straccia, U.: Undecidability of KB satisfiability for ł-\({\cal ALC}\) with GCIs. Unpublished manuscript, July 2011
Chen, R.-C., Bau, C.T., Yeh, C.-J.: Merging domain ontologies based on the WordNet system and fuzzy formal concept analysis techniques. Appl. Soft Comput. 11(2), 1908–1923 (2011)
Colucci, S., Di Noia, T., Ragone, A., Ruta, M., Straccia, U., Tinelli, E.: Informative Top-k retrieval for advanced skill management. In: de Virgilio, R., Giunchiglia, F., Tanca, L. (eds.) Semantic Web Information Management, Chap. 19. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Costa, P.C.G., Laskey, K.B., Lukasiewicz, T.: Uncertainty representation and reasoning in the semantic web. In: Semantic Web Engineering in the Knowledge Society, pp. 315–340. IGI Global (2008)
Cuenca-Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: the next step for OWL. J. Web Seman. 6(4), 309–322 (2008)
d’Aquin, M., Lieber, J., Napoli, A.: Towards a semantic portal for oncology using a description logic with fuzzy concrete domains. In: Sanchez, E. (ed.) Fuzzy Logic and the Semantic Web, Capturing Intelligence, pp. 379–393. Elsevier, New York (2006)
Dasiopoulou, S., Kompatsiaris, I.: Trends and issues in description logics frameworks for image interpretation. In: Konstantopoulos, S., Perantonis, S., Karkaletsis, V., Spyropoulos, C.D., Vouros, G. (eds.) SETN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6040, pp. 61–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Dasiopoulou, S., Kompatsiaris, I., Strintzis, M.G.: Applying fuzzy DLs in the extraction of image semantics. J. Data Seman. 14, 105–132 (2009)
Dasiopoulou, S., Kompatsiaris, I., Strintzis, M.G.: Investigating fuzzy DLs-based reasoning in semantic image analysis. Multimed. Tools Appl. 49(1), 167–194 (2010)
Díaz-Rodríguez, N., León-Cadahía, O., Pegalajar-Cuéllar, M., Lilius, J., Delgado, M.: Handling real-world context-awareness, uncertainty and vagueness in real-time human activity tracking and recognition with a fuzzy ontology-based hybrid method. Sensors 14(10), 18131–18171 (2014)
Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Pegalajar-Cuéllar, M., Lilius, J., Delgado, M.: A fuzzy ontology for semantic modelling and recognition of human behaviour. Knowl.-Based Syst. 66, 46–60 (2014)
Dinh-Khac, D., Hölldobler, S., Tran, D.-K.: The fuzzy linguistic description logic \({\cal ALC}_{FL}\). In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Processing and Managment of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. IPMU-06, pp. 2096–2103. E.D.K, Paris (2006)
Dubois, D., Mengin, J., Prade, H.: Possibilistic uncertainty and fuzzy features in description logic. A preliminary discussion. In: Sanchez, E. (ed.) Capturing Intelligence: Fuzzy Logic and the Semantic Web. Elsevier, New York (2006)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Fuzzy Sets and Systems. Academic Press, Orlando (1980)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Can we enforce full compositionality in uncertainty calculi? In: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), Seattle, Washington, pp. 149–154 (1994)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory, probability theory and multiple-valued logics: a clarification. Ann. Math. Artif. Intel. 32(1–4), 35–66 (2001)
Eich, M., Hartanto, R., Kasperski, S., Natarajan, S., Wollenberg, J.: Towards coordinated multirobot missions for lunar sample collection in an unknown environment. J. Field Robot. 31(1), 35–74 (2014)
Eich, T.: An application of fuzzy DL-based semantic perception to soil container classification. In: IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Practical Robot Applications (TePRA-13), pp. 1–6. IEEE Press (2013)
Fernández, C.: Understanding image sequences: the role of ontologies in cognitive vision systems. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain (2010)
fuzzyDL. http://www.straccia.info/software/fuzzyDL/fuzzyDL.html
Fuzzy OWL 2 web ontology language (2011). ISTI - CNR. http://www.straccia.info/software/FuzzyOWL/
Gao, M., Liu, C.: Extending OWL by fuzzy description logic. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI-05), pp. 562–567. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2005)
Haarslev, V., Pai, H.-I., Shiri, N.: Optimizing tableau reasoning in ALC extended with uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-07) (2007)
Habiballa, H.: Resolution strategies for fuzzy description logic. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology (EUSFLAT-07), vol. 2, pp. 27–36 (2007)
Hähnle, R.: Advanced many-valued logics. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)
Hájek, P.: Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)
Hájek, P.: Making fuzzy description logics more general. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 154(1), 1–15 (2005)
Hájek, P.: What does mathematical fuzzy logic offer to description logic? In: Sanchez, E. (ed.) Fuzzy Logic and the Semantic Web, Capturing Intelligence, Chap. 5, pp. 91–100. Elsevier, New York (2006)
Hájek, P.: On witnessed models in fuzzy logic. Math. Logic Q. 53(1), 66–77 (2007)
Hölldobler, S., Khang, T.D., Störr, H.-P.: A fuzzy description logic with hedges as concept modifiers. In: Phuong, N.H., Nguyen, H.T., Ho, N.C., Santiprabhob, P. (eds.) Proceedings InTech/VJFuzzy’2002, pp. 25–34. Institute of Information Technology, Vietnam Center for Natural Science and Technology, Science and Technics Publishing House, Hanoi (2002)
Hölldobler, S., Nga, N.H., Khang, T.D.: The fuzzy description logic \({\cal ALC}_{FH}\). In: Proceeedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-05) (2005)
Hölldobler, S., Störr, H.-P., Khang, T.D.: The fuzzy description logic \(\cal ALC_{FH}\) with hedge algebras as concept modifiers. J. Adv. Comput. Intel. 7(3), 294–305 (2003)
Hölldobler, S., Störr, H.-P., Khang, T.D.: A fuzzy description logic with hedges and concept modifiers. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Processing and Managment of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, IPMU-04 (2004)
Hölldobler, S., Störr, H.-P., Khang, T.D.: The subsumption problem of the fuzzy description logic \({\cal ALC}_{FH}\). In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Processing and Managment of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU-04) (2004)
Iglesias, J., Lehmann, J.: Towards integrating fuzzy logic capabilities into an ontology-based inductive logic programming framework. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA 2011), pp. 1323–1328 (2011)
Jiang, Y., Liu, H., Tang, Y., Chen, Q.: Semantic decision making using ontology-based soft sets. Math. Comput. Model. 53(5–6), 1140–1149 (2011)
Jiang, Y., Tang, Y., Chen, Q., Wang, J., Tang, S.: Extending soft sets with description logics. Comput. Math. Appl. 59(6), 2087–2096 (2010)
Jiang, Y., Yong Tang, J., Wang, P.D., Tang, S.: Expressive fuzzy description logics over lattices. Knowl.-Based Syst. 23, 150–161 (2010)
Jiang, Y., Tang, Y., Wang, J., Tang, S.: Reasoning within intuitionistic fuzzy rough description logics. Inf. Sci. 179, 2362–2378 (2009)
Jiang, Y., Tang, Y., Wang, J., Tang, S.: Representation and reasoning of context-dependant knowledge in distributed fuzzy ontologies. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(8), 6052–6060 (2010)
Jiang, Y., Wang, J., Deng, P., Tang, S.: Reasoning within expressive fuzzy rough description logics. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 160(23), 3403–3424 (2009)
Yuncheng Jiang, J., Wang, S.T., Xiao, B.: Reasoning with rough description logics: an approximate concepts approach. Inf. Sci. 179(5), 600–612 (2009)
Kang, D., Xu, B., Lu, J., Li, Y.: Reasoning for a fuzzy description logic with comparison expressions. In: Proceeedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-06). CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2006)
Klement, E.P., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Triangular Norms. Trends in Logic - Studia Logica Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)
Klir, G.J., Yuan, B.: Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1995)
Konstantopoulos, S., Apostolikas, G.: Fuzzy-DL reasoning over unknown fuzzy degrees. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM-WS 2007, Part II. LNCS, vol. 4806, pp. 1312–1318. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Konstantopoulos, S., Karkaletsis, V., Bilidas, D.: An intelligent authoring environment for abstract semantic representations of cultural object descriptions. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2009 Workshop on Language Technology and Resources for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education (LaTeCHSHELT&R 2009), pp. 10–17 (2009)
Lee, C.-S., Jian, Z.-W., Huang, L.-K.: A fuzzy ontology and its application to news summarization. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B 35(5), 859–880 (2005)
Lee, C.-S., Wang, M.H., Hagras, H.: A Type-2 fuzzy ontology and its application to personal diabetic-diet recommendation. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 18(2), 374–395 (2010)
Letia, I.A., Groza, A.: Modelling imprecise arguments in description logic. Adv. Electr. Comput. Eng. 9(3), 94–99 (2009)
Lisi, F.A., Straccia, U.: A logic-based computational method for the automated induction of fuzzy ontology axioms. Fundamenta Informaticae 124(4), 503–519 (2013)
Lisi, F.A., Straccia, U.: A system for learning GCI axioms in fuzzy description logics. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-13). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1014, pp. 760–778. CEUR-WS.org (2013)
Lisi, F.A., Straccia, U.: Can ILP deal with incomplete and vague structured knowledge? In: Muggleton, S.H., Watanabe, H. (eds.) Latest Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, Chap. 21, pp. 199–206. World Scientific, Singapore (2014)
Lisi, F.A., Straccia, U.: Learning in description logics with fuzzy concrete domains. Fundamenta Informaticae in press
Lisi, F.A., Straccia, U.: An inductive logic programming approach to learning inclusion axioms in fuzzy description logics. In: 26th Italian Conference on Computational Logic (CILC-11). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, vol. 810, pp. 57–71 (2011)
Lisi, F.A., Straccia, U.: Towards learning fuzzy DL inclusion axioms. In: Petrosino, A. (ed.) WILF 2011. LNCS, vol. 6857, pp. 58–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Lisi, F.A., Straccia, U.: Dealing with incompleteness and vagueness in inductive logic programming. In: 28th Italian Conference on Computational Logic (CILC-13). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1068, pp. 179–193 (2013)
Lisi, F.A., Straccia, U.: A FOIL-like method for learning under incompleteness and vagueness. In: Zaverucha, G., Santos Costa, V., Paes, A. (eds.) ILP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8812, pp. 123–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Liu, C., Liu, D., Wang, S.: Situation modeling and identifying under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Pacific-Asia Conference on Circuits, Communications and System (PACCS 2010), pp. 296–299 (2010)
Liu, C., Liu, D., Wang, S.: Fuzzy geospatial information modeling in geospatial semantic retrieval. Adv. Math. Comput. Meth. 2(4), 47–53 (2012)
Liu, O., Tian, Q., Ma, J.: A fuzzy description logic approach to model management in R&D project selection. In: Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS-04) (2004)
Lukasiewicz, T.: Fuzzy description logic programs under the answer set semantics for the semantic web. In: Second International Conference on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web (RuleML-06), pp. 89–96. IEEE Computer Society (2006)
Lukasiewicz, T.: Fuzzy description logic programs under the answer set semantics for the semantic web. Fundamenta Informaticae 82(3), 289–310 (2008)
Lukasiewicz, T., Straccia, U.: Description logic programs under probabilistic uncertainty and fuzzy vagueness. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 187–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Lukasiewicz, T., Straccia, U.: Tightly integrated fuzzy description logic programs under the answer set semantics for the semantic web. In: Marchiori, M., Pan, J.Z., Marie, C.S. (eds.) RR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4524, pp. 289–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Lukasiewicz, T., Straccia, U.: Top-k retrieval in description logic programs under vagueness for the semantic web. In: Prade, H., Subrahmanian, V.S. (eds.) SUM 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4772, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Lukasiewicz, T., Straccia, U.: Managing uncertainty and vagueness in description logics for the semantic web. J. Web Seman. 6, 291–308 (2008)
Lukasiewicz, T., Straccia, U.: Tightly coupled fuzzy description logic programs under the answer set semantics for the semantic web. Int. J. Seman. Web Inf. Syst. 4(3), 68–89 (2008)
Lukasiewicz, T., Straccia, U.: Description logic programs under probabilistic uncertainty and fuzzy vagueness. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 50(6), 837–853 (2009)
Mailis, T., Stoilos, G., Stamou, G.: Expressive reasoning with horn rules and fuzzy description logics. In: Marchiori, M., Pan, J.Z., Marie, C.S. (eds.) RR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4524, pp. 43–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Martínez-Cruz, C., van der Heide, A., Sánchez, D., Triviño, G.: An approximation to the computational theory of perceptions using ontologies. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(10), 9494–9503 (2012)
Meghini, C., Sebastiani, F., Straccia, U.: A model of multimedia information retrieval. J. ACM 48(5), 909–970 (2001)
Mostert, P.S., Shields, A.L.: On the structure of semigroups on a compact manifold with boundary. Ann. Math. 65, 117–143 (1957)
OWL web ontology language overview. W3C (2004). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
OWL 2 web ontology language document overview. W3C (2009). http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/
Pan, J.Z., Stamou, G., Stoilos, G., Thomas, E.: Expressive querying over fuzzy DL-Lite ontologies. In: Twentieth International Workshop on Description Logics (2007)
Pérez, I.J., Wikström, R., Mezei, J., Carlsson, C., Herrera-Viedma, E.: A new consensus model for group decision making using fuzzy ontology. Soft Comput. 17(9), 1617–1627 (2013)
Quan, T.T., Hui, S.C., Fong, A.C.M., Cao, T.H.: Automatic fuzzy ontology generation for semantic help-desk support. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 2(3), 155–164 (2006)
Quan, T.T., Hui, S.C., Fong, A.C.M., Cao, T.H.: Automatic fuzzy ontology generation for semantic web. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 18(6), 842–856 (2006)
Ragone, A., Straccia, U., Bobillo, F., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E.: Fuzzy bilateral matchmaking in e-marketplaces. In: Lovrek, I., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2008, Part III. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5179, pp. 293–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Ragone, A., Straccia, U., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.M.: Extending datalog for matchmaking in P2P e-marketplaces. In: Ceci, M., Malerba, D., Tanca, L. (eds.) 15th Italian Symposium on Advanced Database Systems (SEBD-07), pp. 463–470 (2007)
Ragone, A., Straccia, U., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.M.: Vague knowledge bases for matchmaking in P2P e-marketplaces. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 414–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Ragone, A., Straccia, U., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.M.: Towards a fuzzy logic for automated multi-issue negotiation. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4932, pp. 381–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Ragone, A., Straccia, U., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.M.: Fuzzy matchmaking in e-marketplaces of peer entities using datalog. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 160(2), 251–268 (2009)
Rodger, J.A.: A fuzzy linguistic ontology payoff method for aerospace real options valuation. Expert Syst. Appl. 40(8), 2828–2840 (2013)
Rodríguez, N.D., Cuéllar, M.P., Lilius, J., Calvo-Flores, M.D.: A survey on ontologies for human behavior recognition. ACM Comput. Surv. 46(4), 43:1–43:33 (2014)
Sanchez, D., Tettamanzi, A.G.B.: Generalizing quantification in fuzzy description logics. In: Reusch, B. (ed.) Proceedings 8th Fuzzy Days in Dortmund. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Sánchez, D., Tettamanzi, A.G.B.: Reasoning and quantification in fuzzy description logics. In: Bloch, I., Petrosino, A., Tettamanzi, A.G.B. (eds.) WILF 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3849, pp. 81–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Sanchez, D., Tettamanzi, A.G.B.: Fuzzy quantification in fuzzy description logics. In: Sanchez, E. (ed.) Capturing Intelligence: Fuzzy Logic and the Semantic Web. Elsevier, New York (2006)
Sanchez, E. (ed.): Fuzzy Logic and the Semantic Web. Capturing Intelligence, vol. 1. Elsevier Science, New York (2006)
Slavíček, V.: An ontology-driven fuzzy workflow system. In: van Emde Boas, P., Groen, F.C.A., Italiano, G.F., Nawrocki, J., Sack, H. (eds.) SOFSEM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7741, pp. 515–527. Springer, heidelberg (2013)
Stoilos, G., Stamou, G., Pan, J.Z.: Fuzzy extensions of OWL: logical properties and reduction to fuzzy description logics. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 51(6), 656–679 (2010)
Stoilos, G., Stamou, G.: Extending fuzzy description logics for the semantic web. In: 3rd International Workshop of OWL: Experiences and Directions (2007)
Stoilos, G., Stamou, G., Pan, J., Tzouvaras, V., Horrocks, I.: The fuzzy description logic f-SHIN. In: International Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web (2005)
Stoilos, G., Simou, N., Stamou, G., Kollias, S.: Uncertainty and the semantic web. IEEE Intel. Syst. 21(5), 84–87 (2006)
Stoilos, G., Stamou, G., Tzouvaras, V., Pan, J.Z., Horrock, I.: A fuzzy description logic for multimedia knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multimedia and the Semantic Web (2005)
Stoilos, G., Stamou, G.B., Pan, J.Z., Tzouvaras, V., Horrocks, I.: Reasoning with very expressive fuzzy description logics. J. Artif. Intel. Res. 30, 273–320 (2007)
Stoilos, G., Straccia, U., Stamou, G., Pan, J.Z.: General concept inclusions in fuzzy description logics. In: Proceedings of the 17th Eureopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-06), pp. 457–461. IOS Press (2006)
Straccia, U.: A fuzzy description logic. In: Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98), Madison, USA, pp. 594–599 (1998)
Straccia, U.; Foundations of a logic based approach to multimedia document retrieval. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany, June 1999
Straccia, U.: A framework for the retrieval of multimedia objects based on four-valued fuzzy description logics. In: Crestani, F., Pasi, G. (eds.) Soft Computing in Information Retrieval: Techniques and Applications, pp. 332–357. Physica Verlag (Springer Verlag), Heidelberg (2000)
Straccia, U.: Reasoning within fuzzy description logics. J. Artif. Intel. Res. 14, 137–166 (2001)
Straccia, U.: Transforming fuzzy description logics into classical description logics. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 385–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Straccia, U.: Uncertainty in description logics: a lattice-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Processing and Managment of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU-04), pp. 251–258 (2004)
Straccia, U.: Description logics with fuzzy concrete domains. In: Bachus, F., Jaakkola, T. (eds.) 21st Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-05), pp. 559–567. AUAI Press, Edinburgh (2005)
Straccia, U.: Fuzzy ALC with fuzzy concrete domains. In: Proceeedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-05), pp. 96–103. CEUR, break Edinburgh (2005)
Straccia, U.: Answering vague queries in fuzzy DL-Lite. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Processing and Managment of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, IPMU-06, pp. 2238–2245. E.D.K, Paris (2006)
Straccia, U.: Description logics over lattices. Int. J. Uncertainty, Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst. 14(1), 1–16 (2006)
Straccia, U.: Fuzzy description logic programs. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Processing and Managment of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, IPMU-06, pp. 1818–1825. E.D.K, Paris (2006)
Straccia, U.: Towards Top-k query answering in description logics: the case of DL-Lite. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 439–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Straccia, U.: Uncertainty and description logic programs over lattices. In: Sanche, E. (ed.) Fuzzy Logic and the Semantic Web, Capturing Intelligence, Chap. 7, pp. 115–133. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)
Straccia, U.: Reasoning in Ł-\({\cal SHIF}\): an expressive fuzzy description logic under łukasiewicz semantics. Technical report TR-2007-10-18, Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’Informazione, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pisa, Italy (2007)
Straccia, U.: Fuzzy description logic programs. In: Marsala, C., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R., Rifqi, M. (eds.) Uncertainty and Intelligent Information Systems, Chap. 29, pp. 405–418. World Scientific, Singapore (2008)
Straccia, U.: Managing uncertainty and vagueness in description logics, logic programs and description logic programs. In: Baroglio, C., Bonatti, P.A., Małuszyński, J., Marchiori, M., Polleres, A., Schaffert, S. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 5224, pp. 54–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Straccia, U.: Multi criteria decision making in fuzzy description logics: a first step. In: Velásquez, J.D., Ríos, S.A., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2009, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5711, pp. 78–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Straccia, U.: Towards spatial reasoning in fuzzy description logics. In: 2009 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE-09), pp. 512–517. IEEE Computer Society (2009)
Straccia, U.: An ontology mediated multimedia information retrieval system. In: Proceedings of the the 40th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic (ISMVL-10), pp. 319–324. IEEE Computer Society (2010)
Straccia, U.: Softfacts: a Top-k retrieval engine for ontology mediated access to relational databases. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC-10), pp. 4115–4122. IEEE Press (2010)
Straccia, U.: Foundations of Fuzzy Logic and Semantic Web Languages. CRC Studies in Informatics Series. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (2013)
Straccia, U., Bobillo, F.: Mixed integer programming, general concept inclusions and fuzzy description logics. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology (EUSFLAT-07), University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic, vol. 2, pp. 213–220 (2007)
Straccia, U., Bobillo, F.: Mixed integer programming, general concept inclusions and fuzzy description logics. Mathw. Soft Comput. 14(3), 247–259 (2007)
Straccia, U., Mucci, M.: pFOIL-DL: learning (fuzzy) \({\cal EL}\) concept descriptions from crisp owl data using a probabilistic ensemble estimation. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC-15), pp. 345–352. ACM, Salamanca (2015)
Straccia, U., Tinelli, E., Colucci, S., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E.: Semantic-based Top-k retrieval for competence management. In: Rauch, J., Raś, Z.W., Berka, P., Elomaa, T. (eds.) ISMIS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5722, pp. 473–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Straccia, U., Tinelli, E., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Colucci, S.: Top-k retrieval for automated human resource management. In: Proceedings of the 17th Italian Symposium on Advanced Database Systems (SEBD-09), pp. 161–168 (2009)
Straccia, U., Visco, G.: DL-Media: an ontology mediated multimedia information retrieval system. In: Proceeedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-07), vol. 250. CEUR, Insbruck (2007)
Straccia, U., Visco, G.: DLMedia: an ontology mediated multimedia information retrieval system. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web (URSW-08), Karlsruhe, Germany, 26 October 2008. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 423. CEUR-WS.org (2008)
Todorov, K., Hudelot, C., Popescu, A., Geibel, P.: Fuzzy ontology alignment using background knowledge. Int. J. Uncertainty, Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst. 22(1), 75–112 (2014)
Tresp, C., Molitor, R.: A description logic for vague knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-98), Brighton (England), August 1998
Venetis, T., Stoilos, G., Stamou, G., Kollias, S.: f-DLPs: extending description logic programs with fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. In: IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (Fuzz-IEEE 2007) (2007)
Wallace, M.: Ontologies and soft computing in flexible querying. Control Cybern. 38(2), 481–507 (2009)
Wang, H., Ma, Z.M., Yin, J.: FRESG: a kind of fuzzy description logic reasoner. In: Bhowmick, S.S., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5690, pp. 443–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Yaguinuma, C.A., Santos, M.T.P., Camargo, H.A., Reformat, M.: A FML-based hybrid reasoner combining fuzzy ontology and mamdani inference. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2013) (2013)
Lu, J., Li, Y., Xu, B., Kang, D.: Discrete tableau algorithms for \({\cal SHI}\). In: Proceeedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-06). CEUR (2006)
Yen, J.: Generalizing term subsumption languages to fuzzy logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), Sydney, Australia, pp. 472–477 (1991)
Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)
Zhang, L., Yu, Y., Zhou, J., Lin, C., Yang, Y.: An enhanced model for searching in semantic portals. In: WWW 2005: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 453–462. ACM Press, New York (2005)
Zhou, Z., Qi, G., Liu, C., Hitzler, P., Mutharaju, R.: Reasoning with fuzzy-\({\cal EL}^{+}\) ontologies using mapreduce. In: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-12), pp. 933–934. IOS Press (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Straccia, U. (2015). All About Fuzzy Description Logics and Applications. In: Faber, W., Paschke, A. (eds) Reasoning Web. Web Logic Rules. Reasoning Web 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9203. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21768-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21768-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21767-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21768-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)