Giovanni
Casini and Umberto Straccia. Defeasible RDFS
via Rational Closure.
In Information Sciences 643,
118409, pages 1-49, Elsevier, 2023. Doi
Abstract:
In the field of non-monotonic logics, the notion of Rational Closure
(RC) is acknowledged as a notable approach. In recent years, RC has
gained popularity in the context of Description Logics (DLs),
the logic underpinning the standard semantic Web Ontology Language
OWL 2, whose main ingredients are classes, the relationship among
classes and roles, which are used to describe the properties of
classes.
In this work, we show instead how to integrate RC within the
triple language RDFS (Resource Description Framework Schema), which
together with OWL 2 is a major standard semantic web ontology
language.
To do so, we start from \rhodf, a minimal, but significant
RDFS fragment that covers the essential features of RDFS, and then
extend it to \rhodfbot, allowing to state that two entities are
incompatible/disjoint with each other. Eventually, we propose
defeasible \rhodfbot~via a typical RC construction allowing to state
default class/property inclusions.
Furthermore, to overcome the main weaknesses of RC in our context,
\ie~the ``drowning problem" (viz. the "inheritance blocking
problem"), we further extend our construction by leveraging
Defeasible Inheritance Networks (DIN) defining a new non-monotonic
inference relation that combines the advantages of both (RC and
DIN). To the best of our knowledge this is the first time of such an
attempt.
In summary, the main features of our approach are: (i) the
defeasible \rhodfbot~we propose here remains syntactically a triple
language by extending it with new predicate symbols with specific
semantics; (ii) the logic is defined in such a way that any RDFS
reasoner/store may handle the new predicates as ordinary terms
if it does not want to take account of the extra non-monotonic
capabilities; (iii) the defeasible entailment decision procedure is
built on top of the \rhodfbot~entailment decision procedure, which
in turn is an extension of the one for \rhodf~via some additional
inference rules favouring a potential implementation;
(iv) the computational complexity of deciding entailment in
\rhodf~and \rhodfbot~are the same; and (v) defeasible
entailment can be decided via a polynomial number of calls to an
oracle deciding ground triple entailment in \rhodfbot~and, in
particular, deciding defeasible entailment can be done in polynomial
time.