Document Open Access Logo

Controlled Natural Languages for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Author Tiantian Gao

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.ICLP.2016.19.pdf
  • Filesize: 350 kB
  • 10 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Tiantian Gao

Cite As Get BibTex

Tiantian Gao. Controlled Natural Languages for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. In Technical Communications of the 32nd International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2016). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 52, pp. 19:1-19:10, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016) https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.ICLP.2016.19

Abstract

Controlled natural languages (CNLs) are effective languages for knowledge representation and reasoning. They are designed based on certain natural languages with restricted lexicon and grammar. CNLs are unambiguous and simple as opposed to their base languages. They preserve the expressiveness and coherence of natural languages. In this paper, it mainly focuses on a class of CNLs, called machine-oriented CNLs, which have well-defined semantics that can be deterministically translated into formal languages to do logical reasoning. Although a number of machine-oriented CNLs emerged and have been used in many application domains for problem solving and question answering, there are still many limitations: First, CNLs cannot handle inconsistencies in the knowledge base. Second, CNLs are not powerful enough to identify different variations of a sentence and therefore might not return the expected inference results. Third, CNLs do not have a good mechanism for defeasible reasoning. This paper addresses these three problems and proposes a research plan for solving these problems. It also shows the current state of research: a paraconsistent logical framework from which six principles that guide the user to encode CNL sentences were created. Experiment results show this paraconsistent logical framework and these six principles can consistently and effectively solve word puzzles with injections of inconsistencies.

Subject Classification

Keywords
  • Controlled Natural Languages
  • Paraconsistent Logics
  • Defeasible Reasoning

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Gabor Angeli, Melvin Jose Johnson Premkumar, and Christopher D. Manning. Leveraging linguistic structure for open domain information extraction. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, ACL 2015, July 26-31, 2015, Beijing, China, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 344-354. Association for Computational Linguistics, The Association for Computer Linguistics, 2015. Google Scholar
  2. Marcello Balduccini. Representing constraint satisfaction problems in answer set programming. In ICLP09 Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP09)(Jul 2009), 2009. Google Scholar
  3. Marcello Balduccini. A "conservative" approach to extending answer set programming with non-herbrand functions. In Correct Reasoning, pages 24-39. Springer, 2012. Google Scholar
  4. Marcello Balduccini. Asp with non-herbrand partial functions: A language and system for practical use. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 13(4-5):547-561, 2013. Google Scholar
  5. Marcello Balduccini and Michael Gelfond. Logic programs with consistency-restoring rules. In International Symposium on Logical Formalization of Commonsense Reasoning, AAAI 2003 Spring Symposium Series, volume 102, 2003. Google Scholar
  6. Chitta Baral, Juraj Dzifcak, Marcos Alvarez Gonzalez, and Aaron Gottesman. Typed answer set programming lambda calculus theories and correctness of inverse lambda algorithms with respect to them. TPLP, 12(4-5):775-791, 2012. Google Scholar
  7. Chitta Baral, Juraj Dzifcak, Marcos Alvarez Gonzalez, and Jiayu Zhou. Using inverse lambda and generalization to translate english to formal languages. CoRR, abs/1108.3843, 2011. Google Scholar
  8. Ken Barker, Bruce W. Porter, and Peter Clark. A library of generic concepts for composing knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2001), October 21-23, 2001, Victoria, BC, Canada, pages 14-21. ACM, 2001. Google Scholar
  9. Nuel D Belnap Jr. A useful four-valued logic. In Modern uses of multiple-valued logic, pages 5-37. Springer, 1977. Google Scholar
  10. Jean-Yves Béziau, Walter Alexandre Carnielli, and Dov M Gabbay. Handbook of paraconsistency. College Publications, 2007. Google Scholar
  11. Howard A Blair and VS Subrahmanian. Paraconsistent logic programming. In International Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, pages 340-360. Springer, 1987. Google Scholar
  12. Gerhard Brewka, James P. Delgrande, Javier Romero, and Torsten Schaub. asprin: Customizing answer set preferences without a headache. In Blai Bonet and Sven Koenig, editors, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, January 25-30, 2015, Austin, Texas, USA., pages 1467-1474. AAAI Press, 2015. Google Scholar
  13. Peter Clark, Shaw Yi Chaw, Ken Barker, Vinay K. Chaudhri, Philip Harrison, James Fan, Bonnie E. John, Bruce W. Porter, Aaron Spaulding, John A. Thompson, and Peter Z. Yeh. Capturing and answering questions posed to a knowledge-based system. In Derek H. Sleeman and Ken Barker, editors, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2007), October 28-31, 2007, Whistler, BC, Canada, pages 63-70. ACM, 2007. Google Scholar
  14. Peter Clark, Philip Harrison, Thomas Jenkins, John A. Thompson, and Richard H. Wojcik. Acquiring and using world knowledge using a restricted subset of english. In Ingrid Russell and Zdravko Markov, editors, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, Clearwater Beach, Florida, USA, pages 506-511. AAAI Press, 2005. Google Scholar
  15. Peter Clark, Bruce Porter, and Boeing Phantom Works. Km?the knowledge machine 2.0: Users manual. Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, 2:5, 2004. Google Scholar
  16. Esra Erdem, Halit Erdogan, and Umut Öztok. BIOQUERY-ASP: querying biomedical ontologies using answer set programming. In Stefano Bragaglia, Carlos Viegas Damásio, Marco Montali, Alun D. Preece, Charles J. Petrie, Mark Proctor, and Umberto Straccia, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International RuleML2011@BRF Challenge, co-located with the 5th International Rule Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, November 3-5, 2011, volume 799 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2011. Google Scholar
  17. Norbert E. Fuchs, Kaarel Kaljurand, and Tobias Kuhn. Attempto controlled english for knowledge representation. In Cristina Baroglio, Piero A. Bonatti, Jan Maluszynski, Massimo Marchiori, Axel Polleres, and Sebastian Schaffert, editors, Reasoning Web, 4th International Summer School 2008, Venice, Italy, September 7-11, 2008, Tutorial Lectures, volume 5224 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104-124. Springer, 2008. Google Scholar
  18. Norbert E. Fuchs, Kaarel Kaljurand, and Tobias Kuhn. Discourse Representation Structures for ACE 6.6. Technical Report ifi-2010.0010, Department of Informatics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2010. Google Scholar
  19. Norbert E. Fuchs and Uta Schwertel. Reasoning in attempto controlled english. In François Bry, Nicola Henze, and Jan Maluszynski, editors, Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, International Workshop, PPSWR 2003, Mumbai, India, December 8, 2003, Proceedings, volume 2901 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 174-188. Springer, 2003. Google Scholar
  20. Tiantian Gao, Paul Fodor, and Michael Kifer. Paraconsistency and word puzzles. CoRR, abs/1608.01338, 2016. Google Scholar
  21. Martin Gebser, Benjamin Kaufmann, Roland Kaminski, Max Ostrowski, Torsten Schaub, and Marius Thomas Schneider. Potassco: The potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Commun., 24(2):107-124, 2011. Google Scholar
  22. Michael Gelfond and Yulia Kahl. Knowledge representation, reasoning, and the design of intelligent agents: The answer-set programming approach. Cambridge University Press, 2014. Google Scholar
  23. ASD Simplified Technical English Maintenance Group. ASD-STE 100: Simplified Technical English : International Specification for the Preparation of Maintenance Documentation in a Controlled Language. Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe, 2007. Google Scholar
  24. Philip Harrison and Michael Maxwell. A new implementation of gpsg. In Proc. 6th Canadian Conf on AI, pages 78-83, 1986. Google Scholar
  25. Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory, volume 42. Springer Science &Business Media, 2013. Google Scholar
  26. Michael Kifer and Eliezer L. Lozinskii. A logic for reasoning with inconsistency. J. Autom. Reasoning, 9(2):179-215, 1992. Google Scholar
  27. Tobias Kuhn. A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. Computational Linguistics, 40(1):121-170, 2014. Google Scholar
  28. Tom Kwiatkowski, Luke S. Zettlemoyer, Sharon Goldwater, and Mark Steedman. Inducing probabilistic CCG grammars from logical form with higher-order unification. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2010, 9-11 October 2010, MIT Stata Center, Massachusetts, USA, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 1223-1233. ACL, 2010. Google Scholar
  29. Vladimir Lifschitz. Closed-world databases and circumscription. Artif. Intell., 27(2):229-235, 1985. Google Scholar
  30. Rainer Manthey and François Bry. Satchmo: a theorem prover implemented in prolog. In International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 415-434. Springer, 1988. Google Scholar
  31. Mausam, Michael Schmitz, Stephen Soderland, Robert Bart, and Oren Etzioni. Open language learning for information extraction. In Jun'ichi Tsujii, James Henderson, and Marius Pasca, editors, Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, EMNLP-CoNLL 2012, July 12-14, 2012, Jeju Island, Korea, pages 523-534. ACL, 2012. Google Scholar
  32. William McCune. Otter 3.0 reference manual and guide, volume 9700. Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, IL, 1994. Google Scholar
  33. William McCune. Mace4 reference manual and guide. arXiv preprint cs/0310055, 2003. Google Scholar
  34. Donald Nute. Defeasible logic, handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (vol. 3): nonmonotonic reasoning and uncertain reasoning, 1994. Google Scholar
  35. Voice of America (Organization). VOA Special English word book: a list of words used in Special English programs on radio, television, and the Internet. Voice of America, 2007. Google Scholar
  36. Charles Kay Ogden. Basic English: A general introduction with rules and grammar. Number 29 in Psyche miniatures., General series. K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1944. Google Scholar
  37. Graham Priest, Koji Tanaka, and Zach Weber. Paraconsistent logic. München, 1989. Google Scholar
  38. Teodor C. Przymusinski. Well-founded and stationary models of logic programs. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 12(3-4):141-187, 1994. Google Scholar
  39. Rolf Schwitter. English as a formal specification language. In 13th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2002), 2-6 September 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France, pages 228-232. IEEE Computer Society, 2002. Google Scholar
  40. Rolf Schwitter. Controlled natural languages for knowledge representation. In Chu-Ren Huang and Dan Jurafsky, editors, COLING 2010, 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Posters Volume, 23-27 August 2010, Beijing, China, pages 1113-1121. Chinese Information Processing Society of China, 2010. Google Scholar
  41. Rolf Schwitter. The jobs puzzle: Taking on the challenge via controlled natural language processing. TPLP, 13(4-5):487-501, 2013. Google Scholar
  42. Rolf Schwitter. Working with defaults in a controlled natural language. In Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2013, page 106, 2013. Google Scholar
  43. Nguyen H Vo, Arindam Mitra, and Chitta Baral. The nl2kr platform for building natural language translation systems. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2015. Google Scholar
  44. Hui Wan, Benjamin N. Grosof, Michael Kifer, Paul Fodor, and Senlin Liang. Logic programming with defaults and argumentation theories. In Patricia M. Hill and David Scott Warren, editors, Logic Programming, 25th International Conference, ICLP 2009, Pasadena, CA, USA, July 14-17, 2009. Proceedings, volume 5649 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 432-448. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  45. L. Wos. Automated reasoning: introduction and applications. McGraw-Hill, 1992. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact