Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:34:00.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CoreALMlib: An $\mathscr{ALM}$ library translated from the Component Library

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2016

DANIELA INCLEZAN
DANIELA INCLEZAN*
Affiliation:
Miami University, Oxford OH, 45056, USA (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents CoreALMlib, an $\mathscr{ALM}$ library of commonsense knowledge about dynamic domains. The library was obtained by translating part of the Component Library (CLib) into the modular action language $\mathscr{ALM}$. CLib consists of general reusable and composable commonsense concepts, selected based on a thorough study of ontological and lexical resources. Our translation targets CLibstates (i.e., fluents) and actions. The resulting $\mathscr{ALM}$ library contains the descriptions of 123 action classes grouped into 43 reusable modules that are organized into a hierarchy. It is made available online and of interest to researchers in the action language, answer-set programming, and natural language understanding communities. We believe that our translation has two main advantages over its CLib counterpart: (i) it specifies axioms about actions in a more elaboration tolerant and readable way, and (ii) it can be seamlessly integrated with ASP reasoning algorithms (e.g., for planning and postdiction). In contrast, axioms are described in CLib using STRIPS-like operators, and CLib's inference engine cannot handle planning nor postdiction.

Keywords

action languagecommonsense libraryknowledge reusedynamic domains
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 16 , Special Issue 5-6: 32nd International Conference on Logic Programming , September 2016 , pp. 800 - 816
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J. and Lowe, J. B. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet Project. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 1, Association for Computational Linguistics and Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 86–90.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. 2013. ASP with non-Herbrand partial functions: a language and system for practical use. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 4–5, 547–561.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. and Gelfond, M. 2003. Diagnostic Reasoning with A-Prolog. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3, 4–5 (Jul), 425–461.Google Scholar
Barker, K., Porter, B. and Clark, P. 2001. A library of generic concepts for composing knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Knowledge Capture. K-CAP '01, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 14–21.Google Scholar
Chaudhri, V., Dinesh, N. and Inclezan, D. 2014. Three lessons in creating a knowledge base to enable explanation, reasoning and dialog. Advances in Cognitive Systems 3, 183–200.Google Scholar
Chaudhri, V. K., Clark, P. E., Mishra, S., Pacheco, J., Spaulding, A. and Tien, J. 2009. Aura: Capturing knowledge and answering questions on science textbooks. Tech. rep., SRI International.Google Scholar
Chaudhri, V. K., John, B. E., Mishra, S., Pacheco, J., Porter, B. and Spaulding, A. 2007. Enabling experts to build knowledge bases from science textbooks. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Capture. K-CAP '07, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 159–166.Google Scholar
Clark, P., Chaw, S., Barker, K., Chaudhri, V., Harrison, P., John, B., Porter, B., Spaulding, A., Thompson, J. and Yeh, P. Z. 2007. Capturing and answering questions posed to a knowledge-based system. In Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Capture. K-CAP '07, ACM, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, P. E. and Porter, B. 2004. KM – The Knowledge Machine 2.0: Users Manual. Retrieved from the web page: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mfkb/km/userman.pdf.Google Scholar
Erdoǧan, S. and Lifschitz, V. 2006. Actions as special cases. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the International Conference, Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., and Welty, C. A., Eds. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 377–387.Google Scholar
Erdoǧan, S. T. 2008. A Library of General-Purpose Action Descriptions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Khal, Y. 2014. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents: The Answer-Set Programming Approach. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'1988). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing 9, 3/4, 365–386.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1998. Action languages. Electronic Transactions on AI 3, 16, 193–210.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Zhang, Y. 2014. Vicious circle principle and logic programs with aggregates. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 14, 4–5, 587–601.Google Scholar
Gunning, D., Chaudhri, V. K., Clark, P., Barker, K., Chaw, S.-Y., Greaves, M., Grosof, B., Leung, A., McDonald, D., Mishra, S., Pacheco, J., Porter, B., Spaulding, A., Tecuci, D. and Tien, J. 2010. Project Halo–Progress Toward Digital Aristotle. AI Magazine 31, 3, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inclezan, D. 2015. A CLib-inspired library of commonsense knowledge in modular action language ALM. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2015 Spring Symposium on Formalizing Commonsense. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 82–88.Google Scholar
Inclezan, D. and Gelfond, M. 2011. Representing Biological Processes in Modular Action Language ALM. In Proceedings of the 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium on Formalizing Commonsense. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 49–55.Google Scholar
Inclezan, D. and Gelfond, M. 2016. Modular Action Language ALM. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 16, 2, 189–235.Google Scholar
Kipper-Schuler, K. 2005. VerbNet: A broad-coverage, comprehensive verb lexicon. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Ren, W. 2006. A Modular Action Description Language. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 853–859.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D. and Miller, K. 1990. WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography 3, 235–244.Google Scholar