Land Evaluation Configuration using Answer Set Programming

被引:0
|
作者
Karamesouti, Mina [1 ,2 ]
Tignon, Etienne [3 ]
机构
[1] Humboldt Univ, Dept Geog, Berlin, Germany
[2] Humboldt Univ, IRI THESys, Berlin, Germany
[3] Univ Potsdam, Dept Comp Sci, Potsdam, Germany
关键词
declarative knowledge representation; logic programming; transparency; model semantics; problem instance;
D O I
10.5194/agile-giss-5-31-2024
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
In the realm of Land Evaluation (LE) interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary knowledge exchange is critical for land use preservation. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are powerful tools for real-world Knowledge Representation (KR), facilitating inter- and transdisciplinary communication. In such knowledge exchange contexts, heterogeneity, ambiguity, abstraction are only indicative issues, underscoring the necessity for a rigorous commitment to broader transparency in KR. Answer Set Programming (ASP), a declarative, human-readable, logic-based formalism, could serve this objective and facilitate productive, case-relevant dialogues. Similarly to the fundamental GIS knowledge organization structures, ASP formalizes knowledge as entities and relations between them. In current work, leveraging Rossiter's theoretical framework for LE, and employing ASP, we aim for greater transparency in the epistemological and ontological assumptions underpinning the complex LE problem. ASP-based system configuration is used to formalize the LE Problem Instance as Components (C) with Properties (P) and Values (V). Fact-type specifications in predicate format materialize relations between problem components. Over 40 concepts, corresponding to distinct domains, 30 mereological relations and relational requirements between components, and 60 requirements on component properties have been described. We showcase the Problem Instance formalization of the non-spatial, singlearea LE, based on Land Characteristics (LC), model type. The clear separation between domain knowledge (Problem Instance) and high-level theories (Problem Encoding) enables the consistent LE problem formalization using the ASP-based system configuration paradigm. A declarative Problem Instance formalization provides insight into the problem's nature and assumptions. Modular knowledge formalization using ASP, among others, enhances flexibility, scalability, and adaptability, given new knowledge becomes available.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Fuzzy answer set programming
    Van Nieuwenborgh, Davy
    De Cock, Martine
    Vermeir, Dirk
    LOGICS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, PROCEEDINGS, 2006, 4160 : 359 - 372
  • [32] Functional answer set programming
    Cabalar, Pedro
    THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LOGIC PROGRAMMING, 2011, 11 : 203 - 233
  • [33] Coordination in answer set programming
    Sakama, Chiaki
    Inoue, Katsumi
    ACM TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTATIONAL LOGIC, 2008, 9 (02)
  • [34] The Answer Set Programming Competition
    Calimeri, Francesco
    Ianni, Giovambattista
    Krennwallner, Thomas
    Ricca, Francesco
    AI MAGAZINE, 2012, 33 (04) : 114 - 118
  • [35] Modular answer set programming
    Oikarinen, Emilia
    LOGIC PROGRAMMING, PROCEEDINGS, 2007, 4670 : 462 - 463
  • [36] Answer set programming and agents
    Dyoub, Abeer
    Costantini, Stefania
    De Gasperis, Giovanni
    KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING REVIEW, 2018, 33
  • [37] Monotonic Answer Set Programming
    Gebser, Martin
    Gharib, Mona
    Mercer, Robert
    Schaub, Torsten
    JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION, 2009, 19 (04) : 539 - 564
  • [38] Answer Set Programming with Resources
    Costantini, Stefania
    Formisano, Andrea
    JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION, 2010, 20 (02) : 533 - 571
  • [39] Explanations for Answer Set Programming
    Alviano, Mario
    Trieu, Ly Ly
    Son, Tran Cao
    Balduccini, Marcello
    ELECTRONIC PROCEEDINGS IN THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE, 2023, 385 : 27 - 40
  • [40] Reactive Answer Set Programming
    Gebser, Martin
    Grote, Torsten
    Kaminski, Roland
    Schaub, Torsten
    LOGIC PROGRAMMING AND NONMONOTONIC REASONING, 2011, 6645 : 54 - 66