Knowledge Representation

1.

Introduction

In some cases more domain-specific knowledge may be needed than that required to solve a
problem using search. In these instances some form of representing and manipulating this
knowledge is needed. Knowledge is stored in a knowledge base using a particular
representation and inference techniques or algorithms are used to manipulate the knowledge.
Various representation schemes have been developed for knowledge representation and these
have been categorized as follows:

Logical representation schemes Inference rules and proof procedures are used to find
solutions to problem instances, e.g. first-order predicate logic. PROLOG is the most
appropriate language to implement knowledge bases using logical representation
schemes.
Procedural representation schemes Knowledge is represented as a list of instructions
to solve problems, e.g. production rule systems and essentially consist of a number of ifthen-else rules.
Network representation schemes Information is represented as a graph, e.g. semantic
networks, conceptual graphs. The nodes in the graph represent objects or concepts and
the arcs relationships between them.
Structured representation schemes These schemes extend networks so that each
node in the network is a complex structure including information regarding attributes of
the object. These complex structures usually consist of slots with attached values, e.g.
scripts and frames.
Structures for representing incomplete and inconsistent knowledge, e.g Bayesian
reasoning, Dempster-Shafer theory.

One of the problems encountered in representing knowledge is the frame problem. This
problem refers to the difficulty of representing facts that change often as well as those that do
not. How successful a program is at solving a problem is largely dependent on using the correct
scheme to represent the knowledge needed to solve the problem.
We will study three of the above representation schemes, namely,

2.

Logical representation first- order predicate calculus with implementation in Prolog.

Network representation Semantic networks and conceptual graphs
Procedural representation this will be included in the section on expert systems.
Network Representation Structures

We are going to study two representation structures, namely, semantic networks and
conceptual graphs.
2.1

Semantic Networks

A semantic network is a graph consisting of nodes, where each node represents a fact or a
concept, and arcs, where each arc represents a relationship between two nodes. Inference
rules and algorithms are needed to answer questions regarding the knowledge represented in a
1

semantic network. However, in this section we will only examine how knowledge can be
represented in a semantic network.
Suppose that we want to represent the statement that Clyde is an elephant:

Mammal
is-a
Elephant
instance
Clyde
Clyde is referred to as an instance of the class Elephant. In turn any member of the class
Elephant is a Mammal. Thus, the class Elephant is a subclass of the class Mammal and
therefore Clyde is indirectly a Mammal. Semantic networks are used to represent inheritance
relationships such as the example above. In order to differentiate between instances and
subclasses the term instance is used to represent a relationship between a class and an
instance and the term is-a is used to represent a relationship between a subclass and a
superclass. Semantic networks also represent has-a/has relationships between objects. Both
these relationships are illustrated in the figure below.

has

Tail

is-a

communicates

Great
Dane

Barks

height
instance
Pluto

has 4 Legs

Dog

has

Tall
Spots

Figure 1
Note that in addition to is-a, instance and has/has-a relationships other relationships can also be
represented in a semantic network. For example, the relationship between a dog and barks is
communicates. An instance of a class and each subclass of a class inherits all the properties
of that class. Hence, since Great Dane is a subclass of the class Dog every member of the
class Great Dane has a tail and 4 legs. Similarly, the instance Pluto of the class Great
Dane will also have a tail and 4 legs. In addition to the inherited properties an instance or
subclass can have properties specific to the particular subclass or instance. For example, all
2

great danes are tall. The instance Pluto has spots in addition to possessing all the other
properties of great danes.
More examples of semantic networks are illustrated below:
Example 1

Mammal
is-a

Person

has-a

Nose

instance

Blue

uniform Pee-Wee team

colour
Reese

Brooklyn
Dodgers

Figure 2
The semantic network in Figure 2 represents a number of relationships. For example, a
Person is a Mammal. Pee-Wee-Reese is an instance of the class Person. Pee-WeeReese is on the team Broklyn-Dodgers. The instance relationship identifies Pee-Wee-Reese
as a Person and a Person as a Mammal. From this semantic network we can infer that
Pee-Wee-Reese must have a Nose since Pee-Wee-Reese is a person.
Example 2
Johns height is 72.

John

height

72

Figure 3
John is taller than Bill.

John

Bill
height

height

H1 greater
than

H2

Figure 4
Example 3
Thus, far we have examined binary relationships, i.e. relationships between at most two objects.
However, it may be necessary to represent n-ary (n >2) relationships using a semantic network.
3

In this case the n-ary relationship must be converted into a number of binary relationships.
Suppose that we want to represent the fact that John gives Mary the book, i.e. give(john,
mary, book32). This relationship involves three objects. The relationship is broken down into a
number of binary relationships as indicated in Figure 5.

recipient

Mary

giver

Give

John

object

Book32
Figure 5
A number of problems were experienced with using semantic networks to represent knowledge.
Firstly, the relationships that can be represented using a semantic network are very general and
unstructured. Thus, semantic networks cannot be used to represent complex domains.
Attempts were made to standardize the relationships that could be represented in a semantic
network and so possibly alleviate some of the problems. The development of a verb-oriented
approach was one of the results of these endeavors.
This approach defines the following case relationships: agent, object, instrument, location and
time. Every sentence is represented using a case frame. A case frame represents a particular
action and basically consists of arcs linking nodes representing different participants involved in
an action. Figure 6 represents the corresponding semantic net using this approach to represent
the statement:
Sarah fixed the chair with glue.

time

Sarah

agent

object

Fix

instrument

past

chair

glue

Figure 6
Exercise 1
Construct a semantic network to represent each of the following statements:
1.

Pompeian(Marcus), Blacksmith(Marcus).
4

2.
3.

Mary gave the green coloured vase to her favorite coursin.

John went downtown to deposit his money in a bank.

2.2.

Conceptual Graphs

A conceptual graph is a connected bipartite graph. Conceptual relation nodes represent

relations between concepts. Thus, the arcs connecting nodes are not labeled. This is one of the
main differences between conceptual graphs and semantic networks. A conceptual graph
consists of concepts, represented by boxes and conceptual relations are represented by
ellipses. Concept nodes only have arcs to conceptual relation nodes (thus the graph is
bipartite). Concept nodes represent concrete objects, e.g. cat, telephone, restaurant, etc, and
abstract objects, e.g. love, beauty and loyalty.
In order to represent a relation of arity of n a conceptual relation node must have n arcs. Let us
look at some examples to make this clearer.
1-ary relation

bird

flies

2-ary relation

dog

colour

brown

3-ary relation

mother
child

parents

father
Let us look at a more detailed example. Suppose that we want to represent the relation that
Mary gave John the book. The corresponding conceptual graph is illustrated below:

person:
Mary

agent

person:
John

agent

give

book

object

Notice that each concept node represents an individual and specifies the type of the individual.
If an individual object is unknown a unique marker can be used in place of the name of the
object. A unique marker is comprised of a hash symbol (#) followed by a number. Each object
has its own unique marker. In the first conceptual graph in Figure 7 the name of the dog is
known. However, in the second conceptual graph it is not known and a unique marker is used
for this purpose.

dog:
Emma
dog:
#1352

colour

brown

colour

brown

Figure 7
The first conceptual graph in Figure 7 is equivalent to the conceptual graph in Figure 8.

dog:
#1352

colour

name

brown
emma

Figure 8
Note that when individuals of a particular type appear on their own (i.e. without the type
specified before the individual name) the name of the individual must appear in inverted
commas, e.g. emma.
Example 1
Suppose that we want to represent the following information using a conceptual graph:
Her name was McGill and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her as Nancy.

name

McGill

person:
#941

name

Nancy

name

Lil

In addition to individual markers conceptual nodes can also contain generic markers. A generic
marker is represented by an asterisk *. A generic marker is used to represent an unspecified
individual of a type. The type dog specified in a node is equivalent dog:*. Name variables can
also be used, e.g., *X to indicate an unspecified individual. Let us look at an example of this.
Suppose that we want to represent the following information:
The dog is scratching its ear with its paw.
We need to indicate that the paw and ear belong to the same dog. We can use name variables
for this purpose. This is illustrated below:

dog: *X

agent

object

scratch

ear
instrument
part

paw

part

dog: *X

The format that we have used thus far to represent conceptual graphs is referred to as the
Display Form (DF). An alternative notation is the Linear Form (LF) which is a more compact
notation. Suppose that we wanted to represent the following statement:
John is going to Boston by bus.
The conceptual graph in DF notation:

person:
John

agent

go
instance

bus

destination

city:
Boston

The conceptual graph in LF notation:

[Go]
(Agnt) [Person: John]
(Dest) [City: Boston]
(Inst) [Bus]
Exercise 2
Translate each of the following sentences into a conceptual graph:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Jane gave Tom an ice cream.

Basketball players are tall.
Paul cut down the tree with an axe.
Place all the ingredients in a bowl and mix thoroughly.

3.

Logical Representation Scheme

We are only going to look at one logical representation scheme, namely, first-order predicate
logic. Predicate logic is more powerful than propositional logic as it allows for quantification.
Facts are represented as logical propositions and additional information is deduced from these
facts using backward chaining or resolution.
3.1

Converting facts to logical propositions

The first step is to convert facts in English to logical propositions called well-formed formulas
(wffs). The wffs include the following symbols:

Implies:
And: /\
Or: \/
Not: ~
For all:
The exists:

Example: Consider the following facts on Italian history:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Marcus was a man.

Marcus was a Pompeian.
All Pompeians were Roman.
Caesar was a ruler.
All Romans were either loyal to Caesar or hated him.
Everyone is loyal to someone.
People only try to assassinate rulers that they are not loyal to.
Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar.
All men are people.

These facts can be represented in predicate logic as the following wffs:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

man(Marcus)
Pompeian(Marcus)
x: Pompeian(x) Roman(x)
ruler(Caesar)
x: Roman(x) loyalto(x,Caesar) \/ hate(x,Caesar)
x y: loyalto(x,y)
x y: person(x) /\ ruler(y) /\ tryassassinate(x,y) ~loyalto(x,y)
tryassassinate(Marcus,Caesar)
x: man(x) person(x)

3.2. Backward Chaining

Suppose that given the facts 1 to 9 in the previous section, we want to answer the question
Was Marcus loyal to Caesar? We can prove this using backward chaining. Backward chaining
matches a clause to the right-hand side of a rule (wff with an implies) and then attempts to
prove the clauses on the left-hand of the rule. Alternatively, a clause can be matched against a
single clause. Since wff 7 has a ~loyalto on the right-hand side we will attempt to prove
~loyalto(Marcus, Caesar):
~loyalto(Marcus, Caesar)
7
person(Marcus) /\ ruler(Caesar) /\ tryassasinate(Marcus,Caesar)
8
person(Marcus) /\ ruler(Caesar)
4
person(Marcus)
9
man(Marcus)
1
Nil
Using backward chaining we have proved that Marcus is not loyal to Caesar.
Exercise 3
1. Consider the following facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

John likes all kinds of food.

Apples are food.
Chicken is food
Anything anyone eats and is not killed by is food.
Bill eats peanuts and is still alive.
Sue eats everything Bill eats.

a) Convert these facts to wffs in predicate logic.

b) Using backward chaining prove the John likes peanuts.

2. Consider the following facts:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Steve only likes easy courses.

Science courses are hard.
All the courses in the basketweaving department are easy.
BK301 is a basketweaving course.

a) Convert these facts to wffs in predicate logic.

b) Use backward chaining to answer the question What course would Steve like?.
3.3 Computable Functions and Predicates
It may be necessary to compute functions as part of a fact. In these cases a computable
predicate is used. A computable predicate may include computable functions such as +, -, *,
etc. For example, gt(x-y,10) bigger(x) contains the computable predicate gt which performs
the greater than function. Note that this computable predicate uses the computable function
subtraction.
Example: Consider the following statements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Marcus was a man.

Marcus was Pompeian.
Marcus was born in 40 A.D.
All men are mortal.
All Pompeians died when the volcano erupted in 79 A.D.
No mortal lives longer than 150 years.
It is now 1991.
Alive means not dead.
If someone dies, he is dead at all later times.

The wffs for these facts are:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

man(Marcus)
Pompeian(Marcus)
born(Marcus,40)
x: man(x) mortal(x)
erupted(volcano,79) /\ x: Pompeian(x) died(x,79)
x t1 t2: mortal(x) /\ born(x,t1) /\ gt(t2-t1,150) dead(x,t2)
now=1991
x t: [alive(x,t) ~dead(x,t)] /\ [~dead(x,t) alive(x,t)]
x t1 t2:died(x,t1) /\ gt(t2,t1) dead(x,t2)

Suppose we want to answer the question Is Marcus alive now?. We can do this by either
proving alive(Marcus,now) or ~alive(Marcus,now). Let us try the latter:

10

~alive(Marcus,now)
8
~[~dead(Marcus,now)]
negation operation
dead(Marcus,now)
9
died(Marcus,t1) /\ gt(now,t1)
5
erupted(volcano,79) /\ Pompeian(Marcus) /\ gt(now,79)
fact, 2
gt(now,79)

gt(1991,79)
compute gt
nil
3.4 Resolution
In the previous sections facts were proved or queries were answered using backward chaining.
In this section we will examine the use of resolution for this purpose. Resolution proves facts
and answers queries by refutation. This involves assuming the fact/query is untrue and
reaching a contradiction which indicates that the opposite must be true. The wffs must firstly be
firstly converted to clause form before using resolution. The algorithm for converting wffs to
clause form and the resolution algorithm are listed below.
Algorithm: Converting wffs to Clause Form
1. Remove all implies, i.e. by applying the following: a b is equivalent to ~a \/ b.
2. Use the following rules to reduce the scope of each negation operator to a single term:
~(~a) = a
~(a /\ b) = ~a \/ ~b
~(a \/ b) = ~a /\ ~b
~x: p(x) = x: ~p(x)
~x: p(x) = x: ~p(x)
3. Each quantifier must be linked to a unique variable. For example, consider x: p(x) \/
x: q(x). In this both quantifiers are using the same variable and one must changed to
another variable: x: p(x) \/ y: q(y).
4. Move all quantifiers, in order, to the left of each wff.
5. Remove existential quantifiers by using Skolem constants or functions. For example, x:
p(x) becomes p(s1) and x y: q(x,y) is replaced with x: q(s2(x), x).
6. Drop the quantifier prefix.
7. Apply the associative property of disjunctions: a \/ (b \/ c) = (a \/ b) \/ c and remove
brackets giving a \/ b \/ c.

11

8. Remove all disjunctions of conjunctions from predicates, i.e. create conjunctions of

disjunctions instead, by applying the following rule iteratively: (a /\ b) \/ c = (a \/ c) /\ (b \/
c).
9. Create a separate clause for each conjunction.
10. Rename variables in the clauses resulting from step 9. to ensure that no two clauses
refer to the same variable.
Algorithm: Resolution
1. Convert the wffs to clause form.
2. Add the fact (or query) P to be proved to the set of clauses:
i.
Negate P.
ii.
Convert negated P to clause form.
iii.
Add the result of ii to the set of clauses.
3. Repeat
i.
ii.
iii.

Select two clauses.

Resolve the clauses using unification.
If the resolvent clause is the empty clause, then a contradiction has been
reached. If not add the resolvent to the set of clauses.

Until (a contradiction is found OR no progress can be made)

Consider the following wffs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

man(Marcus)
Pompeian(Marcus)
x: Pompeian(x) Roman(x)
ruler(Caesar)
x: Roman(x) loyalto(x,Caesar) \/ hate(x,Caesar)
x y: loyalto(x,y)
x y: person(x) /\ ruler(y) /\ tryassassinate(x,y) ~loyalto(x,y)
tryassassinate(Marcus,Caesar)
x: man(x) person(x)

Converting these to clause form gives:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

man(Marcus)
Pompeian(Marcus)
~Pompeian(x) \/ Roman(x)
ruler(Caesar)
~Roman(x1) \/ loyalto(x1,Caesar) \/ hate(x1,Caesar)
loyalto(x2,s1(x2))
~person(x3) \/ ~ruler(y) \/ ~tryassassinate(x3,y) \/ ~loyalto(x3,y)
tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)
~man(x4) \/ person(x4)
12

Suppose that we want to prove that Marcus hates Caesar. We firstly convert this to a
wff: hate(Marcus,Caesar). The wff is then negated and converted to clause form:
~hate(Marcus,Caesar). This clause is added to the set of clauses and the resolution is
algorithm is applied:
~hate(Marcus,Caesar)
5
~Roman(Marcus) \/ loyalto(x1,Caesar)
3
~Pompeian(Marcus) \/ loyalto(Marcus,Caesar)
2
loyalto(Marcus,Caesar)
7
~person(Marcus) \/ ~ruler(Caesar) \/ ~tryassassinate(Marcus,Caesar)
4
~person(Marcus) \/ ~tryassassinate(Marcus,Caesar)
8
~person(Marcus)
9
~man(Marcus)
1

Thus, we have a contradiction and the original statement, i.e. Marcus hates Caesar must be
true.
Consider the wffs we created above:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

man(Marcus)
Pompeian(Marcus)
born(Marcus,40)
x: man(x) mortal(x)
erupted(volcano,79) /\ x: Pompeian(x) died(x,79)
x t1 t2: mortal(x) /\ born(x,t1) /\ gt(t2-t1,150) dead(x,t2)
now=1991
x t: [alive(x,t) ~dead(x,t)] /\ [~dead(x,t) alive(x,t)]
x t1 t2:died(x,t1) /\ gt(t2,t1) dead(x,t2)

Suppose we now want to use resolution to prove that Marcus is not alive now. We firstly have
to convert these statements to clause form:
1. man(Marcus)
2. Pompeian(Marcus)
3. born(Marcus,40)
4. ~man(x) \/ mortal(x)
5. erupted(volcano,79)
6. ~Pompeian(x1) \/ died(x1,79)
7. ~mortal(x2) \/ ~born(x2,t1) \/ ~gt(t2-t1,150) \/ dead(x2,t2)
8. now=1991
9. ~alive(x3,t) \/ ~dead(x3,t)
10. dead(x4,t3) \/ alive(x4,t3)
13

11. ~died(x5,t4) \/ ~gt(t5,t4) \/ dead(x5,t5)

We want to prove ~alive(Marcus,now). We negate this and convert it clause form: alive(Marcus,
now) and find a contradication:
alive(Marcus,now)
10
dead(Marcus,now)
11
~died(Marcus,t4) \/~gt(now,t4)
6
~Pompeian(Marcus) \/~gt(now,79)
2
~gt(now,t4)
8
~gt (1991,79)

Exercise 4
1. Consider the following facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

John likes all kinds of food.

Apples are food.
Chicken is food
Anything anyone eats and is not killed by is food.
Bill eats peanuts and is still alive.
Sue eats everything Bill eats.

a) Convert the wffs for these facts (which you created in Exercise 3) to clause form.
b) Using resolution prove that John likes peanuts.
2. Consider the following facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Steve only likes easy courses.

Science courses are hard.
All the courses in the basketweaving department are easy.
BK301 is a basketweaving course.

a) Convert the wffs for these facts (which you created in Exercise 3) to clause form.
b) Use resolution to answer the question What course would Steve like?.

14