Abstract
Description Logics (DLs) are playing a central role in ontologies and in the Semantic Web, since they are currently the most used formalisms for building ontologies. Both semantic and computational issues arise when extending DLs with rule-based components. In particular, integrating DLs with nonmonotonic rules requires to properly deal with two semantic discrepancies: (a) DLs are based on the Open World Assumption, while rules are based on (various forms of) Closed World Assumption; (b) The DLs specifically designed for the Semantic Web, i.e., OWL and OWL-DL, are not based on the Unique Name Assumption, while rule-based systems typically adopt the Unique Name Assumption. In this paper we present the following contributions: (1) We define safe hybrid knowledge bases, a general formal framework for integrating ontologies and rules, which provides for a clear treatment of the above semantic issues; (2) We present a reasoning algorithm and establish general decidability and complexity results for reasoning in safe hybrid KBs; (3) As a consequence of these general results, we close a problem left open in [18], i.e., decidability of OWL-DL with DL-safe rules.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Antoniou, G.: A nonmonotonic rule system using ontologies. In: Proc. of RuleML 2002. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 60 (2002)
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Schneider, P.F.P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Cadoli, M., Palopoli, L., Lenzerini, M.: Datalog and description logics: Expressive power. In: Cluet, S., Hull, R. (eds.) DBPL 1997. LNCS, vol. 1369. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: OWL DL vs. OWL flight: conceptual modeling and reasoning for the semantic web. In: Proc. of WWW 2005, pp. 623–632 (2005)
Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: AL-log: Integrating Datalog and description logics. J. of Intelligent Information Systems 10(3), 227–252 (1998)
Duschka, O.M., Genesereth, M.R., Levy, A.Y.: Recursive query plans for data integration. J. of Logic Programming 43(1), 49–73 (2000)
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Mannilla, H.: Disjunctive Datalog. ACM Trans. On Database Systems 22(3), 364–418 (1997)
Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., Scarcello, F.: The KR system dlv: Progress report, comparison and benchmarks. In: Proc. of KR 1998, pp. 636–647 (1998)
Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In: Proc. of KR 2004, pp. 141–151 (2004)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)
Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proc. of WWW 2003, pp. 48–57 (2003)
Heymans, S., Van Nieuwenborgh, D., Vermeir, D.: Semantic web reasoning with conceptual logic programs. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 113–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Heymans, S., Vermeir, D.: Integrating description logics and answer set programming. In: Bry, F., Henze, N., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) PPSWR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2901, pp. 146–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL entailment to Description Logic satisfiability. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an OWL rules language. In: Proc. of WWW 2004, pp. 723–731 (2004)
Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining Horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2), 165–209 (1998)
Mei, J., Liu, S., Yue, A., Lin, Z.: An extension to OWL with general rules. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 155–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 549–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P.J., Horrocks, I., van Harmelen, F.: OWL web ontology language; semantics and abstract syntax. W3C candidate recommendation (November 2002), http://www.w3.org/tr/owl-semantics/
Rosati, R.: Towards expressive KR systems integrating Datalog and description logics: Preliminary report. In: Proc. of DL 1999. CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings. 160–164 (1999), http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-22/
Rosati, R.: On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. Journal of Web Semantics (2005), (to appear)
Tobies, S.: Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH-Aachen, Germany (2001)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rosati, R. (2005). Semantic and Computational Advantages of the Safe Integration of Ontologies and Rules. In: Fages, F., Soliman, S. (eds) Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning. PPSWR 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3703. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11552222_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11552222_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-28793-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32028-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)