Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What’s new in Description Logics

  • HAUPTBEITRAG
  • WHAT’S NEW IN DESCRIPTION LOGICS
  • Published:
Informatik-Spektrum Aims and scope

Abstract

Mainstream research in Description Logics (DLs) until recently concentrated on increasing the expressive power of the employed description language while keeping standard inference problems like subsumption and instance manageable in the sense that highly optimized reasoning procedures for them behave well in practice. One of the main successes of this line of research was the adoption of OWL DL, which is based on an expressive DL, as the standard ontology language for the Semantic Web.

More recently, there has been a growing interest in more light-weight DLs, and in other kinds of inference problems, mainly triggered by need in applications with large-scale ontologies. In this paper, we first review the DL research leading to the very expressive DLs with practical inference procedures underlying OWL, and then sketch the recent development of light-weight DLs and novel inference procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abiteboul S, Hull R, Vianu V (1995) Foundations of Databases. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baader F (1990) Terminological cycles in KL-ONE-based knowledge representation languages. In: Proc of the 8th Nat Conf on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’90), 29 July–3 August 1990, Boston, MA, USA, pp 621–626

  3. Baader F, Brandt S, Lutz C (2005) Pushing the EL envelope. In: Kaelbling LP, Saffiotti A (eds) Proc of the 19th Int Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), 30 July–5 August 2005, Edinburgh, UK. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, pp 364–369

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baader F, Brandt S, Lutz C (2008) Pushing the EL envelope further. In: Clark K, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) Proc of the Fifth International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED’08), 26–27 October 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany

  5. Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) (2003) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press

  6. Baader F, Franconi E, Hollunder B, Nebel B, Profitlich H-J (1994) An empirical analysis of optimization techniques for terminological representation systems or: Making KRIS get a move on. Appl Artif Intel. Special Issue on Knowledge Base Management 4:109–132

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baader F, Küsters R (1998) Computing the least common subsumer and the most specific concept in the presence of cyclic ALN-concept descriptions. In: Proc of the 22nd German Annual Conf on Artificial Intelligence (KI’98), vol 1504, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp 129–140

  8. Baader F, Küsters R (2000) Matching in description logics with existential restrictions. In: Proc of the 7th Int Conf on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), 12–15 April 2000, Breckenridge, CO, USA, pp 261–272

  9. Baader F, Küsters R (2006) Nonstandard inferences in description logics: the story so far. In: Gabbay DM, Goncharov SS, Zakharyaschev M (eds) Mathematical Problems from Applied Logic I, vol 4, International Mathematical Series. Springer, pp 1–75

  10. Baader F, Küsters R, Borgida A, McGuinness DL (1999) Matching in description logics. J Logic Comput 9(3):411–447

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Baader F, Küsters R, Molitor R (1999) Computing least common subsumers in description logics with existential restrictions. In: Proc of the 16th Int Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’99), 31 July–6 August 1999, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 96–101

  12. Baader F, Lutz C, Suntisrivaraporn B (2005) Is tractable reasoning in extensions of the description logic EL useful in practice? In: Proc of the 2005 International Workshop on Methods for Modalities (M4M-05), 1–2 December 2005, Berlin, Germany

  13. Baader F, Morawska B (2009) Unification in the description logic EL. In: Treinen R (ed) Proc of the 20th Int Conf on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA 2009), vol 5595, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp 350–364

  14. Baader F, Narendran P (2001) Unification of concepts terms in description logics. J Symb Comput 31(3):277–305

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Baader F, Peñaloza R (2007) Axiom pinpointing in general tableaux. In: Proc of the Int Conf on Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX 2007), vol 4548, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp 11–27

  16. Baader F, Peñaloza R (2008) Automata-based axiom pinpointing. In: Armando A, Baumgartner P, Dowek G (eds) Proc of the Int Joint Conf on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2008), vol 5195 Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp 226–241

  17. Baader F, Peñaloza R (2010) Axiom Pinpointing in General Tableaux. J Logic Comput 20(1):5–34

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Baader F, Sattler U (2001) An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica 69:5–40

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Baader F, Sertkaya B, Turhan A-Y (2007) Computing the least common subsumer w.r.t a background terminology. J Appl Logic 5(3):392–420

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Baader F, Suntisrivaraporn B (2008) Debugging SNOMED CT using axiom pinpointing in the description logic EL+. In: Proc of the International Conference on Representing and Sharing Knowledge Using SNOMED (KR-MED’08), 31 May–2 June 2008, Phoenix, Arizona

  21. Baader F, Tobies S (2001) The inverse method implements the automata approach for modal satisfiability. In: Proc of the Int Joint Conf on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), vol 2083, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp 92–106

  22. Brachman RJ, Schmolze JG (1985) An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Sci 9(2):171–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brandt S (2004) Polynomial time reasoning in a description logic with existential restrictions, GCI axioms, and – what else? In: López de Mántaras R, Saitta L (eds) Proc of the 16th Eur Conf on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), 22–27 August 2004, Valencia, Spain, pp 298–302

  24. Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2005) DL-Lite: Tractable description logics for ontologies. In: Veloso MM, Kambhampati S (eds) Proc of the 20th Nat Conf on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), 25–29 July 2004, San Jose, CA, USA. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, pp 602–607

  25. Calvanese D, de Giacomo G, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2006) Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In: Doherty P, Mylopoulos J, Welty CA (eds) Proc of the 10th Int Conf on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), 2–5 June 2006, Lake District, UK. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, pp 260–270

  26. Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2007) Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. J Autom Reason 39(3):385–429

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lenzerini M (2002) 2ATAs make DLs easy. In: Proc of the 2002 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2002). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-53/, last access 5.4.2011, pp 107–118

  28. Donini FM, Colucci S, Di Noia T, Di Sciascio E (2009) A tableaux-based method for computing least common subsumers for expressive description logics. In: Boutilier C (ed) Proc of the 21st Int Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), 11–17 July 2009, Pasadena, CA, USA, pp 739–745

  29. Fitting M (1972) Tableau methods of proof for modal logics. Notre Dame J Formal Logic 13(2):237–247

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Glimm B, Horrocks I, Lutz C, Sattler U (2007) Conjunctive query answering for the description logic SHIQ. In: Veloso MM (ed) Proc of the 20th Int Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), 6–12 January 2007, Hyderabad, India, pp 399–404

  31. Haarslev V, Möller R (2001) RACER system description. In: Proc of the Int Joint Conf on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), vol 2083, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp 701–706

  32. Haarslev V, Möller R (2008) On the scalability of description logic instance retrieval. J Autom Reason 41(2):99–142

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Hayes PJ (1979) The logic of frames. In: Metzing D (ed) Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding. Walter de Gruyter, pp 46–61 (republished in: Brachman RJ, Levesque HJ (eds) (1985) Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos)

  34. Horrocks I (2003) Implementation and optimization techniques. In: Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, pp 306–346

  35. Horrocks I, Kutz O, Sattler U (2006) The even more irresistible SROIQ. In: Doherty P, Mylopoulos J, Welty CA (eds) Proc of the 10th Int Conf on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006) 2–5 June 2006, Lake District, UK. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, pp 57–67

  36. Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF (2004) Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. J Web Sem 1(4):345–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF, van Harmelen F (2003) From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J Web Sem 1(1):7–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Horrocks I, Sattler U (2005) A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In: Proc of the 19th Int Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), 30 July–5 August 2005, Edinburgh, UK. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kalyanpur A, Parsia B, Horridge M, Sirin E (2007) Finding all justifications of OWL DL entailments. In: Proc of the 6th International Semantic Web Conference and 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2007+ASWC 2007, Busan, Korea, vol 4825, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp 267–280

  40. Kazakov Y (2008) RIQ and SROIQ are harder than SHOIQ. In: Brewka G, Lang J (eds) Proc of the 11th Int Conf on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), 16–19 September 2008, Sydney, Australia. AAAI Press, pp 274–284

  41. Kontchakov R, Wolter F, Zakharyaschev M (2008) Can you tell the difference between DL-Lite ontologies? In: Brewka G, Lang J (eds) Proc of the 11th Int Conf on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), 16–19 September 2008, Sydney, Australia. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, pp 285–295

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lee K, Meyer T, Pan JZ (2006) Computing maximally satisfiable terminologies for the description logic ALC with GCIs. In: Proc of the 2006 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2006), vol 189 CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings

  43. Levesque HJ, Brachman RJ (1987) Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning. Comput Intell 3:78–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lutz C (2008) The complexity of conjunctive query answering in expressive description logics. In: Armando A, Baumgartner P, Dowek G (eds) Proc of the Int Joint Conf on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2008), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp 179–193

  45. Lutz C, Milicic M (2007) A tableau algorithm for description logics with concrete domains and general TBoxes. J Autom Reason 38(1–3):227–259

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Lutz C, Toman D, Wolter F (2009) Conjunctive query answering in the description logic EL using a relational database system. In: Proc of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI09, 11–17 July 2009, Pasadena, CA, USA. AAAI Press

  47. Lutz C, Walther D, Wolter F (2007) Conservative extensions in expressive description logics. In: Veloso MM (ed) Proc of the 20th Int Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), 6–12 January 2007, Hyderabad, India, pp 453–458

  48. Lutz C, Wolter F (2007) Conservative extensions in the lightweight description logic EL. In: Pfenning F (ed) Proc of the 21st Int Conf on Automated Deduction (CADE 2007), vol 4603, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Bremen, Germany. Springer, pp 84–99

  49. Mays E, Dionne R, Weida R (1991) K-REP system overview. SIGART Bull 2(3):93–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Minsky M (1981) A framework for representing knowledge. In: Haugeland J (ed) Mind Design. The MIT Press. A longer version appeared in: The Psychology of Computer Vision (1975) (republished in: Brachman RJ, Levesque HJ (eds) (1985) Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos)

  51. Nebel B (1988) Computational complexity of terminological reasoning in BACK. Artif Intell 34(3):371–383

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Nebel B (1990) Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable. Artif Intell 43:235–249

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Ortiz M, Calvanese D, Eiter T (2008) Data complexity of query answering in expressive description logics via tableaux. J Autom Reason 41(1):61–98

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Parsia B, Sirin E, Kalyanpur A (2005) Debugging OWL ontologies. In: Ellis A, Hagino T (eds) Proc of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’05), 10–14 May 2005, Chiba, Japan. ACM, pp 633–640

  55. Patel-Schneider PF (1984) Small can be beautiful in knowledge representation. In: Proc of the IEEE Workshop on Knowledge-Based Systems, 2–4 December 1984, Denver, CO, USA. An extended version appeared as Fairchild Tech Rep 660 and FLAIR Tech Rep 37, October 1984

  56. Peltason C (1991) The BACK system – an overview. SIGART Bull 2(3):114–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Quillian MR (1967) Word concepts: a theory and simulation of some basic capabilities. Behavioral Sci 12:410–430 (republished in: Brachman RJ, Levesque HJ (eds) (1985) Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Reiter R (1987) A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif Intell 32(1):57–95

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Sattler U, Schneider T, Zakharyaschev M (2009) Which kind of module should I extract? In: Proc of the 2008 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2009), vol 477, CEUR Workshop Proceedings

  60. Schlobach S, Cornet R (2003) Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Gottlob G, Walsh T (eds) Proc of the 18th Int Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), Acapulco, Mexico. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, pp 355–362

    Google Scholar 

  61. Schmidt-Schauß M (1989) Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable. In: Brachman RJ, Levesque HJ, Reiter R (eds) Proc of the 1st Int Conf on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’89), 15–18 May 1989, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, pp 421–431

    Google Scholar 

  62. Schmidt-Schauß M, Smolka G (1991) Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artif Intell 48(1):1–26

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Schubert LK, Goebel RG, Cercone NJ (1979) The structure and organization of a semantic net for comprehension and inference. In: Findler NV (ed) Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers. Academic Press, pp 121–175

  64. Sirin E, Parsia B (2004) Pellet: An OWL DL reasoner. In: Proc of the 2004 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2004), 6–8 June 2004, Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, pp 212–213

  65. Suntisrivaraporn B (2008) Module extraction and incremental classification: a pragmatic approach for EL+ ontologies. In: Bechhofer S, Hauswirth M, Hoffmann J, Koubarakis M (eds) Proc of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’08), vol 5021, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp 230–244

  66. Suntisrivaraporn B (2009) Polynomial-Time Reasoning Support for Design and Maintenance of Large-Scale Biomedical Ontologies. PhD thesis, Fakultät Informatik, TU Dresden. http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/research/phd/#Sun-PhD-2008, last access 5.4.2011

  67. Tsarkov D, Horrocks I (2006) Fact++ description logic reasoner: system description. In: Furbach U, Shankar N (eds) Proc of the Int Joint Conf on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), vol 4130, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp 292–297

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Theoretical Computer Science, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland

    Franz Baader

Authors
  1. Franz Baader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franz Baader.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baader, F. What’s new in Description Logics. Informatik Spektrum 34, 434–442 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00287-011-0534-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00287-011-0534-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation