Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A framework for modular ERDF ontologies

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The success of the Semantic Web is impossible without any form of modularity, encapsulation, and access control. In an earlier paper, we extended RDF graphs with weak and strong negation, as well as derivation rules. The ERDF #n-stable model semantics of the extended RDF framework (ERDF) is defined, extending RDF(S) semantics. In this paper, we propose a framework for modular ERDF ontologies, called modular ERDF framework, which enables collaborative reasoning over a set of ERDF ontologies, while support for hidden knowledge is also provided. In particular, the modular ERDF stable model semantics of modular ERDF ontologies is defined, extending the ERDF #n-stable model semantics. Our proposed framework supports local semantics and different points of view, local closed-world and open-world assumptions, and scoped negation-as-failure. Several complexity results are provided.

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. Alves, M., Damásio, C.V., Nejdl, W., Olmedilla, D.: A distributed tabling algorithm for rule based policy systems. In: 7th IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY-2006), pp. 123–132 (2006)

  2. Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V.: A principled framework for modular web rule bases and its semantics. In: 11th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2008), pp. 390–400 (2008)

  3. Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damasio, C.V.: A formal theory for modular ERDF ontologies. In: 3rd International Conference Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2009), pp. 212–226 (2009)

  4. Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damasio, C.V.: MWeb: a principled framework for modular web rule bases and its semantics. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. (ACM TOCL) 12(2), 1–46 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V., Wagner, G.: Extended RDF as a semantic foundation of rule markup languages. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 32, 37–94 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V., Wagner, G.: On the computability and complexity issues of extended RDF. In: 10th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI-2008), pp. 5–16 (2008)

  7. Aranda, C.B., Arenas, M., Corcho, Ó.: Semantics and optimization of the SPARQL 1.1 federation extension. In: 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC-2011), part II, pp. 1–15 (2011)

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

  9. Bao, J., Caragea, D., Honavar, V.: On the semantics of linking and importing in modular ontologies. In: 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’06), pp. 72–86 (2006)

  10. Bao, J., Voutsadakis, G., Slutzki, G., Honavar, V.: Package-based description logics. In: Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization, pp. 349–371 (2009)

  11. Berners-Lee, T., Connolly, D., Kagal, L., Scharf, Y., Hendler, J.: N3Logic: a logical framework for the world wide web. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 8(3), 249–269 (2008)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Boley, H., Kifer, M.: RIF Framework for Logic Dialects, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation 5 February 2013. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-fld/

  13. Bonatti, P.A., Coi, J.L.D., Olmedilla, D., Sauro, L.: Rule-based policy representations and reasoning. In: Semantic Techniques for the Web, The REWERSE Perspective 2009, pp. 201–232 (2009)

  14. Bonatti, P.A., Coi, J.L.D., Olmedilla, D., Sauro, L.: A rule-based trust negotiation system. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 22(11), 1507–1520 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: assimilating information from peer sources. J. Data Semantics. 1, 153–184 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Equilibria in heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2007), pp. 385–390 (2007)

  17. Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Fink, M.: Nonmonotonic multi-context systems: a flexible approach for integrating heterogeneous knowledge sources. In: Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 233–258 (2011)

  18. Carroll, J.J., Bizer, C., Hayes, P.J., Stickler, P.: Named graphs. J. Web Sem. 3(4), 247–267 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coi, J.L.D., Olmedilla, D.: A review of trust management, security and privacy policy languages. In: International Conference on Security and Cryptography (SECRYPT-2008), pp. 483–490 (2008)

  20. Damasio, C.V., Analyti, A., Antoniou, G.: Embeddings of simple modular extended RDF. In: 4th International Conference Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2010), (short paper, 2010)

  21. Damasio, C.V., Analyti, A., Antoniou, G.: Implementing simple modular ERDF ontologies. In: 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2010), (short paper, 2010)

  22. Damásio, C.V., Analyti, A., Antoniou, G.: Modularity in the rule interchange format. In: 5th International Symposium on Rule-Based Reasoning, Programming and Applications (RULEML-2011), pp. 313–328 (2011)

  23. de Bruijn, J., Welty, C.: RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility. W3C Recommendation 5 February 2013. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/

  24. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artif. Intell. 172(12–13), 1495–1539 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Ensan, F.: Formalizing ontology modularization through the notion of interfaces. In: 16th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering: Practice and Patterns (EKAW-2008), pp. 74–82 (2008)

  26. Faber, W., Pfeifer, G., Leone, N.: Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming. Artif. Intell. 175(1), 278–298 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Gavriloaie, R., Nejdl, W., Olmedilla, D., Seamons, K.E., Winslett, M.: No registration needed: how to use declarative policies and negotiation to access sensitive resources on the semantic web. In: 1st European Semantic Web Symposium (ESWS 2004), pp. 342–356 (2004)

  28. Gelder, A.V., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J. ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski, R., Bowen, K.A. (eds.) 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press (1988)

  30. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: 7th International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 579–597 (1990)

  31. Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: Reconciling concepts and relations in heterogeneous ontologies. In: 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2006), pp. 50–64 (2006)

  32. Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: Mapping properties of heterogeneous ontologies. In: 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems and Applications (AIMSA 2008), pp. 181–193 (2008)

  33. Ghidini, C., Serafini, L., Tessaris, S.: On relating heterogeneous elements from different ontologies. In: 2007 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2007) (2007)

  34. Ghidini, C., Serafini, L., Tessaris, S.: Complexity of reasoning with expressive ontology mappings. In: 5th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2008), pp. 151–163 (2008)

  35. Golbreich, C., Wallace, E.K.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language New Features and Rationale, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation 11 December 2012. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/

  36. Grau, B.C., Kutz, O.: Modular ontology languages revisited. In: IJCAI-2007 Workshop on Semantic Web for Collaborative Knowledge Acquisition (SWeCKa’07) (2007)

  37. Grau, B.C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Working with multiple ontologies on the semantic web. In: Third International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2004), pp. 620–634 (2004)

  38. Grau, B.C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Ontology integration using epsilon-connections. In: Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization, pp. 293–320. Springer (2009)

  39. Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2003), pp. 48–57 (2003)

  40. Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3C Working Draft 24 July 2012 available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-query-20120724/

  41. Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/

  42. Herre, H., Jaspars, J., Wagner, G.: Partial logics with two kinds of negation as a foundation of knowledge-based reasoning. In: Gabbay, D.M., Wansing, H. (eds.) What Is Negation? Kluwer Academic Publishers (1999)

  43. Hitzler, P., Krotzsch, M., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation 11 December 2012. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/

  44. Janhunen, T., Oikarinen, E., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Modularity aspects of disjunctive stable models. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 35, 813–857 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Kifer, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning in FLORA-2. In: 8th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-2005), pp. 1–12 (2005)

  46. Kifer, M., Boley, H.: RIF Overview, 2nd edn. W3C Working Group Note 5 February 2013. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-overview/

  47. Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. J. ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/

  49. Kutz, O., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: E-connections of abstract description systems. Artif. Intell. 156(1), 1–73 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Li, N., Mitchell, J.: RT: a role-based trust-management framework. In: DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition (DISCEX III) (2003)

  51. Li, N., Mitchell, J.C.: DATALOG with constraints: a foundation for trust management languages. In: 5th International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL-2003), pp. 58–73 (2003)

  52. Liang, S., Fodor, P., Wan, H., Kifer, M.: OpenRuleBench: an analysis of the performance of rule engines. In: 18th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW-2009), pp. 601–610 (2009)

  53. Lloyd, J.W., Topor, R.W.: Making prolog more expressive. J. Log. Program. 1(3), 225–240 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Niemelä, I., Simons, P.: Smodels—an implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal LP. In: 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’97), pp. 421–430 (1997). Available at http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Software/smodels/

  55. Oikarinen, E., Janhunen, T.: Achieving compositionality of the stable model semantics for smodels programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 8(5–6), 717–761 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Papadimitriou, C.M.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley (1994)

  57. Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 34(3), 16:1–16:45 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Polleres, A.: From SPARQL to rules (and back). In: 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW-2007), pp. 787–796. ACM (2007)

  59. Polleres, A., Feier, C., Harth, A.: Rules with contextually scoped negation. In: 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC-2006), pp. 332–347 (2006)

  60. Prudhommeaux, E., Buil-Aranda, C.: SPARQL 1.1 federated query. W3C Working Draft 17 November 2011 available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-federated-query-20111117/

  61. Sagonas, K.F., Swift, T., Warren, D.S.: XSB as an efficient deductive database engine. In: Snodgrass, R.T., Winslett, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1994 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 442–453. ACM Press (1994). Available at http://xsb.sourceforge.net/

  62. Schaffert, S., Bry, F., Besnard, P., Decker, H., Decker, S., Enguix, C.F., Herzig, A.: Paraconsistent reasoning for the semantic web. In: Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web, co-located with ISWC-2005, pp. 104–105 (2005)

  63. Schenk, S., Staab, S.: Networked graphs: a declarative mechanism for SPARQL rules, SPARQL views and RDF data integration on the web. In: 17th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW-2008), pp. 585–594 (2008)

  64. Serafini, L., Borgida, A., Tamilin, A.: Aspects of distributed and modular ontology reasoning. In: 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2005), pp. 570–575 (2005)

  65. Sintek, M., Decker, S.: TRIPLE—a query, inference, and transformation language for the semantic web. In: 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2002), pp. 364–378. Springer-Verlag (2002)

  66. Stefan Decker, W.N., Sintek, M.: The Model-Theoretic Semantics of TRIPLE. Technical Report (2002)

  67. Stockmeyer, L.J., Meyer, A.R.: Word problems requiring exponential time: preliminary report. In: 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’73), pp. 1–9 (1973)

  68. ter Horst, H.J.: Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary. J. Web Semantics 3(2–3), 79–115 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  69. W3C OWL Working Group: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation 11 December 2012. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

  70. Yang, G., Kifer, M., Zhao, C.: Flora-2: a rule-based knowledge representation and inference infrastructure for the semantic web. In: 2nd International Conference on Ontologies, DataBases and Applications of Semantics for Large Scale Information Systems (ODBASE’03), pp. 671–688 (2003)

  71. Zimmermann, A.: Integrated distributed description logics. In: 2007 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-2007) (2007)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science, FORTH-ICS, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Anastasia Analyti & Grigoris Antoniou

  2. Department of Informatics, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

    Grigoris Antoniou

  3. CENTRIA, Departamento de Informática da Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal

    Carlos Viegas Damásio

  4. Department of Applied Informatics & Multimedia, TEI of Crete, Crete, Greece

    Ioannis Pachoulakis

Authors
  1. Anastasia Analyti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grigoris Antoniou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos Viegas Damásio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ioannis Pachoulakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anastasia Analyti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V. et al. A framework for modular ERDF ontologies. Ann Math Artif Intell 67, 189–249 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-013-9350-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-013-9350-1

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

Search

Navigation