Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Relation with DL+Log and Other Related Work
Conclusions and Directions for Further Research
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Computational Theory and Mathematics

Guarded Hybrid Knowledge Bases

Profile image of Davy Van NieuwenborghDavy Van Nieuwenborgh

2007, Computing Research Repository

Abstract

Recently, there has been a lot of interest in the integration of Description Logics and rules on the Semantic Web. We define guarded hybrid knowledge bases (or g-hybrid knowledge bases) as knowl- edge bases that consist of a Description Logic knowledge base and a guarded logic program, similar to the DL+log knowledge bases from (Rosati 2006). G-hybrid knowledge bases enable

Related papers

Description logics for the semantic web
Ian Horrocks

2002

Abstract The vision of a Semantic Web has recently drawn considerable attention, both from academia and industry. Description Logics are often named as one of the tools that can support the Semantic Web and thus help to make this vision reality. In this paper, we sketch what Description Logics are and what they can do for the Semantic Web. Descriptions Logics are very useful for defining, integrating, and maintaining ontologies, which provide the Semantic Web with a common understanding of the basic semantic concepts used to annotate Web pages.

View PDFchevron_right
Rules and ontologies for the semantic Web
Giovambattista Ianni

2008

Rules and ontologies play a key role in the layered architecture of the Semantic Web, as they are used to ascribe meaning to, and to reason about, data on the Web. While the Ontology Layer of the Semantic Web is quite developed, and the Web Ontology Language (OWL) is a W3C recommendation since a couple of years already, the rules layer is far less developed and an active area of research; a number of initiatives and proposals have been made so far, but no standard as been released yet. Many implementations of rule engines are around which deal with Semantic Web data in one or another way. This article gives a comprehensive, although not exhaustive, overview of such systems, describes their supported languages, and sets them in relation with theoretical approaches for combining rules and ontologies as foreseen in the Semantic Web architecture. In the course of this, we identify desired properties and common features of rule languages and evaluate existing systems against their support. Furthermore, we review technical problems underlying the integration of rules and ontologies, and classify representative proposals for theoretical integration approaches into different categories.

View PDFchevron_right
Well-founded semantics for description logic programs in the semantic web
Thomas Eiter

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2011

The realization of the Semantic Web vision, in which computational logic has a prominent role, has stimulated a lot of research on combining rules and ontologies, which are formulated in different formalisms. In particular, combining logic programming with the Web Ontology Language (OWL), which is a standard based on description logics, emerged as an important issue for linking the Rules and Ontology Layers of the Semantic Web. Nonmonotonic description logic programs ( dl-programs ) were introduced for such a combination, in which a pair (L,P) of a description logic knowledge base L and a set of rules P with negation as failure is given a model-based semantics that generalizes the answer set semantics of logic programs. In this article, we reconsider dl-programs and present a well-founded semantics for them as an analog for the other main semantics of logic programs. It generalizes the canonical definition of the well-founded semantics based on unfounded sets, and, as we show, lifts...

View PDFchevron_right
Translating OWL and semantic web rules into prolog: Moving toward description logic programs
Deborah Nichols

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 2008

We are researching the interaction between the rule and the ontology layers of the Semantic Web, by comparing two options: 1) using OWL and its rule extension SWRL to develop an integrated ontology/rule language, and 2) layering rules on top of an ontology with RuleML and OWL. Toward this end, we are developing the SWORIER system, which enables efficient automated reasoning on ontologies and rules, by translating all of them into Prolog and adding a set of general rules that properly capture the semantics of OWL. We have also enabled the user to make dynamic changes on the fly, at run time. This work addresses several of the concerns expressed in previous work, such as negation, complementary classes, disjunctive heads, and cardinality, and it discusses alternative approaches for dealing with inconsistencies in the knowledge base. In addition, for efficiency, we implemented techniques called extensionalization, avoiding reanalysis, and code minimization.

View PDFchevron_right
Representing ontologies using description logics, description graphs, and rules☆
Uli Sattler

Artificial Intelligence, 2009

Description logics (DLs) are a family of state-of-the-art knowledge representation languages, and their expressive power has been carefully crafted to provide useful knowledge modeling primitives while allowing for practically effective decision procedures for the basic reasoning problems. Recent experience with DLs, however, has shown that their expressivity is often insufficient to accurately describe structured objects-objects whose parts are interconnected in arbitrary, rather than tree-like ways. DL knowledge bases describing structured objects are therefore usually underconstrained, which precludes the entailment of certain consequences and causes performance problems during reasoning. To address this problem, we propose an extension of DL languages with description graphs-a knowledge modeling construct that can accurately describe objects with parts connected in arbitrary ways. Furthermore, to enable modeling the conditional aspects of structured objects, we also extend DLs with rules. We present an in-depth study of the computational properties of such a formalism. In particular, we first identify the sources of undecidability of the general, unrestricted formalism. Based on that analysis, we then investigate several restrictions of the general formalism that make reasoning decidable. We present practical evidence that such a logic can be used to model nontrivial structured objects. Finally, we present a practical decision procedure for our formalism, as well as tight complexity bounds.

View PDFchevron_right
A well-founded semantics for hybrid MKNF knowledge bases
Jose Alferes

2007

View PDFchevron_right
A Framework for Composition and Inter-operation of Rules in the Semantic Web
Chitta Baral

2006

Abstract Developments in the RuleML initiative have led to the design of several languages for representing rules. In this paper we describe a framework, based on the integration of different flavors of logic programming, aimed at facilitate reasoning with multiple sources of knowledge expressed in an heterogeneity of RuleML languages. The framework allows the derivation of logic programming modules from each rule base, and their inter-operation through a well-defined module interface.

View PDFchevron_right
Reasoning with Rules and Ontologies
G. Ianni

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006

For realizing the Semantic Web vision, extensive work is underway for getting the layers of its conceived architecture ready. Given that the Ontology Layer has reached a certain level of maturity with W3C recommendations such as RDF and the OWL Web Ontology Language, current interest focuses on the Rules Layer and its integration with the Ontology Layer. Several proposals have been made for solving this problem, which does not have a straightforward solution due to various obstacles. One of them is the fact that evaluation principles like the closed-world assumption, which is common in rule languages, are usually not adopted in ontologies. Furthermore, naively adding rules to ontologies raises undecidability issues. In this paper, after giving a brief overview about the current state of the Semantic-Web stack and its components, we will discuss nonmonotonic logic programs under the answer-set semantics as a possible formalism of choice for realizing the Rules Layer. We will briefly discuss open issues in combining rules and ontologies, and survey some existing proposals to facilitate reasoning with rules and ontologies. We will then focus on description-logic programs (or dl-programs, for short), which realize a transparent integration of rules and ontologies supported by existing reasoning engines, based on the answer-set semantics. We will further discuss a generalization of dlprograms, viz. HEX-programs, which offer access to different ontologies as well as higher-order language constructs.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantically-enhanced authoring of defeasible logic rule bases in the semantic web
Nick Bassiliades

2012

Abstract The Semantic Web represents an initiative to improve the current Web, by augmenting content with semantics and encouraging cooperation among human and software agents. The development of the logic and proof layers of the Semantic Web is currently concentrating the related research effort and is vital, since these layers allow systems to infer new knowledge from existing information, assisting them in explaining their actions and, ultimately, increasing user trust towards the Semantic Web.

View PDFchevron_right
Description logics as ontology languages for the semantic web
Ian Horrocks

2005

The vision of a Semantic Web has recently drawn considerable attention, both from academia and industry. Description logics are often named as one of the tools that can support the Semantic Web and thus help to make this vision reality. In this paper, we describe what description logics are and what they can do for the Semantic Web.

View PDFchevron_right

References (27)

  1. BAADER, F., CALVANESE, D., MCGUINNESS, D., NARDI, D., AND PATEL-SCHNEIDER, P. 2003. The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press.
  2. CALVANESE, D., DE GIACOMO, G., AND LENZERINI, M. 1997. Conjunctive Query Containment in Description Logics with n-ary Relations. In Proc. of the 1997 Description Logic Workshop (DL'97). 5-9.
  3. DE BRUIJN, J., EITER, T., POLLERES, A., AND TOMPITS, H. 2006. On representational issues about combinations of classical theories with nonmonotonic rules. In Proceedings of the First In- ternational Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management (KSEM'06). Num- ber 4092 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Guilin, China.
  4. DE BRUIJN, J., EITER, T., POLLERES, A., AND TOMPITS, H. 2007. Embedding non-ground logic programs into autoepistemic logic for knowledge-base combination. In Proceedings of the Twenti- eth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-07). AAAI Press, Hyderabad, India.
  5. DE BRUIJN, J., PEARCE, D., POLLERES, A., AND VALVERDE, A. 2006. A logic for hybrid rules. In Proceedings of the Ontology and Rule Integration Workshop at the 2nd International Conference on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web. Athens, Georgia, USA.
  6. DEAN, M. AND SCHREIBER, G., Eds. 2004. OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004.
  7. DONINI, F. M., LENZERINI, M., NARDI, D., AND SCHAERF, A. 1998. AL-log: Integrating Datalog and Description Logics. J. of Intell. and Cooperative Information Systems 10, 227-252.
  8. EITER, T., LUKASIEWICZ, T., SCHINDLAUER, R., AND TOMPITS, H. 2004. Combining Answer Set Programming with DLs for the Semantic Web. In Proc. of KR 2004. 141-151.
  9. GELFOND, M. AND LIFSCHITZ, V. 1988. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In Proc. of ICLP'88. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1070-1080.
  10. GR ÄDEL, E. AND WALUKIEWICZ, I. 1999. Guarded Fixed Point Logic. In Proc. of LICS '99. IEEE Computer Society, 45-54.
  11. HEYMANS, S., VAN NIEUWENBORGH, D., FENSEL, D., AND VERMEIR, D. 2006. Reasoning with the Description Logic DLRO -{≤} using Bound Guarded Programs. In Proc. of Reasoning on the Web workshop (RoW 2006). Edinburgh, UK.
  12. HEYMANS, S., VAN NIEUWENBORGH, D., AND VERMEIR, D. 2005a. Guarded Open Answer Set Programming. In LPNMR 2005. Number 3662 in LNAI. Springer, 92-104.
  13. HEYMANS, S., VAN NIEUWENBORGH, D., AND VERMEIR, D. 2005b. Nonmonotonic Ontological and Rule-Based Reasoning with Extended Conceptual Logic Programs. In Proc. of ESWC 2005. Number 3532 in LNCS. Springer, 392-407.
  14. HEYMANS, S., VAN NIEUWENBORGH, D., AND VERMEIR, D. 2006a. Conceptual logic pro- grams. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (Special Issue on Answer Set Program- ming) 47, 1-2 (June), 103-137.
  15. HEYMANS, S., VAN NIEUWENBORGH, D., AND VERMEIR, D. 2006b. Open answer set program- ming with guarded programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL). Accepted for Publication.
  16. HORROCKS, I. AND PATEL-SCHNEIDER, P. 2004a. Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. J. of Web Semantics 1, 4, 345-357.
  17. HORROCKS, I. AND PATEL-SCHNEIDER, P. F. 2004b. A proposal for an OWL rules language. In Proc. of the Thirteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004). ACM, 723-731.
  18. HUSTADT, U., MOTIK, B., AND SATTLER, U. 2004. Reducing SHIQ -description logic to disjunc- tive logic programs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Knowledge Represen- tation and Reasoning KR2004. Whistler, Canada, 152-162.
  19. INOUE, K. AND SAKAMA, C. 1998. Negation as failure in the head. Journal of Logic Program- ming 35, 1, 39-78.
  20. LEVY, A. Y. AND ROUSSET, M. 1996. CARIN: A Representation Language Combining Horn Rules and Description Logics. In Proc. of ECAI'96. 323-327.
  21. LIFSCHITZ, V., PEARCE, D., AND VALVERDE, A. 2001. Strongly Equivalent Logic Programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, 4, 526-541.
  22. MOTIK, B. AND ROSATI, R. 2007. A faithful integration of description logics with logic program- ming. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-07). Hyderabad, India.
  23. MOTIK, B., SATTLER, U., AND STUDER, R. 2004. Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules. In Proc. of ISWC 2004. Number 3298 in LNCS. Springer, 549-563.
  24. ROSATI, R. 2005a. On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. Web Semantics 3, 1, 41-60.
  25. ROSATI, R. 2005b. Semantic and computational advantages of the safe integration of ontologies and rules. In Proc. of the Third International Workshop on Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning (PPSWR 2005). LNCS, vol. 3703. Springer, 50-64.
  26. ROSATI, R. 2006. DL+log: Tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In Proc. of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006). AAAI Press, 68-78.
  27. SWIFT, T. 2004. Deduction in Ontologies via Answer Set Programming. In LPNMR, V. Lifschitz and I. Niemelä, Eds. LNCS, vol. 2923. Springer, 275-288.

Related papers

A semantical framework for hybrid knowledge bases
David Pearce

2010

Abstract In the ongoing discussion about combining rules and ontologies on the Semantic Web a recurring issue is how to combine first-order classical logic with nonmonotonic rule languages. Whereas several modular approaches to define a combined semantics for such hybrid knowledge bases focus mainly on decidability issues, we tackle the matter from a more general point of view.

View PDFchevron_right
On updates of hybrid knowledge bases composed of ontologies and rules
Theresa Swift

Artificial Intelligence, 2015

Throughout the last decade, two distinct knowledge representation paradigms have been standardised to capture rich metadata on the Web: ontology languages based on Classical Logic and reasoning rules based on Logic Programming. Both offer important features for knowledge representation and the interest in their integration has recently resulted in frameworks for hybrid knowledge bases that consist of an ontology and a rule component. Instead of the usual static view of hybrid knowledge, in this paper we address its dynamics and in particular focus on updates. We develop two hybrid update semantics that fit the needs of particular use cases of hybrid knowledge and provide the expected results when used in specific application domains. The first semantics uses a given ontology update operator to update the ontology component of a hybrid knowledge base in the presence of static rules. Inspired by a realistic application, and based on a generalised notion of splitting, known from Logic Programming, the second semantics offers a way to modularly combine an ontology update operator with a rule update semantics. It can be used for performing updates of hybrid knowledge bases consisting of ontology and rule layers that share information through a rule-based interface. Both of these developments constitute solutions to the problem of hybrid updates for restricted classes of hybrid knowledge bases. We examine their fundamental formal properties and show that despite the different ideas behind each of them, they are fully compatible with one another, i.e. when both are applicable, they lead to the same result.

View PDFchevron_right
Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic
Ian Horrocks

2003

Abstract We show how to interoperate, semantically and inferentially, between the leading Semantic Web approaches to rules (RuleML Logic Programs) and ontologies (OWL/DAML+ OIL Description Logic) via analyzing their expressive intersection. To do so, we define a new intermediate knowledge representation (KR) contained within this intersection: Description Logic Programs (DLP), and the closely related Description Horn Logic (DHL) which is an expressive fragment of first-order logic (FOL).

View PDFchevron_right
Hybrid reasoning with rules and ontologies
Giovambattista Ianni

2009

For realizing the Semantic Web vision, extensive work is underway for getting the layers of its conceived architecture ready. Given that the Ontology Layer has reached a certain level of maturity with W3C recommendations such as RDF and the OWL Web Ontology Language, current interest focuses on the Rules Layer and its integration with the Ontology Layer. Several proposals have been made for solving this problem, which does not have a straightforward solution due to various obstacles. One of them is the fact that evaluation principles like the closed-world assumption, which is common in rule languages, are usually not adopted in ontologies. Furthermore, naively adding rules to ontologies raises undecidability issues. In this paper, after giving a brief overview about the current state of the Semantic-Web stack and its components, we will discuss nonmonotonic logic programs under the answer-set semantics as a possible formalism of choice for realizing the Rules Layer. We will briefly discuss open issues in combining rules and ontologies, and survey some existing proposals to facilitate reasoning with rules and ontologies. We will then focus on description-logic programs (or dl-programs, for short), which realize a transparent integration of rules and ontologies supported by existing reasoning engines, based on the answer-set semantics. We will further discuss a generalization of dlprograms, viz. HEX-programs, which offer access to different ontologies as well as higher-order language constructs.

View PDFchevron_right
Rule-Based Chaining with Ontological Constraint Checking: A Hybrid Reasoning System for Semantic Web
Hataichanok Unphon

2005

An integrated system for knowledge representation, consisting of a structural component and a relational component, is presented, and its application to Semantic Web is outlined. Grounded upon Description Logics (DL), the structural component enables representation of ontologies along with Resource Description Framework (RDF) annotations of Web contents, and various kinds of ontology-based reasoning. The relational component, by contrast, allows one to describe relationships between individuals using an extended form of Horn rules, in which terminological membership constraints can be specified. Reasoning process in the integrated system is driven by an extended backward-chaining algorithm embedded in the relational component. The two components interact by means of knowledge base unsatisfiability checking, which is supported by a state-of-the-art DL system, called RACER.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Description Logic
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved