Ontology Reasoning in the SHOQ(D) Description Logic

By Ian Horrocks, U. Sattler. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2001

405 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/35b89d722a0e7016b4d18e3be311aac2dc1dad20

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language (2003, methodology): “…family include the inﬂuential SHIQ Description Logic [23], which adds inverse properties and generalised cardinality restrictions, and SHOQ ( D ) [22], which adds the ability to deﬁne a class by enumerating its instances (e.g., the class { Monday , Tuesday , Wednesday , Thursday , Friday } ) and…”
Reducing OWL Entailment to Description Logic Satisfability (2003, methodology): “In particular, OWL Lite does not support the oneOf constuctor (equivalent to description logic nominals), as this constructor is known to increase theoretical complexity and to lead to difficulties in the design of practical algorithms [ 11 ].”
Complexity results and practical algorithms for logics in knowledge representation (2001, methodology): “This situation is particularly unsatisfactory for the DL SHIQO, for which such a decision procedure would be of high interest due to SHIQO’s rôle for inferences for the semantic web (Fensel et al., 2000; Horrocks & Sattler, 2001).”
Hypertableau Reasoning for Description Logics (2009, background): “Some DLs that include nominals produce only such extended forest-like ABoxes, but the property is lost if the DL also includes both inverse roles and number restrictions [20].”
Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic (2003, unknown): “DAML+OIL is equivalent to a very expressive DL—in fact it is equivalent to the SHOIQ(D) DL [17, 15].”
The Even More Irresistible SROIQ (2006, background): “These can, however, be treated exactly as in SHOQ(D)/SHOQ(Dn) ( Horrocks & Sattler, 2001; Pan & Horrocks, 2003), so we will not complicate our presentation by considering them here.”
Combining answer set programming with description logics for the Semantic Web (2004, background): “As shown by Horrocks & Patel-Schneider (2003b), ontology entailment in OWL Lite and OWL DL reduces to knowledge base (un)satisfiability in the description logics SHIF(D) and SHOIN (D), respectively, where the latter is closely related to SHOQ(D) (Horrocks & Sattler 2001).”
Computing the Least Common Subsumer w.r.t. a Background Terminology (2004, methodology): “In particular, the W3C recommended ontology web language OWL [39] is based on an expressive description logic [40,41].”
Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner (2007, methodology): “Datatype reasoning in Pellet is based on the framework presented in [17].”
A Tableaux Decision Procedure for SHOIQ (2005, background): “, no goal directed procedure that is likely to perform well with realistic ontology derived problems [Tobies, 2001; Horrocks & Sattler, 2001].”
Diagnosing Changes in An Ontology Stream: A DL Reasoning Approach (2012, background): “…a, an atomic role r, EL++ concept expressions C and D can be composed with the following constructs: > | ⊥ | A |CuD | ∃r.C | {a} We slightly abuse the notion of atomic concepts to include >,⊥ and nominals (Horrocks and Sattler 2001) i.e., individuals appearing in concept definitions of form {a}.”
Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules (2004, background): “A related logic, SHIQ(D) [13, 12], distinguished from SHOIN (D) mainly by not supporting nominals (or named objects), has been successfully implemented in practical reasoning systems, such as Racer [9] and FaCT [10].”
Description Logics as Ontology Languages for the Semantic Web (2005, background): “In [ 67 ], decidability of SHIQ extended with a slightly more general type of concrete domains is shown.”
OWL rules: A proposal and prototype implementation (2005, methodology): “OWL DL also provides for XML schema datatypes [6], equivalent to a very simple form of concrete domains [21].”