Reducing OWL Entailment to Description Logic Satisfability

By Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider. Description Logics, 2003

624 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/98ce68ac3307186d2ff982890d9aeafa96d8fc8b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

Citations in the corpus

Combining answer set programming with description logics for the Semantic Web (2004, positive): “, NEXP, assuming unary number encoding; see [21] and the NEXP-hardness proof for ACLQI in [31], which implies the NEXP-hardness of SHOIN (D)).”
Managing uncertainty and vagueness in description logics for the Semantic Web (2008, background): “More specifically, ontology entailment in OWL Lite and OWL DL reduces to knowledge base (un)satisfiability in the expressive description logics SHIF(D) and SHOIN(D) [55,57], respectively.”
fuzzyDL: An expressive fuzzy description logic reasoner (2008, background): “The logical counterpart of OWL Lite and OWL DL are the DLs SHIF(D) and SHOIN (D), respectively [13].”
Conjunctive Query Answering for the Description Logic SHIQ (2007, background): “(DLs) [ 6 ]. Existing DL reasoners1 can, therefore, be used to provide automated”
HermiT: An OWL 2 Reasoner (2014, methodology): “We assume the reader to be familiar with OWL, description logics [12, 22], and the correspondence between the OWL and the description logic syntax [14].”
OWL 2: The next step for OWL (2008, methodology): “OWL 1 DL was designed, on the one hand, as a notational variant of the expressive description logic SHOIN (D) [17]; on the other hand, it was very important for OWL 1 to be compatible with existing Semantic Web languages such as RDF.”
News events prediction using Markov logic networks (2018, background): “OWL semantics are based on description logics (DLs) [44].”
Finding All Justifications of OWL DL Entailments (2007, methodology): “3 [6] describes the translation of a particular SHOIN (D) entailment test to a concept”
Knowledge Graphs (2020, positive): “A common strategy for deciding such entailments is to reduce entailment to satisfiability, which decides if an ontology is consistent or not [252].”
Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner (2007, background): “In [7], the general entailment problem for OWL-DL is reduced to KB consistency problem by means of an appropriate transformation.”
Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF Schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary (2005, background): “With regard to computational complexity, OWL DL entailment is known to be complete for NEXPTIME, while entailment for the OWL Lite part is known to be complete for EXPTIME [9].”
OWL rules: A proposal and prototype implementation (2005, methodology): “It is well known that OWL DL corresponds to the SHOINDn Description Logic (DL), and that, like most other DLs, SHOINDn is a fragment of classical first-order predicate logic (FOL) [10, 19, 1].”