Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic

By Benjamin N. Grosof, Ian Horrocks, R. Volz, Stefan Decker. The Web Conference, 2003

1,163 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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). DLP provides a significant degree of expressiveness, substantially greater than the RDF-Schema fragment of Description Logic. We show how to perform DLP-fusion: the bidirectional translation of premises and inferences (including typical kinds of queries) from the DLP fragment of DL to LP, and vice versa from the DLP fragment of LP to DL. In particular, this translation enables one to "build rules on top of ontologies": it enables the rule KR to have access to DL ontological definitions for vocabulary primitives (e.g., predicates and individual constants) used by the rules. Conversely, the DLP-fusion technique likewise enables one to "build ontologies on top of rules": it enables ontological definitions to be supplemented by rules, or imported into DL from rules. It also enables available efficient LP inferencing algorithms/implementations to be exploited for reasoning over large-scale DL ontologies.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d118b74ed2083467746848525b29772adb49795c

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

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

ELP: Tractable Rules for OWL 2 (2008, methodology): “Yet, DLP and EL++ inferences can be recovered in ELP without losing tractability.”
Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules (2004, background): “Although OWL-DL is very expressive, it is a decidable fragment of firstorder logic, and thus cannot express arbitrary axioms: the only axioms it can express are of a certain tree-structure [8].”
A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies (2009, background): “and DLP [54], which are underlying the OWL 2 profiles QL, EL, and RL [104], respectively, as well as ELP [69], SROEL(×) [65], and SROELV3(u,×) [66].”
Tractable Reasoning and Efficient Query Answering in Description Logics: The DL-Lite Family (2007, methodology): “Moreover, if we move from RDFS to DLP [23], query answering becomes PTime-hard, as shown in [14].”
Linking Data to Ontologies (2008, background): “Possible restrictions that guarantee polynomial reasoning have been studied and proposed in the context of description logics, such as Horn-SHIQ [17], EL [3], and DLP [12].”
Combining answer set programming with description logics for the Semantic Web (2004, background): “also (Alsaç & Baral 2001)), Swift (2004), Grosof et al.(2003), and Heymans and Vermeir (2003a; 2003b). In detail, Van Belleghem et al. (1997) presents a mapping of description logic knowledge bases inALCN to open logic programs, and shows how other description logics correspond to sublanguages of op”
OWLIM - A Pragmatic Semantic Repository for OWL (2005, neutral): “It is defined in [3] as the intersection of the expressivity of OWL DL and LP, which is more clearly layered on top of RDFS.”
Semantic Web in the context broker architecture (2004, background): “Research in developing language constructs for representing rules in Semantic Web languages is underway [9].”
Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number : 1072954 Registered office : (2004, methodology): “For instance, as noted by Grosof et al. (2003), DL axioms that generate a rule with a disjunction in its head cannot be represented in logic programming.”
Web Ontology Language: OWL (2004, background): “This conundrum was nicely resolved in [13], which identified a fragment of OWL baptised DLP, for Description Logic Programming: this fragment is the largest fragment on which the choice for CWA and UNA does not matter as depicted in Fig.”
Data Complexity of Query Answering in Description Logics (2006, neutral): “Finally, if we move from RDFS to DLP (Grosof et al. 2003), query answering becomes PTIME-hard, since DLP is a superset of the DL in case 1 of Theorem 7.”
OWL 2: The next step for OWL (2008, background): “Similar principles have been followed in the design of Description Logic Programs (DLP) [9].”
Relationships and data sanitization: a study in scarlet (2010, background): “LP languages, such as Prolog, provide a logical foundation based on very different assumptions than description logic (DL) languages (and ontology languages) [40].”
The Web Service Modeling Language WSML: An Overview (2006, methodology): “WSML-Core allows only rst-order formulae which can be translated to the DLP subset of SHIQ(D) [ 13 ].”