Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 81–104 | Cite as

A semantical framework for hybrid knowledge bases

  • Jos de Bruijn
  • David Pearce
  • Axel PolleresEmail author
  • Agustín Valverde
Regular Paper

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. In this paper, we show how Quantified Equilibrium Logic (QEL) can function as a unified framework which embraces classical logic as well as disjunctive logic programs under the (open) answer set semantics. In the proposed variant of QEL, we relax the unique names assumption, which was present in earlier versions of QEL. Moreover, we show that this framework elegantly captures the existing modular approaches for hybrid knowledge bases in a unified way.

Keywords

Hybrid knowledge bases Ontologies Nonmonotonic rules Semantic web Logic programming Quantified equilibrium logic Answer set programming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baral C (2002) Knowledge representation, reasoning and declarative problem solving. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cabalar P, Odintsov SP, Pearce D, Valverde A (2006) Analysing and extending well-founded and partial stable semantics using partial equilibrium logic. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on logic programming (ICLP 2006), vol 4079 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Seattle, WA, USA, pp 346–360Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Bruijn J, Eiter T, Polleres A, Tompits H (2006) On representational issues about combinations of classical theories with nonmonotonic rules. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on knowledge science, Engineering and management (KSEM’06), number 4092 in lecture notes in computer science, Springer-Verlag, Guilin, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bruijn J, Eiter T, Polleres A, Tompits H (2007) Embedding non-ground logic programs into autoepistemic logic for knowledge-base combination. In: Proceedings of the twentieth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-07), AAAI, Hyderabad, India, pp 304–309Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Bruijn J, Pearce D, Polleres A, Valverde A (2007) Quantified equilibrium logic and hybrid rules, In: First international conference on web reasoning and rule systems (RR2007), vol 4524 of lecture notes in computer science, Springer, Innsbruck, Austria, pp 58–72Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Bruijn J, Eiter T, Tompits H (2008) Embedding approaches to combining rules and ontologies into autoepistemic logic. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR2008), AAAI, Sydney, Australia, pp 485–495Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drabent W, Henriksson J, Maluszynski J (2007) Hybrid reasoning with rules and constraints under well-founded semantics, In: First international conference on web reasoning and rule systems (RR2007), vol 4524 of lecture notes in computer science, Springer, Innsbruck, Austria, pp 348–357Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter T, Fink M, Tompits H, Woltran S (2005) Strong and uniform equivalence in answer-set programming: characterizations and complexity results for the non-ground case. In: Proceedings of the twentieth national conference on artificial intelligence and the seventeenth innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference, pp 695–700Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter T, Ianni G, Schindlauer R, Tompits H (2005) A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In: IJCAI 2005, pp 90–96Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiter T, Lukasiewicz T, Schindlauer R, Tompits H (2004) Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’04)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ensan F, Du W (2009) A knowledge encapsulation approach to ontology modularization. Knowledge and Information Systems Online First, to appearGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferraris P, Lee J, Lifschitz V (2007) A new perspective on stable models. In: Proceedings of the twentieth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-07), AAAI, Hyderabad, India, pp 372–379Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghilardi S, Lutz C, Wolter F (2006) Did I damage my ontology: a case for conservative extensions of description logics. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’06), pp 187–197Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heymans S (2006) Decidable open answer set programming, PhD thesis, Theoretical Computer Science Lab (TINF). Department of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heymans S, Nieuwenborgh DV, Vermeir D (2005) Guarded open answer set programming. In: 8th International conference on logic programming and non monotonic reasoning (LPNMR 2005), volume 3662 in ‘LNAI’, Springer, pp 92–104Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heymans S, Predoiu L, Feier C, de Bruijn J, van Nieuwenborgh D (2006) G-hybrid knowledge bases. In: Workshop on applications of logic programming in the semantic web and semantic web services (ALPSWS 2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jing Y, Jeong D, Baik D-K (2009) SPARQL graph pattern rewriting for OWL-DL inference queries. Knowl Inf Syst 20: 243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knorr M, Alferes J, Hitzler P (2008) A coherent well-founded model for hybrid mknf knowledge bases. In: 18th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI2008). Volume 178 in ‘Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications’, IOS Press, pp 99–103Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lifschitz V, Pearce D, Valverde A (2001) Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Trans Comput Log 2(4): 526–541CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lifschitz V, Pearce D, Valverde A (2007) A characterization of strong equivalence for logic programs with variables. In: 9th International conference on logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning (LPNMR), Vol. 4483 of lecture notes in computer science, Springer, Tempe, AZ, USA, pp 188–200Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lifschitz V, Woo T (1992) Answer sets in general nonmonotonic reasoning (preliminary report). In: Nebel B, Rich C, Swartout W (eds) ‘KR’92. Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the third international conference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, pp 603–614Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin F (2002) Reducing strong equivalence of logic programs to entailment in classical propositional logic. In: Proceedings of the eights international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’02), pp 170–176Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Motik B, Rosati R (2007) A faithful integration of description logics with logic programming. In: Proceedings of the twentieth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-07), AAAI, Hyderabad, India, pp 477–482Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pearce D (1997) A new logical characterization of stable models and answer sets. In: Proceedings of NMELP 96, vol 1216 of lecture notes in computer science, Springer, pp 57–70Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pearce D (2006) ‘Equilibrium logic’. Ann Math Artif Intell 47: 3–41zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pearce D, Valverde A (2005) A first-order nonmonotonic extension of constructive logic. Studia Logica 80: 321–346zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pearce D, Valverde A, (2006) Quantfied equilibrium logic, Technical report, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, (in press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Polleres A (2007) From SPARQL to rules (and back), in ‘WWW 2007’, pp 787–796Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosati R (2005) On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. J Web Semant 3(1): 61–73Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosati R (2005b) Semantic and computational advantages of the safe integration of ontologies and rules. In: Proceedings of the third international workshop on principles and practice of semantic web reasoning (PPSWR 2005), vol 3703 of lecture notes in computer science, Springer, pp 50–64Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosati R (2006) \({\mathcal{DL}+log}\): tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’06), pp 68–78Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Dalen D (1983) Logic and structure. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang K, Billington D, Blee J, Antoniou G (2004) Combining description logic and defeasible logic for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the third international workshop rules and rule markup languages for the semantic web (RuleML 2004), vol 3323 of lecture notes in computer science, Springer, pp 170–181Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jos de Bruijn
    • 1
  • David Pearce
    • 2
  • Axel Polleres
    • 3
    Email author
  • Agustín Valverde
    • 4
  1. 1.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Universidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.DERI GalwayNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  4. 4.Universidad de MálagaMálagaSpain

Personalised recommendations