Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 245–269

HermiT: An OWL 2 Reasoner

  • Birte Glimm
  • Ian Horrocks
  • Boris Motik
  • Giorgos Stoilos
  • Zhe Wang
Article

Abstract

This system description paper introduces the OWL 2 reasoner HermiT. The reasoner is fully compliant with the OWL 2 Direct Semantics as standardised by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). HermiT is based on the hypertableau calculus, and it supports a wide range of standard and novel optimisations that improve the performance of reasoning on real-world ontologies. Apart from the standard OWL 2 reasoning task of entailment checking, HermiT supports several specialised reasoning services such as class and property classification, as well as a range of features outside the OWL 2 standard such as DL-safe rules, SPARQL queries, and description graphs. We discuss the system’s architecture, and we present an overview of the techniques used to support the mentioned reasoning tasks. We further compare the performance of reasoning in HermiT with that of FaCT++ and Pellet—two other popular and widely used OWL 2 reasoners.

Keywords

Ontologies OWL Class classification Property classification Optimisations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Armas Romero, A., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I.: MORe: Modular combination of OWL reasoners for ontology classification. In: Proc. of the 11th Int. Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC 2012), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7649, pp. 1–16. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.).: The Description Logic Handbook, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Sattler, U.: An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Stud. Logica. 69, 5–40 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: The next step for OWL. J. Web Semant. 6(4), 309–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Motik, B., Stoilos, G., Horrocks, I.: Computing datalog rewritings beyond horn ontologies. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) Proc. of the 23rd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2013), pp. 832–838. Beijing, China (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gardiner, T., Horrocks, I., Tsarkov, D.: Automated benchmarking of description logic reasoners. In: Proc. of the 2006 Int. Workshop on Description Logic (DL 2006), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 189 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B.: Optimized description logic reasoning via core blocking. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) Proc. of the 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2010), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6173, pp 457–471. Springer, Edinburgh (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Shearer, R., Stoilos, G.: A novel approach to ontology classification. J. Web Semant. 14, 84–101 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glimm, B., Krötzsch, M.: SPARQL beyond subgraph matching. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC 2010), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6414, pp. 241–256. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glimm, B., Ogbuji, C.: SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. W3C Recommendation (2013). Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/
  11. 11.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3C Recommendation (2013). Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/
  12. 12.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S.: Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. Chapman & Hall/CRC (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horridge, M., Bechhofer, S.: The OWL API: a java API for OWL ontologies. Semant. Web J. 2(1), 11–21 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. J. Web Semant. 1(4), 345–357 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: a semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission (2004). Available at http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Decidability of 𝓢ℋ𝓘𝓠 with complex role inclusion axioms. Artif. Intell. 160(1–2), 79–104 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: A tableau decision procedure for 𝓢ℋ𝓞𝓘𝓠. J. Autom. Reason. 39(3), 249–276 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hudek, A.K., Weddell, G.E.: Binary absorption in tableaux-based reasoning for description logics. In: Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Toman, D. (eds.) Proc. of the 2006 Int. Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2006), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 189. Windermere, UK (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Data complexity of reasoning in very expressive description logics. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pp. 466–471. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Edinburgh, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kazakov, Y., Krötzsch, M., Simančík, F.: The incredible ELK: from polynomial procedures to efficient reasoning with EL ontologies. J. Autom. Reason. 1–61 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kollia, I., Glimm, B.: Optimizing SPARQL Query Answering over OWL Ontologies. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 48, 253–303 (2013)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krötzsch, M., Simančík, F., Horrocks, I.: A Description Logic Primer. Computing Research Repository (CoRR) abs/1201.4089 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kutz, O., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible 𝓢𝓡𝓞𝓘𝓠. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 68–78. AAAI Press, Lake District, UK (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Motik, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Representing ontologies using description logics, description graphs, and rules. Artif. Intell. J. 173(14), 1275–1309 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I.: Individual reuse in description logic reasoning. In: roc. of the Int. Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5195, pp. 242–258. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I.: OWL Datatypes: design and implementation. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5318, pp. 307–322. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Cuenca Grau, B.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation (2012). Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/
  28. 28.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B. (eds.).: OWL 2 web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation (2012). Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
  29. 29.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. J. Web Semant. 3(1), 41–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Motik, B., Shearer, R., Horrocks, I.: Hypertableau reasoning for description logics. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 36, 165–228 (2009)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nonnengart, A., Weidenbach, C.: Computing small clause normal forms. In: Robinson, J.A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. 1, chap. 6, pp. 335–367. Elsevier and MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Plaisted, D.A., Greenbaum, S.: A structure-preserving clause form translation. J. Symb. Comput. 2(3), 293–304 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (2008). Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  34. 34.
    Rector, A., Gangemi, A., Galeazzi, E., Glowinski, A.J., Mori, A.R.: The GALEN CORE model schemata for anatomy: towards a re-usable application-independent model of medical concepts. In: Proc. of the 12th Int. Congress of the European Federation for Medical Informatics (MIE 1994), pp. 229– 233 (1994)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simančík, F., Kazakov, Y., Horrocks, I.: Consequence-based reasoning beyond horn ontologies. In: T. Walsh (ed.) Proc. of the 22nd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 1093–1098. Barcelona, Spain (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoner. J. Web Semant. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Song, W., Spencer, B., Du, W.: WSReasoner: a prototype hybrid reasoner for ALCHOI ontology classification using a weakening and strengthening approach. In: Horrocks, I., Yatskevich, M., Jiménez-Ruiz, E. (eds.) Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on OWL Reasoner Evaluation (ORE 2012), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 858. Manchester, UK (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: Efficient reasoning with range and domain constraints. In: Haarslev, V., Möller, R. (eds.) Proc. of the 2004 Int. Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2004), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 104 (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: FaCT++ description logic reasoner: system description. In: Proceedings of the 6th Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4130, pp. 292–297. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Optimizing terminological reasoning for expressive description logics. J. Autom. Reason. 39(3), 277–316 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birte Glimm
    • 1
  • Ian Horrocks
    • 2
  • Boris Motik
    • 2
  • Giorgos Stoilos
    • 3
  • Zhe Wang
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.School of Electrical & Computer EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensZografouGreece
  4. 4.School of Information & Communication TechnologyGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations