Nonmonotonic Ontological and Rule-Based Reasoning with Extended Conceptual Logic Programs

  • Stijn Heymans
  • Davy Van Nieuwenborgh
  • Dirk Vermeir
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3532)


We present extended conceptual logic programs (ECLPs), for which reasoning is decidable and, moreover, can be reduced to finite answer set programming. ECLPs are useful to reason with both ontological and rule-based knowledge, which is illustrated by simulating reasoning in an expressive description logic (DL) equipped with DL-safe rules. Furthermore, ECLPs are more expressive in the sense that they enable nonmonotonic reasoning, a desirable feature in locally closed subareas of the Semantic Web.


Description Logic Horn Clause Domain Element Nonmonotonic Reasoning Unary Predicate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    The Rule Markup Initiative,
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G.: A Nonmonotonic Rule System using Ontologies. In: CEUR Proceedings (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Sattler, U.: Number Restrictions on Complex Roles in Description logics. In: Proc. of KR 1996, pp. 328–339 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bechhofer, S., Goble, C., Horrocks, I.: DAML+OIL is not Enough. In: Proc. of the First Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS 2001) CEUR, pp. 151–159 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference (2004),
  8. 8.
    Borgida, A.: On the Relative Expressiveness of Description Logics and Predicate Logics. Artificial Intelligence 82(1-2), 353–367 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Voronkov, A.: Complexity and Expressive Power of Logic Programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(3), 374–425 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining Answer Set Programming with DLs for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. of KR 2004, pp. 141–151 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Well-Founded Semantics for Description Logic Programs in the Semantic Web. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 81–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friendman-Hill, E.J.: Jess homepage:
  13. 13.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In: Proc. of ICLP 1988, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Golbreich, C.: Combining Rule and Ontology Reasoners for the Semantic Web. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 6–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grosof, B.N., Poon, T.C.: SweetDeal: Representing Agent Contracts with Exceptions using XML Rules, Ontologies, and Process Descriptions. In: Proc. of WWW 2003, pp. 340–349. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haarslev, V., Moller, R.: Description of the RACER System and its Applications. In: Proc. of Description Logics 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heymans, S., Van Nieuwenborgh, D., Vermeir, D.: Semantic Web Reasoning with Conceptual Logic Programs. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 113–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.: Reducing OWL Entailment to Description Logic Satisfiability. J. of Web Semantics (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A Proposal for an OWL Rules Language. In: Proc. of WWW 2004. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horrocks, I., Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule language Combining OWL and RuleML (May 2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leone, N., Faber, W., Pfeifer, G.: DLV homepage:
  22. 22.
    Mei, J., Liu, S., Yue, A., Lin, Z.: An Extension to OWL with General Rules. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 6–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 549–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible Logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 353–395. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simons, P.: Smodels homepage,
  26. 26.
    Smith, M., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.: OWL Web Ontology Language Guide (2004),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stijn Heymans
    • 1
  • Davy Van Nieuwenborgh
    • 1
  • Dirk Vermeir
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit Brussel, VUBBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations