Semantic and Computational Advantages of the Safe Integration of Ontologies and Rules

  • Riccardo Rosati
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3703)


Description Logics (DLs) are playing a central role in ontologies and in the Semantic Web, since they are currently the most used formalisms for building ontologies. Both semantic and computational issues arise when extending DLs with rule-based components. In particular, integrating DLs with nonmonotonic rules requires to properly deal with two semantic discrepancies: (a) DLs are based on the Open World Assumption, while rules are based on (various forms of) Closed World Assumption; (b) The DLs specifically designed for the Semantic Web, i.e., OWL and OWL-DL, are not based on the Unique Name Assumption, while rule-based systems typically adopt the Unique Name Assumption. In this paper we present the following contributions: (1) We define safe hybrid knowledge bases, a general formal framework for integrating ontologies and rules, which provides for a clear treatment of the above semantic issues; (2) We present a reasoning algorithm and establish general decidability and complexity results for reasoning in safe hybrid KBs; (3) As a consequence of these general results, we close a problem left open in [18], i.e., decidability of OWL-DL with DL-safe rules.


Logic Program Stable Model Computational Advantage Ground Atom Closed World Assumption 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G.: A nonmonotonic rule system using ontologies. In: Proc. of RuleML 2002. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 60 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Schneider, P.F.P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cadoli, M., Palopoli, L., Lenzerini, M.: Datalog and description logics: Expressive power. In: Cluet, S., Hull, R. (eds.) DBPL 1997. LNCS, vol. 1369. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: OWL DL vs. OWL flight: conceptual modeling and reasoning for the semantic web. In: Proc. of WWW 2005, pp. 623–632 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: AL-log: Integrating Datalog and description logics. J. of Intelligent Information Systems 10(3), 227–252 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duschka, O.M., Genesereth, M.R., Levy, A.Y.: Recursive query plans for data integration. J. of Logic Programming 43(1), 49–73 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Mannilla, H.: Disjunctive Datalog. ACM Trans. On Database Systems 22(3), 364–418 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., Scarcello, F.: The KR system dlv: Progress report, comparison and benchmarks. In: Proc. of KR 1998, pp. 636–647 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In: Proc. of KR 2004, pp. 141–151 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proc. of WWW 2003, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Heymans, S., Vermeir, D.: Integrating description logics and answer set programming. In: Bry, F., Henze, N., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) PPSWR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2901, pp. 146–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL entailment to Description Logic satisfiability. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an OWL rules language. In: Proc. of WWW 2004, pp. 723–731 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining Horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2), 165–209 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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. 155–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P.J., Horrocks, I., van Harmelen, F.: OWL web ontology language; semantics and abstract syntax. W3C candidate recommendation (November 2002),
  20. 20.
    Rosati, R.: Towards expressive KR systems integrating Datalog and description logics: Preliminary report. In: Proc. of DL 1999. CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings. 160–164 (1999),
  21. 21.
    Rosati, R.: On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. Journal of Web Semantics (2005), (to appear)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tobies, S.: Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH-Aachen, Germany (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Rosati
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations