Stable Model Theory for Extended RDF Ontologies

  • Anastasia Analyti
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Carlos Viegas Damásio
  • Gerd Wagner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3729)


Ontologies and automated reasoning are the building blocks of the Semantic Web initiative. Derivation rules can be included in an ontology to define derived concepts based on base concepts. For example, rules allow to define the extension of a class or property based on a complex relation between the extensions of the same or other classes and properties. On the other hand, the inclusion of negative information both in the form of negation-as-failure and explicit negative information is also needed to enable various forms of reasoning. In this paper, we extend RDF graphs with weak and strong negation, as well as derivation rules. The ERDF stable model semantics of the extended framework (Extended RDF) is defined, extending RDF(S) semantics. A distinctive feature of our theory, which is based on partial logic, is that both truth and falsity extensions of properties and classes are considered, allowing for truth value gaps. Our framework supports both closed-world and open-world reasoning through the explicit representation of the particular closed-world assumptions and the ERDF ontological categories of total properties and total classes.


Resource Description Framework Stable Model Strong Negation Total Property Derivation Rule 
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.
    Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damasio, C.V., Wagner, G.: Negation and Negative Information in the W3C Resource Description Framework. Annals of Mathematics, Computing & Teleinformatics (AMCT) 1(2), 25–34 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Design issues - architectual and philosophical points. Personal notes (1998), Available at,
  3. 3.
    Franconi, E., Tessaris, S.: Rules and Queries with Ontologies: A Unified Logical Framework. In: Ohlbach, H.J., Schaffert, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3208, pp. 50–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: Warren, Szeredi (eds.) 7th International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 579–597. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), Available at,
  7. 7.
    Herre, H., Jaspars, J., Wagner, G.: Partial Logics with Two Kinds of Negation as a Foundation of Knowledge-Based Reasoning. In: Gabbay, D.M., Wansing, H. (eds.) What Is Negation? Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herre, H., Wagner, G.: Stable Models are Generated by a Stable Chain. Journal of Logic Programming 30(2), 165–177 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A Proposal for an OWL Rules Language. In: 13th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2004), pp. 723–731. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 (May 21, 2004), Available at,
  11. 11.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical Foundations of Object-Oriented and Frame-Based Languages. Journal of the ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), Available at,
  13. 13.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), Available at,
  14. 14.
    The rule markup initiative (ruleml). Available at,
  15. 15.
    Sintek, M., Decker, S.: TRIPLE - A Query, Inference, and Transformation Language for the Semantic Web. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 364–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ter Horst, H.J.: Extending the RDFS Entailment Lemma. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Notation 3 - An RDF language for the Semantic Web. W3C Recommendation (1998), Available at,
  18. 18.
    Wagner, G.: A Database Needs Two Kinds of Negation. In: Thalheim, B., Gerhardt, H.-D., Demetrovics, J. (eds.) MFDBS 1991. LNCS, vol. 495, pp. 357–371. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wagner, G.: Web Rules Need Two Kinds of Negation. In: Bry, F., Henze, N., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) PPSWR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2901, pp. 33–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang, G., Kifer, M.: Inheritance and Rules in Object-Oriented Semantic Web Languages. In: Schröder, M., Wagner, G. (eds.) RuleML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2876, pp. 95–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anastasia Analyti
    • 1
  • Grigoris Antoniou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carlos Viegas Damásio
    • 3
  • Gerd Wagner
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceFORTH-ICSGreece
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CreteGreece
  3. 3.Centro de Inteligência ArtificialUniversidade Nova de LisboaPortugal
  4. 4.Inst. of InformaticsBrandenburg Univ. of Technology at CottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations