Rules with Contextually Scoped Negation

  • Axel Polleres
  • Cristina Feier
  • Andreas Harth
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4011)

Abstract

Knowledge representation formalisms used on the Semantic Web adhere to a strict open world assumption. Therefore, nonmonotonic reasoning techniques are often viewed with scepticism. Especially negation as failure, which intuitively adopts a closed world view, is often claimed to be unsuitable for the Web where knowledge is notoriously incomplete. Nonetheless, it was suggested in the ongoing discussions around rules extensions for languages like RDF(S) or OWL to allow at least restricted forms of negation as failure, as long as negation has an explicitly defined, finite scope. Yet clear definitions of such “scoped negation” as well as formal semantics thereof are missing. We propose logic programs with contexts and scoped negation and discuss two possible semantics with desirable properties. We also argue that this class of logic programs can be viewed as a rule extension to a subset of RDF(S).

References

  1. 1.
    Angele, J., et al.: Web rule language (WRL). W3C Member Submission (June 2005), http://www.w3.org/Submission/WRL/
  2. 2.
    Battle, S., et al.: Semantic Web services Framework (SWSF). W3C Member Submission (May 2005), http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWSF/
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T., Connolly, D., Prud’homeaux, E., Scharf, Y.: Experience with N3 rules. In: W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability, Washington, D.C., USA (April 2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 164–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V. (eds.): McBride, B. (series ed.): RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0, W3C Recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/
  6. 6.
    Carroll, J., Bizer, C., Hayes, P., Stickler, P.: Named graphs. Journal of Web Semantics 3(4) (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    da Silva, P.P., McGuinness, D.L., McCool, R.: Knowledge provenance infrastructure. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 26(4) (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decker, S., Sintek, M., Nejdl, W.: The model-theoretic semantics of TRIPLE. Technical report (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Etzioni, O., Golden, K., Weld, D.: Tractable closed world reasoning with updates. In: KR 1994: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Bonn, Germany (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K., Schlipf, J.S.: Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs. In: 7th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Austin, Texas (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: 5th Int’l. Conf. on Logic Programming, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayes, P.: RDF semantics. W3C Recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
  13. 13.
    Kifer, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning in FLORA-2. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3662, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. JACM 42(4) (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a logic program. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) 11th Int’l. Conf. on Logic Programming (ICLP 1994), Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy (June 1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web ontology language overview. W3C Recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/
  17. 17.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Working Draft (July 2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schlipf, J.S.: Formalizing a Logic for Logic Programming. AMAI 5(2-4) (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Axel Polleres
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cristina Feier
    • 1
  • Andreas Harth
    • 1
  1. 1.Digital Enterprise Research Institute Innsbruck, Austria and GalwayIreland
  2. 2.Universidad Rey Juan CarlosMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations