Supporting Open and Closed World Reasoning on the Web

  • Carlos Viegas Damásio
  • Anastasia Analyti
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Gerd Wagner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4187)


In this paper general mechanisms and syntactic restrictions are explored in order to specify and merge rule bases in the Semantic Web. Rule bases are expressed by extended logic programs having two forms of negation, namely strong (or explicit) and weak (also known as default negation or negation-as-failure). The proposed mechanisms are defined by very simple modular program transformations, and integrate both open and closed world reasoning. These program transformations are shown to be appropriate for the two major semantics for extended logic programs: answer set semantics and well-founded semantics with explicit negation. Moreover, the results obtained by both semantics are compared.


Logic Program Rule Base Logic Programming European Union Country Reasoning Mode 
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.
    Alferes, J.J., Damásio, C.V., Pereira, L.M.: A logic programming system for non-monotonic reasoning. Journal of Automated Reasoning 14(1), 93–147 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V., Wagner, G.: Stable Model Theory for Extended RDF Ontologies. In: 4th Int. Semantic Web Conf., pp. 21–36 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American (May 2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bugliesi, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Modularity in logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 12(1) (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Damásio, C.V., Pereira, L.M.: A survey of paraconsistent semantics for logic programs. In: Gabbay, D., Smets, P. (eds.) Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol. 2, pp. 241–320. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duerst, Suignard: Internationalized Resource Identifiers. RFC 3987 (January 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2005, pp. 90–96. Professional Book Center (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gavriloaie, R., Nejdl, W., Olmedilla, D., Seamons, K.E., Winslett, M.: No registration needed: How to use declarative policies and negotiation to access sensitive resources on the semantic web. In: Bussler, C.J., Davies, J., Fensel, D., Studer, R. (eds.) ESWS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3053, pp. 342–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: Warren, Szeredi (eds.) Proc. of 7th ICLP, pp. 579–597. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heflin, J., Avila, H.M.: Lcw-based agent planning for the semantic web. In: Ontologies and the Semantic Web. WS-02-11, pp. 63–70. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    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)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kifer, M., de Bruijn, J., Boley, H., Fensel, D.: A realistic architecture for the semantic web. In: Adi, A., Stoutenburg, S., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2005. LNCS, vol. 3791, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pereira, L.M., Alferes, J.J.: Well founded semantics for logic programs with explicit negation. In: Neumann, B. (ed.) ECAI 1992, pp. 102–106. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The rule interchange WG charter,
  17. 17.
    The Rule Markup Initiative (RuleML). available at:
  18. 18.
    Sagonas, K., Swift, T., Warren, D.S.: XSB as an efficient deductive database engine. In: Proc. of SIGMOD 1994 Conference. ACM, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: Paraconsistent Stable Semantics for extended disjunctive programs. Journal of Logic and Computation 5(3), 265–285 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shepherdson, J.: Negation in logic programming for general logic programs. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Found. of Ded. Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 19–88. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1988)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shepherdson, J.C.: Negation as failure: a comparison of Clark’s completed data base and Reiter’s CWA. Journal of Logic Programming 1(1), 51–79 (1984)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    Yang, G., Kifer, M., Zhao, C.: Flora-2: A Rule-Based Know. Representation and Inference Infrastructure for the Sem. Web. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Schmidt, D.C. (eds.) CoopIS 2003, DOA 2003, and ODBASE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2888, pp. 671–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations