Practical Reasoning for Expressive Description Logics

  • Ian Horrocks
  • Ulrike Sattler
  • Stephan Tobies
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1705)


Description Logics (DLs) are a family of knowledge representation formalisms mainly characterised by constructors to build complex concepts and roles from atomic ones. Expressive role constructors are important in many applications, but can be computationally problematical. We present an algorithm that decides satisfiability of the DL ALC extended with transitive and inverse roles, role hierarchies, and qualifying number restrictions. Early experiments indicate that this algorithm is well-suited for implementation. Additionally, we show that ALC extended with just transitive and inverse roles is still in PSpace. Finally, we investigate the limits of decidability for this family of DLs.


Description Logic Transitive Closure Completion Tree Identical Label Role Hierarchy 
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. [Baa91]
    F. Baader. Augmenting concept languages by transitive closure of roles: An alternative to terminological cycles. In Proc. of IJCAI-91, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [BBH96]
    F. Baader, M. Buchheit, and B. Hollunder. Cardinality restrictions on concepts. Artificial Intelligence, 88(1–2):195–213, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BBN+93]
    F. Baader, H.-J. Bürckert, B. Nebel, W. Nutt, and G. Smolka. On the expressivity of feature logics with negation, functional uncertainty, and sort equations. J. of Logic, Language and Information, 2:1–18, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Ber66]
    R. Berger. The undecidability of the dominoe problem. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 66, 1966.Google Scholar
  5. [BS96]
    F. Baader and U. Sattler. Number restrictions on complex roles in description logics. In Proc. of KR-96, pages 328–339, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [CDL98a]
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGAGT SIGMOD SIGART Sym. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’98), pages 149–158, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [CDL+98]
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and R. Rosati. Source integration in data warehousing. In Proc. of DEXA-98. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [CDL99]
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. Reasoning in expressive description logics with fixpoints based on automata on infinite trees. In Proc. of the 16th Int. Joint. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’99), 1999.Google Scholar
  9. [CDR98]
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and R. Rosati. A note on encoding inverse roles and functional restrictions in ALC knowledge bases. In Proc. of DL’ 98, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. [CLN94]
    Diego Calvanese, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Daniele Nardi. A unified framework for class based representation formalisms. Proc. of KR-94, pages 109–120. M. Kaufmann, Los Altos.Google Scholar
  11. [DL95]
    G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. What’s in an aggregate: Foundations for description logics with tuples and sets. In Proc. of IJCAI-95, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [DL96]
    G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. Tbox and Abox reasoning in expressive description logics. In Proc. of KR-96, pages 316–327. M. Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. [DLNdN91]
    F. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and W. Nutt. The complexity of concept languages. In Proc. of KR-91, Boston, MA, USA, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [DLNS96]
    F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and A. Schaerf. Reasoning in description logics. In G. Brewka, editor, Foundation of Knowledge Representation. CSLI Publication, Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [DM98]
    G. De Giacomo and F. Massacci. Combining deduction and model checking into tableaux and algorithms for Converse-PDL. Information and Computation, 1998. To appear.Google Scholar
  16. [HNS90]
    B. Hollunder, W. Nutt, and M. Schmidt-Schauss. Subsumption algorithms for concept description languages. In ECAI-90, Pitman Publishing, London, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. [Hor98]
    I. Horrocks. Using an expressive description logic: FaCT or fiction? In Proc. of KR-98, pages 636–647, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. [HS99]
    I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. A description logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies. J. of Logic and Computation, 1999. To appear.Google Scholar
  19. [HST98]
    I. Horrocks, U. Sattler, and S. Tobies. A PSpace-algorithm for deciding ALCI R+-satisfiability. Technical Report 98-08, LuFg Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH Aachen, 1998. See
  20. [HST99]
    I. Horrocks, U. Sattler, and S. Tobies. A description logic with transitive and converse roles, role hierarchies and qualifying number restrictions. LTCS-Report 99-08, LuFg Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. [Sat96]
    U. Sattler. A concept language extended with different kinds of transitive roles. In 20. Deutsche Jahrestagung für KI, LNAI 1137. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. [Sch91]
    K. Schild. A correspondence theory for terminological logics: Preliminary report. In Proc. of IJCAI-91, pages 466–471, Sydney, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. [SS91]
    M. Schmidt-Schauß and G. Smolka. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. [Tob99]
    S. Tobies. A PSpace algorithm for graded modal logic. In Proc. of CADE-16, LNCS. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Horrocks
    • 1
  • Ulrike Sattler
    • 2
  • Stephan Tobies
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchester
  2. 2.LuFG Theoretical Computer ScienceRWTH AachenAachen

Personalised recommendations