Classical Algorithms for Reasoning and Explanation in Description Logics

  • Birte Glimm
  • Yevgeny KazakovEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11810)


Description Logics (DLs) are a family of languages designed to represent conceptual knowledge in a formal way as a set of ontological axioms. DLs provide a formal foundation of the ontology language OWL, which is a W3C standardized language to represent information in Web applications. The main computational problem in DLs is finding relevant consequences of the information stored in ontologies, e.g., to answer user queries. Unlike related techniques based on keyword search or machine learning, the notion of a consequence is well-defined using a formal logic-based semantics. This course provides an in-depth description and analysis of the main reasoning and explanation methods for ontologies: tableau procedures and axiom pinpointing algorithms.


  1. 1.
    Arif, M.F., Mencía, C., Marques-Silva, J.: Efficient MUS enumeration of horn formulae with applications to axiom pinpointing. CoRR abs/1505.04365 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F.: Description logics. In: Tessaris, S., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2009. LNCS, vol. 5689, pp. 1–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\cal{EL}\) envelope. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pp. 364–369 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Franconi, E., Hollunder, B., Nebel, B., Profitlich, H.J.: An empirical analysis of optimization techniques for terminological representation systems. Appl. Intell. 4(2), 109–132 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bate, A., Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Cucala, D.T., Simancik, F., Horrocks, I.: Consequence-based reasoning for description logics with disjunctions and number restrictions. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 63, 625–690 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baumgartner, P., Furbach, U., Niemelä, I.: Hyper tableaux. In: Alferes, J.J., Pereira, L.M., Orlowska, E. (eds.) JELIA 1996. LNCS, vol. 1126, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bienvenu, M., Bourgaux, C.: Inconsistency-tolerant querying of description logic knowledge bases. In: Pan, J.Z., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2016. LNCS, vol. 9885, pp. 156–202. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bienvenu, M., Ortiz, M.: Ontology-mediated query answering with data-tractable description logics. In: Faber, W., Paschke, A. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2015. LNCS, vol. 9203, pp. 218–307. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonatti, P.A., Faella, M., Petrova, I.M., Sauro, L.: A new semantics for overriding in description logics. Artif. Intell. 222, 1–48 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Botoeva, E., Konev, B., Lutz, C., Ryzhikov, V., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: Inseparability and conservative extensions of description logic ontologies: a survey. In: Pan, J.Z., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2016. LNCS, vol. 9885, pp. 27–89. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brandt, S.: Polynomial time reasoning in a description logic with existential restrictions, GCI axioms, and - what else? In: de Mántaras, R.L., Saitta, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), pp. 298–302. IOS Press (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Casini, G., Straccia, U.: Defeasible inheritance-based description logics. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 48, 415–473 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cucala, D.T., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I.: Consequence-based reasoning for description logics with disjunction, inverse roles, number restrictions, and nominals. In: Lang, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2018), pp. 1970–1976. (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Modular reuse of ontologies: theory and practice. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 31, 273–318 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feld, M., Müller, C.: The automotive ontology: managing knowledge inside the vehicle and sharing it between cars. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2011, pp. 79–86. ACM, New York (2011).
  18. 18.
    Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.L.: A non-monotonic description logic for reasoning about typicality. Artif. Intell. 195, 165–202 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B.: Optimized description logic reasoning via core blocking. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6173, pp. 457–471. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Shearer, R., Stoilos, G.: A novel approach to ontology classification. J. Web Semant. 14, 84–101 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Golbreich, C., Zhang, S., Bodenreider, O.: The foundational model of anatomy in OWL: experience and perspectives. J. Web Semant. 4(3), 181–195 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greiner, R., Smith, B.A., Wilkerson, R.W.: A correction to the algorithm in Reiter’s theory of diagnosis. In: Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis, pp. 49–53. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Group, T.W.W. (ed.): SPARQL 1.1 Overview. W3C Recommendation, 21 March 2013.
  24. 24.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R., Turhan, A.-Y.: Exploiting pseudo models for TBox and ABox reasoning in expressive description logics. In: Goré, R., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2083, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoehndorf, R., Dumontier, M., Gkoutos, G.V.: Evaluation of research in biomedical ontologies. Briefings Bioinform. 14(6), 696–712 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horridge, M.: Justification based explanation in ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Laconic and precise justifications in OWL. In: Sheth, A., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 323–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Justification oriented proofs in OWL. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 354–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible \(\cal{SROIQ}\). In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) Proceedings 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 57–67. AAAI Press (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hudek, A.K., Weddell, G.E.: Binary absorption in tableaux-based reasoning for description logics. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2006), vol. 189. CEUR (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kazakov, Y.: \(\cal{RIQ}\) and \(\cal{SROIQ}\) are harder than \(\cal{SHOIQ}\). In: Brewka, G., Lang, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), pp. 274–284. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kazakov, Y.: Consequence-driven reasoning for Horn \(\cal{SHIQ}\) ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), pp. 2040–2045. IJCAI (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kazakov, Y., Klinov, P.: Goal-directed tracing of inferences in EL ontologies. In: Mika, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8797, pp. 196–211. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kazakov, Y., Krötzsch, M., Simančík, F.: ELK: a reasoner for OWL EL ontologies. System description, University of Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kharlamov, E., et al.: Ontology based data access in statoil. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 44, 3–36 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: An introduction to description logics and query rewriting. In: Koubarakis, M., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2014. LNCS, vol. 8714, pp. 195–244. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  37. 37.
    Krötzsch, M., Marx, M., Ozaki, A., Thost, V.: Attributed description logics: reasoning on knowledge graphs. In: Lang, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, 13–19 July 2018. pp. 5309–5313. (2018).
  38. 38.
    Maier, A., Schnurr, H.-P., Sure, Y.: Ontology-based information integration in the automotive industry. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 897–912. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). Scholar
  39. 39.
    Manthey, N., Peñaloza, R., Rudolph, S.: Efficient axiom pinpointing in \(\cal{EL}\) using SAT technology. In: Lenzerini, M., Peñaloza, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 29th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2016). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1577. (2016).
  40. 40.
    Motik, B.: Representing and querying validity time in RDF and OWL: a logic-based approach. J. Web Semant. 12, 3–21 (2012). Scholar
  41. 41.
    Motik, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009.
  42. 42.
    Motik, B., Shearer, R., Horrocks, I.: Hypertableau reasoning for description logics. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 36, 165–228 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ortiz, M., Šimkus, M.: Reasoning and query answering in description logics. In: Eiter, T., Krennwallner, T. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2012. LNCS, vol. 7487, pp. 1–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  44. 44.
    OWL Working Group, W.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Document Overview. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009.
  45. 45.
    Peñaloza, R.: Explaining axiom pinpointing. In: Lutz, C., Sattler, U., Tinelli, C., Turhan, A.-Y., Wolter, F. (eds.) Description Logic, Theory Combination, and All That. LNCS, vol. 11560, pp. 475–496. Springer, Cham (2019). Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 57–95 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Robinson, J.A.: Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution. Int. J. Comput. Math. 1(3), 227–234 (1965)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Armas Romero, A., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I.: MORe: modular combination of OWL reasoners for ontology classification. In: Cudré-Mauroux, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7649, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rudolph, S.: Foundations of description logics. In: Polleres, A., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2011. LNCS, vol. 6848, pp. 76–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sattler, U.: Reasoning in description logics: basics, extensions, and relatives. In: Antoniou, G., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2007. LNCS, vol. 4636, pp. 154–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schmidt-Schauß, M., Smolka, G.: Attributive concept descriptions with complements. J. Artif. Intell. 48, 1–26 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schreiber, G., Raimond, Y. (eds.): RDF 1.1 Primer. W3C Working Group Note, 24 June 2014.
  53. 53.
    Sebastiani, R., Vescovi, M.: Axiom pinpointing in lightweight description logics via horn-SAT encoding and conflict analysis. In: Schmidt, R.A. (ed.) CADE 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5663, pp. 84–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  54. 54.
    Simančík, F., Kazakov, Y., Horrocks, I.: Consequence-based reasoning beyond horn ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 1093–1098. AAAI Press/IJCAI (2011)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sirin, E.: From wine to water: optimizing description logic reasoning for nominals. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 90–99. AAAI Press (2006)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoner. J. Web Semant. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Steigmiller, A., Glimm, B., Liebig, T.: Optimised absorption for expressive description logics. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2014). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1193. (2014).
  58. 58.
    Steigmiller, A., Liebig, T., Glimm, B.: Konclude: system description. J. Web Semant. 27–28, 78–85 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Straccia, U.: All about fuzzy description logics and applications. In: Faber, W., Paschke, A. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2015. LNCS, vol. 9203, pp. 1–31. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tobies, S.: Complexity results and practical algorithms for logics in knowledge representation. Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen, Germany (2001)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: Efficient reasoning with range and domain constraints. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2004), vol. 104. CEUR (2004)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: FaCT++ description logic reasoner: system description. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 292–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tudorache, T., Nyulas, C.I., Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Using semantic web in ICD-11: three years down the road. In: Alani, H., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8219, pp. 195–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  64. 64.
    Turhan, A.-Y.: Reasoning and explanation in \(\cal{EL}\) and in expressive description logics. In: Aßmann, U., Bartho, A., Wende, C. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2010. LNCS, vol. 6325, pp. 1–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  65. 65.
    Turhan, A.-Y.: Introductions to description logics – a guided tour. In: Rudolph, S., Gottlob, G., Horrocks, I., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2013. LNCS, vol. 8067, pp. 150–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  66. 66.
    Vardi, M.Y.: Why is modal logic so robustly decidable? In: Immerman, N., Kolaitis, P.G. (eds.) Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models, Proceedings of a DIMACS Workshop 1996, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 14–17 January 1996. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 31, pp. 149–183. DIMACS/AMS (1996)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Vescovi, M.: Exploiting SAT and SMT techniques for automated reasoning and ontology manipulation in description logics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Trento, Italy (2011).
  68. 68.
    Zhao, L., Ichise, R., Mita, S., Sasaki, Y.: Core ontologies for safe autonomous driving. In: Villata, S., Pan, J.Z., Dragoni, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the ISWC 2015 Posters & Demonstrations Track co-located with the 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2015), Bethlehem, PA, USA, 11 October 2015. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1486. (2015).

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations