Advertisement

Rules and Queries with Ontologies: A Unified Logical Framework

  • Enrico Franconi
  • Sergio Tessaris
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3208)

Abstract

In this paper we present a common framework for investigating the problem of combining ontology and rule languages. The focus of this paper is in the context of Semantic Web (SW), but the approach can be applied in any Description Logics (DL) based system. In the last part, we will show how rules are strictly related to queries.

Keywords

Description Logic Logical Framework Logical Implication Conjunctive Query Rule Language 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    [Baget and Mugnier, 2002] Baget, J.-F., Mugnier, M.-L.: Extensions of simple conceptual graphs: the complexity of rules and constraints. Journal of Artificial Intelligence research (JAIR) 16, 425–465 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    [Calvanese and Rosati, 2003] Calvanese, D., Rosati, R.: Answering recursive queries under keys and foreign keys is undecidable. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases (KRDB 2003), pp. 3–14 (2003), CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-79/
  3. 3.
    [Calvanese et al., 2000] Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: Answering queries using views over description logics knowledge bases. In: Proc. of the 16th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), pp. 386–391 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    [Calvanese et al., 2004] Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: What to ask to a peer: ontology-based query reformulation. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    [Donini et al., 1998a] Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Nutt, W., Schaerf, A.: An epistemic operator for description logics. Artificial Intelligence 100(1-2), 225–274 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    [Donini et al., 1998b] Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: AL-log: integrating datalog and description logics. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10(3), 227–252 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    [Eiter et al., 2004] Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In: Proc. of the International Conference of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    [Fikes et al., 2003] Fikes, R., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL-QL – A Language for Deductive Query Answering on the Semantic Web. Technical report, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, KSL-03-14 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    [Franconi et al., 2003] Franconi, E., Kuper, G., Lopatenko, A., Serafini, L.: A robust logical and computational characterisation of peer-to-peer database systems. In: International VLDB Workshop On Databases, Information Systems and Peer-to-Peer Computing, (DBISP2P 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    [Gabbay et al., 2003] Gabbay, D.M., Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: Distributed first order logics. In: Baader, F., Schulz, K.U. (eds.) Frontiers of Combining Systems 2, Berlin. Research Studies Press (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    [Grosof et al., 2003] Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), pp. 48–57. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    [Horrocks and Patel-Schneider, 2004] Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an owl rules language. In: Proc. of the Thirteenth International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    [Horrocks and Tessaris, 2002] Horrocks, I., Tessaris, S.: Querying the semantic web: a formal approach. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 177–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    [Levy and Rousset, 1998] Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining Horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2), 165–209 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    [Marx, 1999] Marx, M.: Complexity of products of modal logics. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 197–214 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    [Motik et al., 2004] Motik, B., Stattler, U., Hustadt, U.: Reducing SHIQ description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. In: Proc. of the International Conference of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    [Reiter, 1992] Reiter, R.: What should a database know? Journal of Logic Programming 14(2,3) (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    [Rosati, 1999] Rosati, R.: Towards expressive KR systems integrating datalog and description logics: a preliminary report. In: Proc. of the 1999 International Description Logics workshop (DL 1999), pp. 160–164 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    [Swift, 2004] Swift, T.: Deduction in ontologies via ASP. In: Proc. of LPNMR 2004, pp. 275–288 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    [Tessaris et al., 2002] Tessaris, S., Horrocks, I., Gough, G.: Evaluating a modular abox algorithm. In: Proc. of the International Conference of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), pp. 227–238 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrico Franconi
    • 1
  • Sergio Tessaris
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen-BolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations