Using Vampire to Reason with OWL

  • Dmitry Tsarkov
  • Alexandre Riazanov
  • Sean Bechhofer
  • Ian Horrocks
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3298)


OWL DL corresponds to a Description Logic (DL) that is a fragment of classical first-order predicate logic (FOL). Therefore, the standard methods of automated reasoning for full FOL can potentially be used instead of dedicated DL reasoners to solve OWL DL reasoning tasks. In this paper we report on some experiments designed to explore the feasibility of using existing general-purpose FOL provers to reason with OWL DL. We also extend our approach to SWRL, a proposed rule language extension to OWL.


Description Logic Automate Reasoning Ontology Reasoning Basic Translation Description Logic Reasoner 
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.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Hollunder, B., Nebel, B., Profitlich, H.-J., Franconi, E.: An empirical analysis of optimization techniques for terminological representation systems. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1992), pp. 270–281. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bachmair, L., Ganzinger, H.: ResolutionTheorem Proving. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. I, ch. 2, pp. 19–99. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker, P.G., Brass, A., Bechhofer, S., Goble, C., Paton, N., Stevens, R.: Tambis: Transparent access to multiple bioinformatics information sources: an overview. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology, ISMB 1998, pp. 25–34. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biron, P.V., Malhotra, A.: XML schema part 2: Datatypes. W3C Recommendation (May 2001),
  6. 6.
    Borgida, A.: On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics. Artificial Intelligence 82(1-2), 353–367 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Dean, M., Connolly, D., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.: OWLWebOntology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation, February 10 (2004),
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Ganzinger, H., de Nivelle, H.: A superposition decision procedure for the guarded fragment with equality. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 295–304 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genesereth, M.R., Fikes, R.E.: Knowledge Interchange Format Version 3.0 Reference Manual. Technical Report Logic Group Report Logic-92-1, Stanford University (2001),
  12. 12.
    Gradel, E., Otto, M., Rosen, E.: Two-variable logic with counting is decidable. In: Proceedings of LICS 1997, pp. 306–317 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A SemanticWeb Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML (2003),
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Tobies, S.: Reasoning with axioms: Theory and practice. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), pp. 285–296 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I.: Using an expressive description logic: FaCT or fiction? In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1998), pp. 636–647 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The generation of DAML+OIL. In: Proc. of the 2001 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2001). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, pp. 30–35 (2001),
  17. 17.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Ontology reasoning in the SHOQ(D) description logic. In: Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), pp. 199–204 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: The effect of adding complex role inclusion axioms in description logics. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), pp. 343–348. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hustadt, U., Schmidt, R.A.: MSPASS: Modal reasoning by translation and first-order resolution. In: Dyckhoff, R. (ed.) TABLEAUX 2000. LNCS, vol. 1847, pp. 67–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: CARIN: A representation language combining horn rules and description logics. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 323–327 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mortimer, M.: On languages with two variables. Zeitschr. für math. Logik und Grundlagen der Math. 21, 135–140 (1975)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moser, M., Ibens, O., Letz, R., Steinbach, J., Goller, C., Schumann, J., Mayr, K.: SETHEO and e-SETHEO - the CADE-13 systems. Journal of Automated Reasoning 18(2), 237–246 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nieuwenhuis, R., Rubio, A.: Paramodulation-Based Theorem Proving. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. I, ch.7, pp. 371–443. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Paramasivam, M., Plaisted, D.A.: Automated deduction techniques for classification in description logic systems. J. of Automated Reasoning 20(3), 337–364 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, February 10 (2004), Available at
  28. 28.
    Rector, A.L., Nowlan, W.A., Glowinski, A.: Goals for concept representation in the galen project. In: Proc. of the 17th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care (SCAMC’93), Washington DC, USA, pp. 414–418 (1993)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Riazanov, A., Voronkov, A.: The Design and Implementation of Vampire. AI Communications 15(2-3), 91–110 (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schild, K.: A correspondence theory for terminological logics: Preliminary report. In: Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1991), pp. 466–471 (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sutcliffe, G., Suttner, C.: The TPTP Problem Library. TPTP v. 2.4.1. Technical report, University of Miami (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sutcliffe, G., Suttner, C.: The TPTP Problem Library. TPTP v. 2.4.1. Technical report, University of Miami (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tammet, T.: Gandalf. Journal of Automated Reasoning 18(2), 199–204 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tammet, T.: Extending Classical Theorem Proving for the Semantic Web. In: Volz, R., Decker, S., Cruz, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Practical and Scalable Semantic Systems (October 2003),
  35. 35.
    Tobies, S.: Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH-Aachen, Germany (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: DL reasoner vs. first-order prover. In: Proc. of the, Description Logic Workshop (DL 2003), CEUR, vol. 81, pp. 152–159 (2003),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dmitry Tsarkov
    • 1
  • Alexandre Riazanov
    • 1
  • Sean Bechhofer
    • 1
  • Ian Horrocks
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations