An Entailment Relation for Reasoning on the Web

  • François Bry
  • Sebastian Schaffert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2876)


Reasoning on the Web is receiving an increasing attention because of emerging fields such as Web adaption and Semantic Web. Indeed, the advanced functionalities striven for in these fields call for reasoning capabilities. Reasoning on the Web, however, is usually done using existing techniques rarely fitting the Web. As a consequence, additional data processing like data conversion from Web formats (e.g. XML or HTML) into some other formats (e.g. classical logic terms and formulas) is often needed and aspects of the Web (e.g. its inherent inconsistency) are neglected. This article first gives requirements for an entailment tuned to reasoning on the Web. Then, it describes how classical logic’s entailment can be modified so as to enforce these requirements. Finally, it discusses how the proposed entailment can be used in applying logic programming to reasoning on the Web.


Logic Program Resource Description Framework Logic Programming Classical Logic Query 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W3C: Resource Description Framework (RDF) (1999) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W3C: Web Ontology Language (OWL) (2003) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Decker, S.: TRIPLE – an RDF query, inference, and transformation language, website,
  4. 4.
    Horrocks, I.: The FaCT System, website
  5. 5.
    W3C: Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0, 2 edn. (2000) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W3C: XML Schema Part 0: Primer. Part 1: Structures, Part 2: Datatypes (2001) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W3C: XHTML 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (2000) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W3C: XML Path Language (XPath) (1999) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W3C: XQuery: A Query Language for XML (2001) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abiteboul, S., Buneman, P., Suciu, D.: Data on the Web. From Relations to Semistructured Data and XML. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henzinger, M.R., Henzinger, T.A., Kopke, P.W.: Computing Simulations on Finite and Infinite Graphs. Technical report, Cornell Univ. (1996) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milner, R.: An Algebraic Definition of Simulation between Programs. Memo aim-142, Stanford Univ. (1971) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bry, F., Schaffert, S.: Towards a Declarative Query and Transformation Language for XML and Semistructured Data: Simulation Unification. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Logic Programming. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark, K.L.: Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lloyd, J.: Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Apt, K.R., Bol, R.: Logic Programming and Negation: A Survey. J. Logic Programming 9 (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bry, F., Schaffert, S.: A Gentle Introduction into Xcerpt, a Rule-based Query and Transformation Language for XML. In: Proc. Int. Workshop on Rule Markup Languages for Business Rules on the Semantic Web (2002) (invited article) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W3C: Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) (2000) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W3C: Cascading Style Sheets. level 2 (1998) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buneman, P., Fernandez, M., Suciu, D.: UnQL: A Query Language and Algebra for Semistructured Data Based on Structural Recursion. VLDB Journal 9 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baru, C., Ludöscher, B., Papakonstantinou, Y., Velikhov, P., Vianu, V.: Features and Requirements for an XML View Definition Language: Lessons from XML Information Mediation. In: Proc. QL 1998 – The Query Languages Workshop (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alashqur, A.M., Su, S.Y.W., Lam., H.: OQL: A Query Language for Manipulating Object-Oriented Databases. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (1989) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berlea, A., Seidl, H.: fxt – A Transformation Language for XML Documents. J. of Computing and Information Technology (2001) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seipel, D.: Processing XML-Documents in Prolog. In: Proc. Workshop Logische Programmierung (2002) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heumesser, B., Seipel, D., Güntzer, U.: Flexible Processing of XML-Based Mathematical Knowledge in a Prolog-Environment. In: Asperti, A., Buchberger, B., Davenport, J.H. (eds.) MKM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2594. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    May, W.: A Logic-Based Approach to XML Data Integration. Habilitation Thesis (2001) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Inoue, K., Sakama, C.: A Fixpoint Characterization of Abductive Logic Programming. J. Logic Programming, 107–136 (1996) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D., Valverde, A.: Strongly Equivalent Logic Programs. ACM Trans. Computational Logic 2, 526–541 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bry, F.: An Almost Classical Logic for Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. In: Proc. Paraconsistent Computational Logic (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Niemelä, I.: A Tableau Calculus For Minimal Model Reasoning. In: Proc. Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. LNCS (LNAI), Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Bry
    • 1
  • Sebastian Schaffert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Computer ScienceUniversity of MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations