Advertisement

Rules and Ontologies for the Semantic Web

  • Thomas Eiter
  • Giovambattista Ianni
  • Thomas Krennwallner
  • Axel Polleres
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5224)

Abstract

Rules and ontologies play a key role in the layered architecture of the Semantic Web, as they are used to ascribe meaning to, and to reason about, data on the Web. While the Ontology Layer of the Semantic Web is quite developed, and the Web Ontology Language (OWL) is a W3C recommendation since a couple of years already, the rules layer is far less developed and an active area of research; a number of initiatives and proposals have been made so far, but no standard as been released yet. Many implementations of rule engines are around which deal with Semantic Web data in one or another way. This article gives a comprehensive, although not exhaustive, overview of such systems, describes their supported languages, and sets them in relation with theoretical approaches for combining rules and ontologies as foreseen in the Semantic Web architecture. In the course of this, we identify desired properties and common features of rule languages and evaluate existing systems against their support. Furthermore, we review technical problems underlying the integration of rules and ontologies, and classify representative proposals for theoretical integration approaches into different categories.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alsaç, G., Baral, C.: Reasoning in description logics using declarative logic programming. Technical report, CS Dept, Arizona State University (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V., Wagner, G.: Stable Model Theory for Extended RDF Ontologies. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 21–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V., Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Kifer, M., Maluszynski, J., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Combining Rules and Ontologies: A survey. Technical Report IST506779/Linköping/I3-D3/D/PU/a1, Linköping University, IST-2004-506779 REWERSE Deliverable I3-D3. (February 2005), http://rewerse.net/publications/
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Embedding defaults into terminological representation systems. J. Automated Reasoning 14, 149–180 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baselice, S., Bonatti, P.A., Criscuolo, G.: On finitely recursive programs. In: Dahl, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) ICLP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4670, pp. 89–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Berners-Lee. Web for Real People, April 2005. Keynote Speech at the 14th World Wide Web Conference WWW2005, http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/0511-keynote-tbl/.
  9. 9.
    Boley, H., Kifer, M., Pătrânjan, P.-L., Polleres, A.: Rule interchange on the web. In: Antoniou, G., Aßmann, U., Baroglio, C., Decker, S., Henze, N., Patranjan, P.-L., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 4636, pp. 269–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boley, H., Kifer, M. (eds.): RIF Basic Logic Dialect, W3C Working Draft (October2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-rif-bld-20071030
  11. 11.
    Bonatti, P.A.: Reasoning with infinite stable models. Artificial Intelligence 156(1), 75–111 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R. (eds.): RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
  13. 13.
    Bry, F., Eisinger, N., Eiter, T., Furche, T., Gottlob, G., Ley, C., Linse, B., Pichler, R., Wei, F.: Foundations of rule-based query answering. In: Antoniou, G., Aßmann, U., Baroglio, C., Decker, S., Henze, N., Patranjan, P.-L., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 4636, pp. 1–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calì, A., Lukasiewicz, T.: Tightly integrated probabilistic description logic programs for the semantic web. In: Dahl, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) ICLP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4670, pp. 428–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Calimeri, S. Cozza, G. Ianni, N. Leone. DLV-Complex homepage, since 2008, http://www.mat.unical.it/dlv-complex
  16. 16.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Embedding defaults into terminological representation systems. J. Automated Reasoning 39, 385–429 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carroll, J., Bizer, C., Hayes, P., Stickler, P.: Named graphs. Journal of Web Semantics 3(4) (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark, K.G., Feigenbaum, L., Torres, E.: SPARQL Protocol for RDF, W3C Proposed Recommendation (November 2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/PR-rdf-sparql-protocol-20071112/
  19. 19.
    Connolly, D. (ed.): Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL) (September 2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Damásio, C.V., Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Wagner, G.: Supporting open and closed world reasoning on the web. In: Alferes, J.J., Bailey, J., May, W., Schwertel, U. (eds.) PPSWR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4187, pp. 149–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Bruijn, J.: Semantic Web Language Layering with Ontologies, Rules, and Meta-Modeling. PhD thesis, Faculty of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics of the University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Bruijn, J., Eiter, T., Polleres, A., Tompits, H.: On representational issues about combinations of classical theories with nonmonotonic rules. In: Lang, J., Lin, F., Wang, J. (eds.) KSEM 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4092, pp. 1–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Bruijn, J., Eiter, T., Polleres, A., Tompits, H.: Embedding non-ground logic programs into autoepistemic logic for knowledge base combination. In: Veloso, M. (ed.) Proceedings 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), pp. 304–309. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Bruijn, J., Pearce, D., Polleres, A., Valverde, A.: A logic for hybrid rules. In: Proceedings Second International Conference on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web (RuleML 2006), IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006), http://2006.ruleml.org/online-proceedings/rule-integ.pdfGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Bruijn, J., Polleres, A., Lara, R., Fensel, D.: OWL. Final draft d20.1v0.2, WSML (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. de Bruijn (ed.). RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility, W3C Working Draft (October 2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-rif-bld-20071030
  27. 27.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G., Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: \({\cal AL}\)-log: Integrating Datalog and Description Logics. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10(3), 227–252 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Donini, F.M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 3(2), 177–225 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drabent, W., Henriksson, J., Maluszynski, J.: HD-Rules: a hybrid system interfacing prolog with dl-reasoners. In: 2nd International Workshop on Applications of Logic Programming to the Web, Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services. ALPSWS 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Drabent, W., Maluszynski, J.: Well-founded semantics for hybrid rules. In: Marchiori, M., Pan, J.Z., Marie, C. (eds.) RR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4524, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Duerst, M., Suignard, M.: Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). RFC 3987 (Proposed Standard) (January 2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Schindlauer, R.: Exploiting conjunctive queries in description logic programs. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2007), pp. 259–266 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Schindlauer, R.: Exploiting conjunctive queries in description logic programs. Technical Report INFSYS RR-1843-08-02, Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien, A-1040 Vienna, Austria, Extended version of the DL 2007/ISAIM 2008 abstract (March 2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining Answer Set Programming with Description Logics for the Semantic Web. Technical Report INFSYS RR-1843-07-04, Institut für Informationssysteme, TU Wien (2007) (to appear in Artificial Intelligence)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    T. Eiter, G. Ianni, A. Polleres, and R. Schindlauer. Answer set programming for the semantic web, (June 2006), http://asptut.gibbi.com/
  37. 37.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Polleres, A., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Reasoning with rules and ontologies. In: Barahona, P., Bry, F., Franconi, E., Henze, N., Sattler, U. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2006. LNCS, vol. 4126, pp. 93–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A Uniform Integration of Higher-Order Reasoning and External Evaluations in Answer Set Programming. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), Professional Book Center, pp. 90–96 (2005)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Effective Integration of Declarative Rules with External Evaluations for Semantic Web Reasoning. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 273–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings KR 2004, pp. 141–151 (2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Well-Founded Semantics for Description Logic Programs in the Semantic Web. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 81–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    The Friend of a Friend (FOAF) Project, http://www.foaf-project.org/
  43. 43.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gelfond, M., Przymusinska, H., Przymusinski, T.C.: The Extended Closed World Assumption and its Relationship to Parallel Circumscription. In: Proceedings Fifth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 1986), pp. 133–139 (1986)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logics. In: Proceedings WWW 2003, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: RACER System Description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 701–705. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hayes, P.: RDF semantics, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
  49. 49.
    Heymans, S., Nieuwenborgh, D.V., Vermeir, D.: Open answer set programming for the semantic web. J. Applied Logic 5(1), 144–169 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Heymans, S., Predoiu, L., Feier, C., der Bruijn, J., van Nieuwenborgh, D.: G-hybrid knowledge bases. In: Etalle, S., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) ICLP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4079, pp. 39–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible SROIQ. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 57–67 (2006)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML, W3C Member, May (2004), http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
  53. 53.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Practical Reasoning for Very Expressive Description Logics. Logic Journal of the IGPL 8(3), 239–264 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Reasoning in description logics by a reduction to disjunctive datalog. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 351–384 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kifer, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning in FLORA-2. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of the ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Knorr, M., Alferes, J.J., Hitzler, P.: A well-founded semantics for hybrid mknf knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2007), pp. 347–354 (2007)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The dlv system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7(3), 499–562 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining Horn Rules and Description Logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence 104(1-2), 165–209 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lifschitz, V.: Nonmonotonic databases and epistemic queries. In: Proceedings IJCAI 1991, pp. 381–386 (1991)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of logic programming, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1987)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lloyd, J.W., Topor, R.W.: Making prolog more expressive. Journal of Logic Programming 1(3), 225–240 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: Probabilistic description logic programs. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 45(2), 288–307 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lukasiewicz, T., Straccia, U.: Description logic programs under probabilistic uncertainty and fuzzy vagueness. In: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 9th European Conference, ECSQARU, pp. 187–198 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Malhotra, A., Melton, J., Walsh, N. (eds.): XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators, W3C Recommendation (January 2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/
  66. 66.
    Marin, D.: A formalization of RDF. Technical Report TR/DCC-2006-8, TR Dept. Computer Science, Universidad de Chile (2006)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Rosati, R., Sattler, U.: Can OWL and logic programming live together happily ever after? In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 501–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    B. Motik and R. Rosati. Closing semantic web ontologies. Technical report, University of Manchester, March 2007, http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/boris.motik/publications/mr06closing-report.pdf
  69. 69.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: A faithful integration of description logics with logic programming. In: IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 477–482 (2007)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 3(1), 41–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nilsson, M., Powell, A., Johnston, P., Naeve, A.: Expressing dublin core metadata using the resource description framework (rdf), DCMI Recommendation (January 2008)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pan, J.Z., Franconi, E., Tessaris, S., Stamou, G., Tzouvaras, V., Serafini, L., Horrocks, I.R., Glimm, B.: Specification of Coordination of Rule and Ontology Languages. Project Deliverable D2.5.1, KnowledgeWeb NoE (June 2004)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Pearce, D.: Equilibrium logic. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 47(1-2), 3–41 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pearce, D., Valverde, A.: Quantfied equilibrium logic. Technical report, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (2006)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics and complexity of sparql. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 30–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Polleres, A.: From SPARQL to rules (and back). In: Proceedings of the 16th World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007), Banff, Canada (May 2007)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Polleres, A., Feier, C., Harth, A.: Rules with contextually scoped negation. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Polleres, A., Feier, C., Harth, A.: Rules with contextually scoped negation. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 332–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Polleres, A., Scharffe, F., Schindlauer, R.: SPARQL++ for mapping between RDF vocabularies. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 878–896. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Poole, D.: A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36, 27–47 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Recommendation (January 2007),http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-query-20080115/
  83. 83.
    Reiter, R.: On Closed-World Databases. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 55–76. Plenum Press, New York (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Rosati, R.: Towards Expressive KR Systems Integrating Datalog and Description Logics: Preliminary Report. In: Proceedings of the 1999 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 1999), pp. 160–164 (1999)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Rosati, R.: On the Decidability and Complexity of Integrating Ontologies and Rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 61–73 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Rosati, R.: Semantic and computational advantages of the safe integration of ontologies and rules. In: Fages, F., Soliman, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3703, pp. 50–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Rosati, R.: Integrating Ontologies and Rules: Semantic and Computational Issues. In: Barahona, P., Bry, F., Franconi, E., Henze, N., Sattler, U. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2006. LNCS, vol. 4126, pp. 128–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Rosati, R.: Tight Integration of Description Logics and Disjunctive Datalog. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 68–78. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Simkus, M., Eiter, T.: FDNC: Decidable non-monotonic disjunctive logic programs with function symbols. In: Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, 14th International Conference, LPAR, pp. 514–530, Full paper Tech.Rep.INFSYS RR-1843-08-01, TU Vienna. (2007), http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/research/reports/rr0801.pdf
  91. 91.
    Sintek, M., Decker, S.: TRIPLE - A Query, Inference, and Transformation Language for the Semantic Web. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 364–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Technical Report 68, UMIACS, University of Maryland (2005)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Straccia, U.: Reasoning about Uncertainty. In: Reasoning Web, Fourth International Summer School 2008, Tutorial Lectures. LNCS, vol. 5224, Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Sure, Y., Bloehdorn, S., Haase, P., Hartmann, J., Oberle, D.: The SWRC ontology - semantic web for research communities. In: Bento, C., Cardoso, A., Dias, G. (eds.) EPIA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3808, pp. 218–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Swift, T.: Deduction in ontologies via ASP. In: Lifschitz, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) LPNMR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2923, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    ter Horst, H.J.: Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for rdf schema and a semantic extension involving the owl vocabulary. Journal of Web Semantics 3(2) (July 2005)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: Fact++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Description. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ullman, J.D.: Principles of Database & Knowledge Base Systems. Comp. Science Press (1989)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Van Belleghem, K., Denecker, M., De Schreye, D.: A strong correspondence between description logics and open logic programming. In: Proceedings ICLP 1997, pp. 346–360 (1997)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs. Journal of the ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    W3C. The Resource Description Framework, http://www.w3.org/RDF/
  102. 102.
    Wang, K., Billington, D., Blee, J., Antoniou, G.: Combining Description Logic and Defeasible Logic for the Semantic Web. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 170–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Wielemaker, J., Schreiber, G., Wielinga, B.: Prolog-based infrastructure for RDF: Scalability and performance. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 644–658. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Wu, Z., Eadon, G., Das, S., Chong, E.I., Kolovski, V., Annamalai, M., Srinivasan, J.: Implementing and Inference Engine for RDFS/OWL Constructs and User-Defined Rules in Oracle. In: Proccedings of ICDE 2008, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Yang, G., Kifer, M.: Reasoning about anonymous resources and meta statements on the semantic web. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics I. LNCS, vol. 2800, pp. 69–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Giovambattista Ianni
    • 2
  • Thomas Krennwallner
    • 1
  • Axel Polleres
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversitá della CalabriaRendeItaly
  3. 3.Digital Enterprise Research InstituteNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations