Advertisement

Combining a DL Reasoner and a Rule Engine for Improving Entailment-Based OWL Reasoning

  • Georgios Meditskos
  • Nick Bassiliades
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5318)

Abstract

We introduce the notion of the mixed DL and entailment-based (DLE) OWL reasoning, defining a framework inspired from the hybrid and homogeneous paradigms for integration of rules and ontologies. The idea is to combine the TBox inferencing capabilities of the DL algorithms and the scalability of the rule paradigm over large ABoxes. Towards this end, we define a framework that uses a DL reasoner to reason over the TBox of the ontology (hybrid-like) and a rule engine to apply a domain-specific version of ABox-related entailments (homogeneous-like) that are generated by TBox queries to the DL reasoner. The DLE framework enhances the entailment-based OWL reasoning paradigm in two directions. Firstly, it disengages the manipulation of the TBox semantics from any incomplete entailment-based approach, using the efficient DL algorithms. Secondly, it achieves faster application of the ABox-related entailments and efficient memory usage, comparing it to the conventional entailment-based approaches, due to the low complexity and the domain-specific nature of the entailments.

Keywords

Hybrid and Homogeneous Systems Rule-based OWL Reasoning Entailment Rules Rule Engines DL Reasoning 

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G., Damasio, C.V., Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Kifer, M., Maluszynski, J., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Combining Rules and Ontologies, REWERSE Deliverables, REWERSE-DEL-2005-I3-D3 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Sattler, U.: An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica 69(1), 5–40Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: OWL DL vs. OWL Flight: Conceptual Modeling and Reasoning for the Semantic Web. In: International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 623–632. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Bruijn, J., Heymans, S.: Logical foundations of (e)RDF(S): Complexity and reasoning. In: International Semantic Web Conference (+ 2nd ASWC), pp. 86–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: AL-log: Integrating Datalog and Description Logics. Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 227–252 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drabent, W., Henriksson, J., Maluszynski, J.: HD-rules: A Hybrid System Interfacing Prolog with DL-reasoners. In: Applications of Logic Programming to the Web, Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, CEUR-WS, vol. 287, pp. 76–90 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining Answer Set Programming with Description Logics for the Semantic Web. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 141–151 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: NLP-DL: A Knowledge-Representation System for Coupling Nonmonotonic Logic Programs with Description Logics. In: International Semantic Web Conference, Galway, Ireland (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grant, J., Beckett, D.: RDF Test Cases (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/
  11. 11.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic. In: WWW, pp. 48–57. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haarslev, V., Moller, R.: Racer: A Core Inference Engine for the Semantic Web. In: International Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools, pp. 27–36 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haarslev, V., Moller, R.: An Empirical Evaluation of Optimization Strategies for ABox Reasoning in Expressive Description Logics. Description Logics, 22 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I., Li, L., Turi, D., Bechhofer, S.: The Instance Store: Description Logic Reasoning with Large Numbers of Individuals. Description Logics, 104, 31–40 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horst, H.J.: Extending the RDFS Entailment Lemma. In: Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(2-3), 79–115 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Reducing SHIQ- Description Logic to Disjunctive Datalog Programs. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Canada, pp. 152–162 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Kattenstroth, H., May, W., Schenk, F.: Combining OWL with F-Logic Rules and Defaults, Applications of Logic Programming to the Web. In: Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services. CEUR-WS, vol. 287, pp. 60–75 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kiryakov, A., Ognyanov, D., Manov, F.: OWLIM - A Pragmatic Semantic Repository for OWL. In: Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems, pp. 182–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.: Combining Horn Rules and Description Logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence 104(1-2), 165–209 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li, H., Wang, Y., Qu, Y., Pan, J.Z.: A Reasoning Algorithm for pD*. In: 1st Asian Semantic Web Conference, pp. 293–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ma, L., Yang, Y., Qiu, Z., Xie, G., Pan, Y., Liu, S.: Towards a Complete OWL Ontology Benchmark. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 125–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matheus, C., Dionne, B., Parent, D., Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.: BaseVISor: A Forward-Chaining Inference Engine Optimized for RDF/OWL Triples. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McBride, B.: Jena, Implementing the RDF Model and Syntax Specification. In: International Workshop on the Semantic Web, CEUR-WS, vol. 40 (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McGuinness, D.L., Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  30. 30.
    Meditskos, G., Bassiliades, N.: Rule-based OWL Ontology Reasoning Using Dynamic ABOX Entailments. In: 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 731–732. IOS Press, Patras (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meditskos, G., Bassiliades, N.: A Rule-Based Object-Oriented OWL Reasoner. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 20(3), 397–410 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mei, J., Lin, Z., Boley, H.: ALC: An Integration of Description Logic and General Rules. In: Proceedings of the Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, pp. 163–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Minsu, J., Sohn, J.C.: Bossam: An Extended Rule Engine for OWL Inferencing. In: Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web, pp. 128–138 (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Rosati, R., Sattler, U.: Can OWL and Logic Programming Live Together Happily Ever After? In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 501–514 (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U.: A Comparison of Reasoning Techniques for Querying Large Description Logic ABoxes. In: Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning, pp. 227–241 (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I.: RDFS(FA) and RDF MT: Two Semantics for RDFS. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 30–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Horrocks, I.: A Comparison of Two Modelling Paradigms in the Semantic Web. In: International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 3–12. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosati, R.: Towards expressive KR systems integrating datalog and description logics. In: Workshop on Description Logics, CEUR-WS, vol. 22, pp. 160–164 (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rosati, R.: Semantic and Computational Advantages of the Safe Integration of Ontologies and Rules. In: Proc. Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, pp. 50–64 (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rosati, R.: DL+log: Tight Integration of Description Logics and Disjunctive Datalog. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 68–78. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sagonas, K., Swift, T., Warren, D.S.: XSB as an Efficient Deductive Database Engine. ACM SIGMOD Record 23(2), 442–453 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
  44. 44.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A Practical OWL-DL Reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: Fact++ description logic reasoner: System description. In: Proceedings of Automated Reasoning, pp. 292–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang, K., Billington, D., Blee, J., Antoniou, G.: Combining Description Logic and Defeasible Logic for the Semantic Web. In: Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web, pp. 170–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Meditskos
    • 1
  • Nick Bassiliades
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsAristotle University of ThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations