Realizing Default Logic over Description Logic Knowledge Bases

  • Minh Dao-Tran
  • Thomas Eiter
  • Thomas Krennwallner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5590)


We consider a realization of Reiter-style default logic on top of description logic knowledge bases (DL-KBs). To this end, we present elegant transformations from default theories to conjunctive query (cq-)programs that combine rules and ontologies, based on different methods to find extensions of default theories. The transformations, which are implemented in a front-end to a DL-reasoner, exploit additional constraints to prune the search space via relations between default conclusions and justifications. The front-end is a flexible tool for customizing the realization, allowing to develop alternative or refined default semantics. To our knowledge, no comparable implementation is available.


Logic Program Description Logic Conjunctive Query Default Theory Default Logic 
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.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 13(1-2), 81–132 (1980)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Embedding Defaults into Terminological Knowledge Representation Formalisms. J. Autom. Reasoning 14(1), 149–180 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Straccia, U.: Default inheritance reasoning in hybrid KL-ONE-style logics. In: IJCAI 1993, pp. 676–681. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Padgham, L., Zhang, T.: A terminological logic with defaults: A definition and an application. In: IJCAI 1993, pp. 662–668. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donini, F.M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 3(2), 177–225 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Nutt, W., Schaerf, A.: An epistemic operator for description logics. Artif. Intell. 100(1-2), 225–274 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cadoli, M., Donini, F.M., Schaerf, M.: Closed world reasoning in hybrid systems. In: Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS 1990), pp. 474–481. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonatti, P.A., Lutz, C., Wolter, F.: Expressive non-monotonic description logics based on circumscription. In: KR 2006, pp. 400–410. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gómez, S., Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.: An argumentative approach to reasoning with inconsistent ontologies. In: KROW 2008. CRPIT, vol. 90, pp. 11–20. ACS (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Polleres, A.: Rules and Ontologies for the Semantic Web. In: Baroglio, C., Bonatti, P.A., Małuszyński, J., Marchiori, M., Polleres, A., Schaffert, S. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 5224, pp. 1–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Schindlauer, R.: Exploiting conjunctive queries in description logic programs. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell (2009); Published online January 27 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artif. Intell. 172(12-13) (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cholewinski, P., Truszczynski, M.: Minimal number of permutations sufficient to compute all extensions a finite default theory (unpublished note)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Racer system description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2083, pp. 701–706. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: Decomposition of Declarative Knowledge Bases with External Functions. In: IJCAI 2009 (July 2009) (to appear)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. J. Web Semant. 1(4), 345–357 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\) and RDF to OWL: The making of a Web ontology language. J. Web Semant. 1(1), 7–26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In: Ganzinger, H., McAllester, D., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1705, pp. 161–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Minh Dao-Tran
    • 1
  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Thomas Krennwallner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations