Integration Proposal for Description Logic and Attributive Logic – Towards Semantic Web Rules

  • Grzegorz J. Nalepa
  • Weronika T. Furmańska
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6450)


The current challenge of the Semantic Web is the development of an expressive yet effective rule language. This paper presents an integration proposal for Description Logics (DL) and Attributive Logics (ALSV) is presented. These two formalisms stem from fields of Knowledge Representation and Artificial Intelligence. However, they are based on different design goals and therefore provide different description and reasoning capabilities. ALSV is the foundation of XTT2, an expressive language for rule-based systems. DL provide formulation for expressive ontology languages such as OWL2. An important research direction is the development of rule languages that can be integrated with ontologies. The contribution of the paper consists in introducing a possible transition from ALSV to DL. This opens up possibilities of using XTT2, a well-founded rule-based system modelling rule language, to improve the design of Semantic Web rules.


Description Logic Formal Description Closed World Assumption Rule Language 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.
    Nalepa, G.J., Furmańska, W.T.: Proposal of a New Rule-based Inference Scheme for the Semantic Web Applications. In: New Challenges in Computational Collective Intelligence. Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp. 15–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web: Scientific american. Scientific American (May 2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kifer, M., Boley, H.: RIF overview. W3C working draft, W3C (October 2009),
  5. 5.
    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 submission 21 may 2004. Technical report, W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.): Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liebowitz, J. (ed.): The Handbook of Applied Expert Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giarratano, J., Riley, G.: Expert Systems. Principles and Programming, 4th edn. Thomson Course Technology, Boston (2005) ISBN 0-534-38447-1Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ligęza, A.: Logical Foundations for Rule-Based Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bratko, I.: Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nalepa, G.J., Ligęza, A.: XTT+ rule design using the ALSV(FD). In: Giurca, A., Analyti, A., Wagner, G. (eds.) 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence: 2nd East European Workshop on Rule-based applications RuleApps 2008 Patras, ECAI 2008, pp. 11–15. University of Patras, Patras (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nalepa, G.J., Ligęza, A.: HeKatE methodology, hybrid engineering of intelligent systems. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science (2010) (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S.: OWL 2 web ontology language — primer. W3C recommendation, W3C (October 2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nalepa, G.J., Ligęza, A.: On ALSV rules formulation and inference. In: Lane, H.C., Guesgen, H.W. (eds.) Proceedings of the twenty-second International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS-22, May 19–21, pp. 396–401. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klösgen, W., Żytkow, J.M. (eds.): Handbook of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Oxford University Press, New York (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ligęza, A., Nalepa, G.J.: Rules verification and validation. In: Giurca, A., Dragan Gasevic, K.T. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Emerging Rule-Based Languages and Technologies: Open Solutions and Approaches, pp. 273–301. IGI Global, Hershey (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ligęza, A.: Logical Foundations for Rule-Based Systems. Uczelniane Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Dydaktyczne AGH w Krakowie, Kraków (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 7(2), 74–89 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Negnevitsky, M.: Artificial Intelligence. A Guide to Intelligent Systems. Addison-Wesley, Harlow (2002) ISBN 0-201-71159-1Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Antoniou, G., van Harmelen, F.: A Semantic Web Primer. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ullman, J.D.: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, vol. I. Computer Science Press, Rockville (1988)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. J. ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: AL-log: integrating datalog and description logics. J. of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 10, 227–252 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.C.: Combining horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artif. Intell. 104(1-2), 165–209 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artificial Intelligence 172, 12–13 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2003, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Horrocks, I., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Hendler, J.: Semantic web architecture: Stack or two towers? In: Fages, F., Soliman, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3703, pp. 37–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McGuinness, D.L., Welty, C., Smith, M.K.: OWL web ontology language guide. W3C recommendation, W3C (February 2004),
  32. 32.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for owl-dl with rules. Journal of Web Semantics, 549–563 (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P.: ELP: Tractable rules for OWL 2. In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 649–664. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Szostek-Janik, J.: Translations of knowledge representations for rule-based systems. AGH University of Science and Technology, MSc Thesis (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baader, F., Lutz, C., Miličic, M., Sattler, U., Wolter, F.: Integrating description logics and action formalisms: first results. In: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial intelligence, AAAI 2005, pp. 572–577. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bong, Y.: Description logic ABox updates revisited. Master thesis, TU Dresden, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Drescher, C., Liu, H., Baader, F., Guhlemann, S., Petersohn, U., Steinke, P., Thielscher, M.: Putting abox updates into action. In: Ghilardi, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) FroCoS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5749, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baader, F., Bauer, A., Baumgartner, P., Cregan, A., Gabaldon, A., Ji, K., Lee, K., Rajaratnam, D., Schwitter, R.: A novel architecture for situation awareness systems. In: Giese, M., Waaler, A. (eds.) TABLEAUX 2009. LNCS, vol. 5607, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S.: Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton (2009)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Matzner, T., Hitzler, P.: Any-world access to OWL from Prolog. In: Hertzberg, J., Beetz, M., Englert, R. (eds.) KI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4667, pp. 84–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grzegorz J. Nalepa
    • 1
  • Weronika T. Furmańska
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of AutomaticsAGH University of Science and TechnologyKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations