Reasoning in the OWL 2 Full Ontology Language Using First-Order Automated Theorem Proving

  • Michael Schneider
  • Geoff Sutcliffe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6803)

Abstract

OWL 2 has been standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) as a family of ontology languages for the Semantic Web. The most expressive of these languages is OWL 2 Full, but to date no reasoner has been implemented for this language. Consistency and entailment checking are known to be undecidable for OWL 2 Full. We have translated a large fragment of the OWL 2 Full semantics into first-order logic, and used automated theorem proving systems to do reasoning based on this theory. The results are promising, and indicate that this approach can be applied in practice for effective OWL reasoning, beyond the capabilities of current Semantic Web reasoners.

Keywords

Semantic Web OWL First-order logic ATP 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fikes, R., McGuinness, D., Waldinger, R.: A First-Order Logic Semantics for Semantic Web Markup Languages. Tech. Rep. KSL-02-01, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 (January 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hawke, S.: Surnia. Homepage (2003), http://www.w3.org/2003/08/surnia
  4. 4.
    Hayes, P.: Translating Semantic Web Languages into Common Logic. Tech. rep., IHMC Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, 40 South Alcaniz Street, Pensacola, FL 32502 (July 18, 2005), http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/CL/SW2SCL.html
  5. 5.
    Hayes, P. (ed.): RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Voronkov, A.: Reasoning Support for Expressive Ontology Languages Using a Theorem Prover. In: Dix, J., Hegner, S.J. (eds.) FoIKS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3861, pp. 201–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J. (eds.): Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/
  8. 8.
    Motik, B.: On the Properties of Metamodeling in OWL. Journal of Logic and Computation 17(4), 617–637 (2007)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/
  10. 10.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
  11. 11.
    Plaisted, D., Yahya, A.: A Relevance Restriction Strategy for Automated Deduction. Artificial Intelligence 144(1-2), 59–93 (2003)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schneider, M. (ed.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: RDF-Based Semantics. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/
  13. 13.
    Schneider, M., Mainzer, K.: A Conformance Test Suite for the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rules Language and the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics. In: Hoekstra, R., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2009). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 529 (2009), http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-529/owled2009_submission_19.pdf
  14. 14.
    Sutcliffe, G.: The TPTP Problem Library and Associated Infrastructure. The FOF and CNF Parts, v3.5.0. Journal of Automated Reasoning 43(4), 337–362 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsarkov, D., Riazanov, A., Bechhofer, S., Horrocks, I.: Using Vampire to Reason with OWL. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 471–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    W3C OWL Working Group (ed.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Document Overview. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
  17. 17.
    W3C WebOnt OWL Working Group: OWL 1 Test Results (March 9, 2004), http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Schneider
    • 1
  • Geoff Sutcliffe
    • 2
  1. 1.FZI Research Center for Information TechnologyGermany
  2. 2.University of MiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations