Inline Evaluation of Hybrid Knowledge Bases

PhD Description
  • Guohui Xiao
  • Thomas Eiter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6902)


The deployment of knowledge representation formalisms to the Web has created the need for hybrid formalisms that combine heterogeneous knowledge bases. The aim of this research is to improve the reasoning efficiency over hybrid knowledge bases (KBs). The traditional way of reasoning over hybrid KBs is to use different underlying reasoners to access the different data sources, which causes overhead. To remedy this, we propose a new strategy, called inline evaluation, which compiles the whole hybrid KB into a new KB using only one single formalism. Hence we can use a single reasoner to do the reasoning tasks, and improve the efficiency of hybrid reasoning.


hybrid KBs logic programming description logic dl-programs 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\mathcal{EL}\) envelope. In: Proc. IJCAI, pp. 364–369. Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Bruijn, J., Bonnard, P., Citeau, H., Dehors, S., Heymans, S., Pührer, J., Eiter, T.: Combinations of rules and ontologies: State-of-the-art survey of issues. Technical Report Ontorule D3.1, Ontorule Project Consortium (June 2009),
  3. 3.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R.: Well-founded semantics for description logic programs in the Semantic Web. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 12(2), 11 (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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), 1495–1539 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Faber, W., Greco, G., Leone, N.: Magic sets for data integration. In: Fox, D., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) AAAI, pp. 1528–1531. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proc. WWW 2003, pp. 48–57. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heymans, S.: Decidable Open Answer Set Programming. Phd thesis, Theoretical Computer Science Lab (TINF), CS Dept, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (February 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heymans, S., Eiter, T., Xiao, G.: Tractable reasoning with dl-programs over datalog-rewritable description logics. In: ECAI. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 215, pp. 35–40. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heymans, S., Korf, R., Erdmann, M., Pührer, J., Eiter, T.: Loosely coupling f-logic rules and ontologies. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI 2010), pp. 248–255. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heymans, S., Prediou, L., Feier, C., de Bruijn, J., van Nieuwenborgh, D.: G-hybrid knowledge bases. In: Proc. of ICLP 2006 Workshop on Applications of Logic Programming in the Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, ALPSWS 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. In: W3C Member Submission, World Wide Web Consortium (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kazakov, Y.: Consequence-driven reasoning for Horn \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\) ontologies. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 2040–2045 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krennwallner, T.: Integration of Conjunctive Queries over Description Logics into HEX-Programs. Master’s thesis, Vienna University of Technology (October 2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Motik, B.: Reasoning in Description Logics using Resolution and Deductive Databases. PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany (January 2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motik, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Profiles. W3C, 2008. W3C Rec. (October 27, 2009),
  18. 18.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling Description Logics and Rules. Journal of the ACM 57(5), 1–62 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ortiz, M., Rudolph, S., Simkus, M.: Worst-case optimal reasoning for the Horn-dl fragments of OWL 1 and 2. In: KR, pp. 269–279. AAAI Press, Menlo Park ( May 2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosati, R.: On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 41–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosati, R., Almatelli, A.: Improving query answering over dl-lite ontologies. In: KR. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider, P.: Evaluation of description logic programs using an RDBMS. Master’s thesis, Vienna University of Technology (December 2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xiao, G., Heymans, S., Eiter, T.: DReW: a reasoner for datalog-rewritable description logics and dl-programs. In: Informal Proc. 1st Int’l Workshop on Business Models, Business Rules and Ontologies (BuRO 2010), Bressanone/Italy (September 21, 2010),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guohui Xiao
    • 1
  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information Systems 184/3Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations