Uniform Evaluation of Nonmonotonic DL-Programs

  • Thomas Eiter
  • Thomas Krennwallner
  • Patrik Schneider
  • Guohui Xiao
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7153)


Nonmonotonic description logic programs are a major formalism for a loose coupling of rules and ontologies, formalized in logic programming and description logics, respectively. While this approach is attractive for combining systems, the impedance mismatch between different reasoning engines and the API-style interfacing are an obstacle to efficient evaluation of dl-programs in general. Uniform evaluation circumvents this by transforming programs into a single formalism, which can be evaluated on a single reasoning engine. In this paper, we consider recent and ongoing work on this approach which uses relational first-order logic (and thus relational database engines) and datalog with negation as target formalisms. Experimental data show that significant performance gains are possible and suggest the potential of this approach.


Logic Program Description Logic Uniform Evaluation Conjunctive Query Loose Coupling 
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.
    Acciarri, A., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Palmieri, M., Rosati, R.: Quonto: Querying ontologies. In: AAAI 2005, pp. 1670–1671 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: The dl-lite family and relations. Artif. Intell. Res. 36, 1–69 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\mathcal{EL}\) envelope. In: IJCAI 2005, pp. 364–369 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\mathcal{EL}\) envelope further. In: OWLED08-DC (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms. Autom. Reasoning 14(1), 149–180 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonatti, P.A., Faella, M., Sauro, L.: Adding default attributes to EL++. In: AAAI 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Marnette, B., Pieris, A.: Datalog+/-: A family of logical knowledge representation and query languages for new applications. In: LICS 2010, pp. 228–242 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calvanese, D., de Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: Modular Nonmonotonic Logic Programming Revisited. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) ICLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5649, pp. 145–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: Relevance-driven Evaluation of Modular Nonmonotonic Logic Programs. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 87–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Krennwallner, T.: Realizing Default Logic Over Description Logic Knowledge Bases. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 602–613. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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. Tech. Rep. Ontorule D3.1, Ontorule Project Consortium (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Bruijn, J., Eiter, T., Tompits, H.: Embedding approaches to combining rules and ontologies into autoepistemic logic. In: KR 2008, pp. 485–495 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denecker, M., Ternovska, E.: A logic of non-monotone inductive definitions. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 9(2), 14, 52 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drabent, W., Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Małuszyński, J.: Hybrid Reasoning with Rules and Ontologies. In: Bry, F., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) Semantic Techniques for the Web. LNCS, vol. 5500, pp. 1–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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, 41 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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), 1495–1539 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: Decomposition of declarative knowledge bases with external functions. In: IJCAI 2009, pp. 752–758 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer set programming. In: IJCAI 2005, pp. 90–96 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fink, M., Pearce, D.: A Logical Semantics for Description Logic Programs. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6341, pp. 156–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.: Potassco: The Potsdam Answer Set Solving Collection. AI Commun. 24(2), 107–124 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gottlob, G., Schwentick, T.: Rewriting ontological queries into small nonrecursive datalog programs. In: DL 2011. CEUR-WS, vol. 745 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In: WWW 2003, pp. 48–57. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: Lubm: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Web Sem. 3(2-3), 158–182 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haarslev, V., Hidde, K., Möller, R., Wessel, M.: The RacerPro knowledge representation and reasoning system. Semant. Web (to appear),
  28. 28.
    Heymans, S., Eiter, T., Xiao, G.: Tractable reasoning with DL-programs over datalog-rewritable description logics. In: ECAI 2010. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heymans, S., Korf, R., Erdmann, M., Pührer, J., Eiter, T.: Loosely coupling f-logic rules and ontologies. In: WI 2010, pp. 248–255. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Reasoning in description logics by a reduction to disjunctive datalog. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 351–384 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janhunen, T.: On the intertranslatability of non-monotonic logics. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 27(1-4), 79–128 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Janhunen, T., Oikarinen, E., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Modularity Aspects of Disjunctive Stable Models. Artif. Intell. Res. 35, 813–857 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kazakov, Y.: Consequence-driven reasoning for Horn \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\) ontologies. In: IJCAI 2009, pp. 2040–2045 (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kazakov, Y., Krötzsch, M., Simančík, F.: Concurrent Classification of \(\mathcal{EL}\) Ontologies. In: Aroyo, L., Welty, C., Alani, H., Taylor, J., Bernstein, A., Kagal, L., Noy, N., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7031, pp. 305–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. J. ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kontchakov, R., Lutz, C., Toman, D., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: The combined approach to query answering in dl-lite. In: KR 2010. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Krötzsch, M.: Efficient rule-based inferencing for OWL EL. In: IJCAI 2011, pp. 2668–2673 (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7(3) (2006)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: A novel combination of answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 22(11), 1577–1592 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Profiles. W3C 2009, W3C Rec., October 27 (2009),
  41. 41.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling Description Logics and Rules. J. ACM 57(5), 1–62 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Motik, B., Shearer, R., Horrocks, I.: Hypertableau Reasoning for Description Logics. Artif. Intell. Res. 36, 165–228 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ordonez, C.: Optimization of linear recursive queries in SQL. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 22(2), 264–277 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ortiz, M., Rudolph, S., Simkus, M.: Worst-case optimal reasoning for the horn-DL fragments of OWL 1 and 2. In: KR 2010. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rosati, R., Almatelli, A.: Improving query answering over dl-lite ontologies. In: KR 2010. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schneider, P.: Evaluation of description logic programs using an RDBMS. Master’s thesis, TU Wien (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Sem. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stocker, M., Smith, M.: Owlgres: A scalable OWL reasoner. In: OWLED 2001 (2008)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Terracina, G., Leone, N., Lio, V., Panetta, C.: Experimenting with recursive queries in database and logic programming systems. Theor. Pract. Log. Prog. 8(2), 129–165 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tran, T.K.: Query answering in the description logic Horn-SHIQ. Master’s thesis, TU Wien (2011)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang, K., Billington, D., Blee, J., Antoniou, G.: Combining Description Logic and Defeasible Logic for the Semantic Web. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 170–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wang, Y., You, J.H., Yuan, L.Y., Shen, Y.D.: Loop formulas for description logic programs. Theor. Pract. Log. Prog. 10(4-6), 531–545 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wang, Y., You, J.H., Yuan, L.Y., Shen, Y.D., Eiter, T.: Embedding description logic programs into default logic. CoRR abs/1111.1486 (2011)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wijaya, T.: Top-Down Evaluation Techniques for Modular Nonmonotonic Logic Programs. Master’s thesis, TU Wien (2011),
  55. 55.
    Xiao, G., Eiter, T.: Inline Evaluation of Hybrid Knowledge Bases – PhD Description. In: Rudolph, S., Gutierrez, C. (eds.) RR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6902, pp. 300–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Xiao, G., Heymans, S., Eiter, T.: DReW: a reasoner for datalog-rewritable description logics and dl-programs. In: BuRO 2010 (2010),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Thomas Krennwallner
    • 1
  • Patrik Schneider
    • 1
  • Guohui Xiao
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations