Recent Advances in Integrating OWL and Rules (Technical Communication)

  • Matthias Knorr
  • David Carral Martínez
  • Pascal Hitzler
  • Adila A. Krisnadhi
  • Frederick Maier
  • Cong Wang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7497)


As part of the quest for a unifying logic for the Semantic Web Technology Stack, a central issue is finding suitable ways of integrating description logics based on theWeb Ontology Language (OWL) with rule-based approaches based on logic programming. Such integration is difficult since naive approaches typically result in the violation of one ormore desirable design principles. For example, while both OWL 2 DL and RIF Core (a dialect of the Rule Interchange Format RIF) are decidable, their naive union is not, unless carefully chosen syntactic restrictions are applied.

We report on recent advances and ongoing work by the authors in integrating OWL and rules. We take an OWL-centric perspective, which means that we take OWL 2 DL as a starting point and pursue the question of how features of rule-based formalisms can be added without jeopardizing decidability. We also report on incorporating the closed world assumption and on reasoning algorithms. This paper essentially serves as an entry point to the original papers, to which we will refer throughout, where detailed expositions of the results can be found.


Description Logic Integrity Constraint Reasoning Algorithm Nominal Schema Closed World Assumption 
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.
    Carral Martínez, D., Hitzler, P.: Extending Description Logic Rules. In: Simperl, E., Cimiano, P., Polleres, A., Corcho, O., Presutti, V. (eds.) ESWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7295, pp. 345–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carral Martínez, D., Krisnadhi, A., Maier, F., Sengupta, K., Hitzler, P.: Reconciling OWL and rules. Tech. rep., Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio (2011),
  3. 3.
    Donini, F.M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 3(2), 177–225 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2003), pp. 48–57. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knorr, M., Hitzler, P., Maier, F.: Reconciling OWL and non-monotonic rules for the Semantic Web. In: Proceeding of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montpellier, France, August 27-31 (to appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krisnadhi, A., Hitzler, P.: A Tableau Algorithm for Description Logics with Nominal Schema. In: Krötzsch, M., Straccia, U. (eds.) RR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7497, pp. 234–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P.: Description logic rules. In: Ghallab, M., Spyropoulos, C.D., Fakotakis, N., Avouris, N.M. (eds.) Proceeding of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Patras, Greece, July 21-25, pp. 80–84. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krötzsch, M., Maier, F., Krisnadhi, A.A., Hitzler, P.: A better uncle for OWL: Nominal schemas for integrating rules and ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2011), pp. 645–654. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Motik, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009),
  11. 11.
    Motik, B.: Reasoning in Description Logics using Resolution and Deductive Databases. Ph.D. thesis, Univesität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling Description Logics and Rules. Journal of the ACM 57(5), 93–154 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 41–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, C., Hitzler, P.: A tractable resolution procedure for \(\mathcal{SROELV}_n(\sqcap_s,\times)\). Tech. rep., Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio (2012),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Knorr
    • 2
  • David Carral Martínez
    • 1
  • Pascal Hitzler
    • 1
  • Adila A. Krisnadhi
    • 1
  • Frederick Maier
    • 3
  • Cong Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Kno.e.sis CenterWright State UniversityU.S.A.
  2. 2.CENTRIA, Universidade Nova de LisboaPortugal
  3. 3.Aston Business SchoolAston UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations