Visualizing Defeasible Logic Rules for the Semantic Web

  • Efstratios Kontopoulos
  • Nick Bassiliades
  • Grigoris Antoniou
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4185)


Defeasible reasoning is a rule-based approach for efficient reasoning with incomplete and conflicting information. Such reasoning is useful in many Semantic Web applications, like policies, business rules, brokering, bargaining and agent negotiations. Nevertheless, defeasible logic is based on solid mathematical formulations and is, thus, not fully comprehensible by end users, who often need graphical trace and explanation mechanisms for the derived conclusions. Directed graphs can assist in confronting this drawback. They are a powerful and flexible tool of information visualization, offering a convenient and comprehensible way of representing relationships between entities. Their applicability, however, is balanced by the fact that it is difficult to associate data of a variety of types with the nodes and the arcs in the graph. In this paper we try to utilize digraphs in the graphical representation of defeasible rules, by exploiting the expressiveness and comprehensibility they offer, but also trying to leverage their major disadvantage, by defining two distinct node types, for rules and atomic formulas, and four distinct connection types for each rule type in defeasible logic and for superiority relationships. The paper also briefly presents a tool that implements this representation methodology.


Rule Base Atomic Formula Class Pattern Business Rule Rule Type 
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.
    Antoniou, G., Arief, M.: Executable Declarative Business rules and their use in Electronic Commerce. In: Proc. ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Maher, M.J.: On the analysis of regulations using defeasible rules. In: Proc. 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G., van Harmelen, F.: A Semantic Web Primer. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antoniou, G.: Nonmonotonic Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antoniou, G., Skylogiannis, T., Bikakis, A., Bassiliades, N.: DR-BROKERING – A Defeasible Logic-Based System for Semantic Brokering. In: IEEE Int. Conf. on E-Technology, E-Commerce and E-Service, Hong Kong, pp. 414–417 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: A Defeasible Logic Reasoner for the Semantic Web. Int. Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 2(1), 1–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bassiliades, N., Kontopoulos, E., Antoniou, G.: A Visual Environment for Developing Defeasible Rule Bases for the Semantic Web. In: Adi, A., Stoutenburg, S., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2005. LNCS, vol. 3791, pp. 172–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bassiliades, N., Vlahavas, I.: R-DEVICE: An Object-Oriented Knowledge Base System for RDF Metadata. Int. Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 2(2), 24–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boley, H., Tabet, S.: The Rule Markup Initiative.,
  10. 10.
    Chakravarthy, S., Zhang, H.: Visualization of association rules over relational DBMSs. In: Proc. 2003 ACM Symp. on Applied Computing, pp. 922–926. ACM Press, Melbourne (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke, D.: An Augmented Directed Graph Base for Application Development. In: Proc. 20th Annual Southeast Regional Conf., Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, pp. 155–159. ACM Press, New York (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    CLIPS Basic Programming Guide (v. 6.21),
  13. 13.
    Diestel, R.: Graph Theory (Graduate Texts in Mathematics), 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Governatori, G., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Oaks, P.: A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (legal) negotiation. In: Proc. ICAIL 2001, pp. 168–177 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14(2-3), 181–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graphviz - Graph Visualization Software,
  17. 17.
    Intellicorp, The Knowledge Engineering Environment (1984)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jantzen, J.: Inference Planning Using Digraphs and Boolean Arrays. In: Proc. International Conference on APL, pp. 200–204. ACM Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, N., Grosof, B.N., Feigenbaum, J.: Delegation Logic: A Logic-based Approach to Distributed Authorization. ACM Trans. on Information Systems Security 6(1) (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    do Nascimento, H.A.D.: A Framework for Human-Computer Interaction in Directed Graph Drawing. In: Proc. Australian Symp. on Information Visualization, pp. 63–69. Australian Computer Society, Sydney (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible Reasoning. In: Proc. 20th Int. Conference on Systems Science, pp. 470–477. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wong, P.C., Whitney, P., Thomas, J.: Visualizing Association Rules for Text Mining. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. on Information Visualization, p. 120. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Efstratios Kontopoulos
    • 1
  • Nick Bassiliades
    • 1
  • Grigoris Antoniou
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceFO.R.T.H.HeraklionGreece

Personalised recommendations