Reasoning with Rules and Ontologies

  • Thomas Eiter
  • Giovambattista Ianni
  • Axel Polleres
  • Roman Schindlauer
  • Hans Tompits
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4126)


For realizing the Semantic Web vision, extensive work is underway for getting the layers of its conceived architecture ready. Given that the Ontology Layer has reached a certain level of maturity with W3C recommendations such as RDF and the OWL Web Ontology Language, current interest focuses on the Rules Layer and its integration with the Ontology Layer. Several proposals have been made for solving this problem, which does not have a straightforward solution due to various obstacles. One of them is the fact that evaluation principles like the closed-world assumption, which is common in rule languages, are usually not adopted in ontologies. Furthermore, naively adding rules to ontologies raises undecidability issues. In this paper, after giving a brief overview about the current state of the Semantic-Web stack and its components, we will discuss nonmonotonic logic programs under the answer-set semantics as a possible formalism of choice for realizing the Rules Layer. We will briefly discuss open issues in combining rules and ontologies, and survey some existing proposals to facilitate reasoning with rules and ontologies. We will then focus on description-logic programs (or dl-programs, for short), which realize a transparent integration of rules and ontologies supported by existing reasoning engines, based on the answer-set semantics. We will further discuss a generalization of dl-programs, viz.hex-programs, which offer access to different ontologies as well as higher-order language constructs.


Logic Program Resource Description Framework Logic Programming Description Logic Resource Description Framework Graph 
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.
    Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V., Wagner, G.: Stable Model Theory for Extended RDF Ontologies. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 21–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angele, J., Boley, H., de Bruijn, J., Fensel, D., Hitzler, P., Kifer, M., Krummenacher, R., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., Studer, R.: Web Rule Language (WRL), W3C Member Submission (September 2005),
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G.: Nonmonotonic Rule Systems on Top of Ontology Layers. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 394–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V., Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Kifer, M., Maluszynski, J., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Combining Rules and Ontologies: A survey. Technical Report IST506779/Linköping/I3-D3/D/PU/a1, Linköping University, IST-2004-506779 REWERSE Deliverable I3-D3 (February 2005),
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., 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
  6. 6.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Web for Real People, Keynote Speech at the 14th World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2005) (April 2005), slides available at:
  8. 8.
    Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., Rullo, P.: Enhancing Disjunctive Datalog by Constraints. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 12(5), 845–860 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cadoli, M., Lenzerini, M.: The Complexity of Propositional Closed World Reasoning and Circumscription. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 43, 165–211 (1994)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calimeri, F., Ianni, G., Ielpa, G., Pietramala, A., Santoro, M.C.: A System with Template Answer Set Programs. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J.A. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 693–697. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G., Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: \({\cal AL}\)-log: Integrating Datalog and Description Logics. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems (JIIS) 10(3), 227–252 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The 2005 IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service (EEE 2005) contest,
  14. 14.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A Uniform Integration of Higher-Order Reasoning and External Evaluations in Answer Set Programming. In: Proc. 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI 2005. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Nonmonotonic Description Logic Programs: Implementation and Experiments. In: Baader, F., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3452, pp. 511–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Towards Efficient Evaluation of HEX Programs. In: Dix, J., Hunter, A. (eds.) Proc. Eleventh International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR 2006), Answer Set Programming Track, pp. 40–46 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining Answer Set Programming with Description Logics for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. Ninth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pp. 141–151 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Well-Founded Semantics for Description Logic Programs in the Semantic Web. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 81–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Recursive Aggregates in Disjunctive Logic Programs: Semantics and Complexity. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J.A. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 200–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Friend of a Friend (FOAF) Project,
  22. 22.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gelfond, M., Przymusinska, H., Przymusinski, T.C.: The Extended Closed World Assumption and its Relationship to Parallel Circumscription. In: Proc. Fifth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 1986), pp. 133–139 (1986)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logics. In: Proc. Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference WWW 2003, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: RACER System Description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 701–705. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hayes, P.: RDF semantics,
  28. 28.
    Heflin, J., Munoz-Avila, H.: LCW-Based Agent Planning for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. AAAI Workshop on Ontologies and the Semantic Web, pp. 63–70 (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heymans, S., Nieuwenborgh, D.V., Vermeir, D.: Nonmonotonic Ontological and Rule-Based Reasoning with Extended Conceptual Logic Programs. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 392–407. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heymans, S., Nieuwenborgh, D.V., Vermeir, D.: Preferential Reasoning on a Web of Trust. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 368–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML, W3C Member Submission (May 2004),
  32. 32.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Practical Reasoning for Very Expressive Description Logics. Logic Journal of the IGPL 8(3), 239–264 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    ICONS homepage, since (2001),
  34. 34.
    Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I., Seipel, D., Simons, P., You, J.-H.: Unfolding Partiality and Disjunctions in Stable Model Semantics. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7(1), 1–37 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leone, N., Gottlob, G., Rosati, R., Eiter, T., Faber, W., Fink, M., Greco, G., Ianni, G., Kałka, E., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Lio, V., Nowicki, B., Ruzzi, M., Staniszkis, W., Terracina, G.: The INFOMIX System for Advanced Integration of Incomplete and Inconsistent Data. In: Proc. 24th ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD 2005), pp. 915–917. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (to appear, 2005), Available at:
  37. 37.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining Horn Rules and Description Logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2), 165–209 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lierler, Y.: Disjunctive Answer Set Programming via Satisfiability. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 447–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lifschitz, V.: Answer Set Planning. In: Proc. 16th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 1999), pp. 23–37. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a Logic Program. In: Proc. Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 1994), pp. 23–38. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: Stratified Probabilistic Description Logic Programs. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 87–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Marek, W., Truszczyński, M.: Stable Logic Programming - An Alternative Logic Programming Paradigm. In: Apt, K., Marek, W., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) The Logic Programming Paradigm, pp. 375–398. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 3(1), 41–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Niemelä, I.: Logic Programs with Stable Model Semantics as a Constraint Programming Paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3–4), 241–273 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Niemelä, I., Simons, P., Soininen, T.: Stable Model Semantics of Weight Constraint Rules. In: Gelfond, M., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G. (eds.) LPNMR 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1730, pp. 107–116. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pan, J.Z., Franconi, E., Tessaris, S., Stamou, G., Tzouvaras, V., Serafini, L., Horrocks, I.R., Glimm, B.: Specification of Coordination of Rule and Ontology Languages. Project Deliverable D2.5.1, KnowledgeWeb NoE (June 2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Poole, D.: A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36, 27–47 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rainer, A.: Web Service Composition under Answer Set Programming. In: Proc. KI 2005 Workshop Planen, Scheduling und Konfigurieren, Entwerfen PuK 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rosati, R.: Towards Expressive KR Systems Integrating Datalog and Description Logics: Preliminary Report. In: Proc. 1999 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 1999), CEUR Workshop Proceedings,, vol. 22, pp. 160–164 (1999)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rosati, R.: On the Decidability and Complexity of Integrating Ontologies and Rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 61–73 (2005)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rosati, R.: \(\mathcal{DL}\text{+}log\): Tight Integration of Description Logics and Disjunctive Datalog. In: Proc. Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 68–78. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rosati, R.: Reasoning with Rules and Ontologies. In: Barahona, P., Bry, F., Franconi, E., Henze, N., Sattler, U. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2006. LNCS, vol. 4126, pp. 93–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sintek, M., Decker, S.: TRIPLE - A Query, Inference, and Transformation Language for the Semantic Web. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 364–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: Fact++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Description. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4130, pp. 292–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs. Journal of the ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    W3C. The Resource Description Framework,
  58. 58.
    Wang, K., Antoniou, G., Topor, R.W., Sattar, A.: Merging and Aligning Ontologies in dl-Programs. In: Adi, A., Stoutenburg, S., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2005. LNCS, vol. 3791, pp. 160–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    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
  60. 60.
    ASPLIB: The Answer Set Programming Satisfiability Library,
  61. 61.
    WASP homepage (since 2002),
  62. 62.
  63. 63.
    Woltran, S.: Answer Set Programming: Model Applications and Proofs-of-Concept. Technical Report WP5, Working Group on Answer Set Programming (WASP, IST-FET-2001-37004) (July 2005), Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Giovambattista Ianni
    • 1
  • Axel Polleres
    • 2
  • Roman Schindlauer
    • 1
  • Hans Tompits
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.Universidad Rey Juan CarlosMóstolesSpain

Personalised recommendations