A Bottom-Up Method for the Deterministic Horn Fragment of the Description Logic \(\mathcal{ALC}\)

  • Linh Anh Nguyen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4160)


We study the deterministic Horn fragment of \(\mathcal{ALC}\), which restricts the general Horn fragment of \(\mathcal{ALC}\) only in that, the constructor ∀R.C is allowed in bodies of program clauses and queries only in the form ∀ ∃ R.C, which is defined as ∀ R.C ⊓ ∃ R.C. We present an algorithm that for a deterministic positive logic program P given as a TBox constructs a finite least pseudo-model \(\mathcal{I}\) of P such that for every deterministic positive concept C, PC iff \(\mathcal{I}\) validates C (and more strongly, iff \(\mathcal{I},\tau \models C\), where τ is the distinguished object of \(\mathcal{I}\) and the satisfaction means τ is an instance of C w.r.t. \(\mathcal{I}\)). Pseudo-interpretations are very similar to (traditional) interpretations, except that they have two interpretation functions for roles, one to deal with the constructor ∃ R.C and the other to deal with ∀R.C. They are ordered by comparing the sets of validated positive concepts. Our algorithm runs in time 2 O(n) and returns a pseudo-interpretation of size 2 O(n). Our method is extendable for instance checking w.r.t. knowledge bases containing also an ABox in more expressive description logics.


Logic Program Modal Logic Description Logic Kripke Model Horn Clause 
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.
    Baader, F., Sattler, U.: An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica 69, 5–40 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cadoli, M., Palopoli, L., Lenzerini, M.: Datalog and description logics: Expressive power. In: Cluet, S., Hull, R. (eds.) DBPL 1997. LNCS, vol. 1369, pp. 281–298. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In: Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Wolter, F. (eds.) Description Logics (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: A hybrid system with Datalog and concept languages. In: Ardizzone, E., Sorbello, F., Gaglio, S. (eds.) AI*IA 1991. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 549, pp. 88–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franconi, E., Tessaris, S.: Rules and queries with ontologies: A unified logical framework. In: Ohlbach, H.J., Schaffert, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3208, pp. 50–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: WWW, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Data complexity of reasoning in very expressive description logics. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) IJCAI, pp. 466–471. Professional Book Center (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining Horn rules and description logics in carin. Artificial Intelligence 104(1-2), 165–209 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nguyen, L.A.: Constructing the least models for positive modal logic programs. Fundamenta Informaticae 42(1), 29–60 (2000)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen, L.A.: The long version of this paper (2006), Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linh Anh Nguyen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations