Description Logic Reasoning with Syntactic Updates

  • Christian Halashek-Wiener
  • Bijan Parsia
  • Evren Sirin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4275)


Various data sources on the Web tend to be highly dynamic; this is evident in prominent Web services frameworks in which devices register or deregister their descriptions quite rapidly and in Semantic Web portals which allow content authors to modify or extend underlying ontologies and submit content. Such applications often leverage Description Logic (DL) reasoning for a variety of tasks (e.g., classifying Web service descriptions, etc); however, this can introduce substantial overhead due to content fluctuation, as DL reasoners have only been considered for relatively static knowledge bases. This work aims to provide more efficient DL reasoning techniques for frequently changing instance bases (ABoxes). More specifically, we investigate the process of incrementally updating tableau completion graphs used for reasoning in the expressive DLs \(\mathcal{SHOQ}\) and \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\), which correspond to a large subset of the W3C standard Web Ontology Language, OWL-DL. We present an algorithm for updating completion graphs under the syntactic addition and removal of ABox assertions. We also provide an empirical analysis of the approach through an implementation in the OWL-DL reasoner, Pellet.


Description Logic Belief Revision Expansion Rule Completion Graph Tableau Algorithm 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Embedding defaults into terminological representation systems. J. Automated Reasoning 14, 149–180 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Nutt, W.: Basic description logics. In: Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, pp. 43–95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doyle, J.: A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence (1979)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flouris, G., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: On applying the AGM theory to dLs and OWL. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 216–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flouris, G., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: Updating description logic using the agm theory. In: 7th International Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gupta, A., Mumick, I.: Materialized views: Techniques, implementation, and applications. MIT press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haarslev, V., Moller, R.: Description logic systems with concrete domains: Applications for the semantic web. In: Int. Workshop on KR meets Databases 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Incremental query answering for implementing document retrieval services. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-2003), Rome, Italy, September 5-7, pp. 85–94 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halaschek-Wiener, C., Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B.: Extending tableau tracing for abox updates. In: UMIACS Tech Report (2006),
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I.: Implementation and optimisation techniques. In: Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, pp. 313–355. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Ontology reasoning in the SHOQ(D) description logic. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), pp. 199–204. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In: Ganzinger, H., McAllester, D., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1705, pp. 161–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In: Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging and repair of owl ontologies. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park,
  16. 16.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J.: Debugging unsatisfiable classes in owl ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics - Special Issue of the Semantic Web Track of WWW 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, L., Horrocks, I.: A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liebig, T., Noppens, O.: ontoTrack: Combining browsing and editing with reasoning and explaining for OWL lite ontologies. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 244–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu, H., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Wolter, F.: Updating description logic aboxes. In: International Conference of Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning(KR) (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nebel, B.: Base revision operations and schemes: Semantics, representation, and complexity (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T.R., Sycara, K.: Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In: The First International Semantic Web Conference (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Pellet: An owl dl reasoner. In: Third International Semantic Web Conference - Poster (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roger, M., Simonet, A., Simonet, M.: Toward updates in description logics. In: International Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Composition-driven filtering and selection of semantic web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19(4), 42–49 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sycara, K., Paolucci, M., Ankolekar, A., Srinivasan, N.: Automated discovery, interaction and composition of semantic web services. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 27–46 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uschold, M., Clark, P., Dickey, F., Fung, C., Smith, S., Uczekaj, S., Wilke, M., Bechhofer, S., Horrocks, I.: A semantic infosphere. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 882–896. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Halashek-Wiener
    • 1
  • Bijan Parsia
    • 2
  • Evren Sirin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceThe University of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations