Ontology Query Answering on Databases

  • Jing Mei
  • Li Ma
  • Yue Pan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4273)


With the fast development of Semantic Web, more and more RDF and OWL ontologies are created and shared. The effective management, such as storage, inference and query, of these ontologies on databases gains increasing attention. This paper addresses ontology query answering on databases by means of Datalog programs. Via epistemic operators, integrity constraints are introduced, and used for conveying semantic aspects of OWL that are not covered by Datalog-style rule languages. We believe such a processing suitable to capture ontologies in the database flavor, while keeping reasoning tractable. Here, we present a logically equivalent knowledge base whose (sound and complete) inference system appears as a Datalog program. As such, SPARQL query answering on OWL ontologies could be solved in databases. Bi-directional strategies, taking advantage of both forward and backward chaining, are then studied to support this kind of customized Datalog programs, returning exactly answers to the query within our logical framework.


Inference Rule Resource Description Framework Description Logic Integrity Constraint SPARQL Query 
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.


  1. 1.
    The XSB System Version 2.7.1, vol. 1: Programmer’s ManualGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bancilhon, F., Maier, D., Sagiv, Y., Ullman, J.D.: Magic Sets and Other Strange Ways to Implement Logic Programs. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 1–15 (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bechhofer, S., Horrocks, I., Turi, D.: The OWL Instance Store: System Description. In: Nieuwenhuis, R. (ed.) CADE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3632, pp. 177–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bry, F., Eisinger, N., Schutz, H., Torge, S.: SIC: Satisfiability Checking for Integrity Constraints. In: Proceeding of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 25–36 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: DL-Lite: Tractable Description Logics for Ontologies. In: Proc. of the 20th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 602–607 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Voronkov, A.: Complexity and Expressive Power of Logic Programming. ACM Computing Surveys 33(3), 374–425 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Bruijn, J., Eiter, T., Polleres, A., Tompits, H.: On Representational Issues About Combinations of Classical Theories with Nonmonotonic Rules. In: Lang, J., Lin, F., Wang, J. (eds.) KSEM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4092, pp. 1–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Bruijn, J., Polleres, A., Lara, R., Fensel, D.: OWL DL vs. OWL Flight: Conceptual Modeling and Reasoning on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 14th International World Wide Web Conference, China, Japan. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 48–57. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: A Description Logic with Transitive and Converse Roles, Role Hierarchies and Qualifying Number Restrictions. LTCS-Report 99-08, RWTH Aachen, Germany (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Tessaris, S.: Querying the Semantic Web: a Formal Approach. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 177–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiryakov, A., Ognyanov, D., Manov, D.: OWLIM: A Pragmatic Semantic Repository for OWL. In: Dean, M., Guo, Y., Jun, W., Kaschek, R., Krishnaswamy, S., Pan, Z., Sheng, Q.Z. (eds.) WISE-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3807, pp. 182–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ma, L., Yang, Y., Qiu, Z., Xie, G., Pan, Y., Liu, S.: Towards A Complete OWL Ontology Benchmark. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 124–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mei, J., Bontas, E.P., Lin, Z.: OWL2Jess: A Transformational Implementation of the OWL Semantics. In: Chen, G., Pan, Y., Guo, M., Lu, J. (eds.) ISPA-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3759, pp. 599–608. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Closing Semantic Web Ontologies. Technical report, University of Karlsruhe (May 2006), http://kaon2.semanticweb.org/
  19. 19.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 41–60 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: DLDB: Extending Relational Databases to Support Semantic Web Queries. In: Practical and Scalable Semantic Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramamohanarao, K., Harland, J.: An introduction to deductive database languages and systems. The VLDB Journal 3(2), 107–122 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruckhaus, E., Ruiz, E., Vidal, M.-E.: Query Evaluation and Optimization in the Semantic Web. In: Proc. of ALPSWS (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swift, T.: Deduction in Ontologies via ASP. In: Lifschitz, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) LPNMR 2004. LNCS, vol. 2923, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    W3C. OWL: Web Ontology Language. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-absyn/
  25. 25.
    W3C. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/
  26. 26.
    W3C. Rule Interchange Format WG, http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg
  27. 27.
    W3C. SPARQL Query Language, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  28. 28.
    W3C. SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML, http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
  29. 29.
    Zhou, J., Ma, L., Liu, Q., Zhang, L., Yu, Y., Pan, Y.: Minerva: A Scalable OWL Ontology Storage and Inference System. In: Proceedings of Asia Semantic Web Conference (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jing Mei
    • 1
    • 2
  • Li Ma
    • 2
  • Yue Pan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information SciencePeking UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.IBM China Research LabBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations