Can OWL and Logic Programming Live Together Happily Ever After?

  • Boris Motik
  • Ian Horrocks
  • Riccardo Rosati
  • Ulrike Sattler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4273)


Logic programming (LP) is often seen as a way to overcome several shortcomings of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), such as the inability to model integrity constraints or perform closed-world querying. However, the open-world semantics of OWL seems to be fundamentally incompatible with the closed-world semantics of LP. This has sparked a heated debate in the Semantic Web community, resulting in proposals for alternative ontology languages based entirely on logic programming. To help resolving this debate, we investigate the practical use cases which seem to be addressed by logic programming. In fact, many of these requirements have already been addressed outside the Semantic Web. By drawing inspiration from these existing formalisms, we present a novel logic of hybrid MKNF knowledge bases, which seamlessly integrates OWL with LP. We are thus capable of addressing the identified use cases without a radical change in the architecture of the Semantic Web.


Logic Program Logic Programming Description Logic Integrity Constraint Stable Model Semantic 
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.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Epistemic First-Order Queries over Description Logic Knowledge Bases. In: Proc. DL 2006, May 30-June 1, Lake District, UK (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Bruijn, J., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: The Web Service Modeling Language: An Overview. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 590–604. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bruijn, J., Polleres, A., Lara, R., Fensel, D.: OWL DL vs. OWL Flight: Conceptual Modeling and Reasoning on the Semantic Web. In: Proc. WWW 2005, China, Japan, May 10-14, pp. 623–632 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Nutt, W., Schaerf, A.: An Epistemic Operator for Description Logics. Artificial Intelligence 100(1–2), 225–274 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: AL-log: Integrating Datalog and Description Logics. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10(3) (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining Answer Set Programming with Description Logics for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. KR 2004, Whistler, Canada, June 2–5, pp. 141–151 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In: Proc. ICLP 1988, Seattle, WA, USA, August 15-19, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing 9(3–4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic. In: Proc. WWW 2003, Budapest, Hungary, May 20–24, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hendler, J.: Semantic web architecture: Stack or two towers? In: Fages, F., Soliman, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3703, pp. 37–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A Proposal for an OWL Rules Language. In: Proc. WWW 2004, New York, May 17–22, pp. 723–731 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kifer, M., de Bruijn, J., Boley, H., Fensel, D.: A Realistic Architecture for the Semantic Web. In: Adi, A., Stoutenburg, S., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2005. LNCS, vol. 3791, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of the ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kutz, O., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: The Even More Irresistible SROIQ. In: Proc. KR 2006, Lake District, UK, June 2-5, pp. 57–67 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining Horn Rules and Description Logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2), 165–209 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lifschitz, V.: Nonmonotonic Databases and Epistemic Queries. In: Proc. IJCAI 1991, Sydney, Australia, August 24–30, pp. 381–386 (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Closing Semantic Web Ontologies. Technical report, University of Manchester, UK (2006),
  20. 20.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query Answering for OWL-DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 41–60 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reiter, R.: A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13(1–2) (1980)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reiter, R.: What Should a Database Know? Journal of Logic Programming 14(1–2), 127–153 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosati, R.: DL+log: A Tight Integration of Description Logics and Disjunctive Datalog. In: Proc. KR 2006, Lake District, UK, June 2–5, pp. 68–78 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Motik
    • 1
  • Ian Horrocks
    • 1
  • Riccardo Rosati
    • 2
  • Ulrike Sattler
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Università di Roma “La Sapienza”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations