Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Description Logic Programs: A Paraconsistent Relational Model Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing (MICAI 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9413))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1104 Accesses

Abstract

A description logic program (dl-program) consists of a description logic knowledge base (a terminological box and an assertion box) and a set of rules for a logic program. For such description logic programs, instead of providing the fixed-point semantics for dl-programs by the immediate consequence operator, we propose an algorithm based on the paraconsistent relational model that mimics the immediate consequence operator of dl-programs. We also introduce a dl-paraconsistent relation (dl-relation), which is essential for sending information between description logic and logic programs represented in terms of equations containing paraconsistent relations. The first step in our algorithm is to convert rules, which may contain dl-atoms that enable the flow of information between description logic and logic programs, into paraconsistent relation equations that contain paraconsistent relational algebraic operators. The second step is to determine iteratively the fixed-point semantics for dl-programs using these equations. We will also prove the correctness of both steps of the algorithm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    \(\lambda =S_1 op_1 p_1,\dots , S_m op_m p_m\).

  2. 2.

    dl-atoms cannot have more than two arguments.

  3. 3.

    \(\lambda =S_1 op_1 p_1,\dots , S_m op_m p_m\).

References

  1. 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, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bagai, R.: Tuple relational calculus for paraconsistent databases. In: Monard, M.C., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) AI 2000. LNCS, vol. 1952, pp. 409–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Bagai, R., Sunderraman, R.: A paraconsistent relational data model. Int. J. Comput. Math. 55(1–2), 39–55 (1995)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bagai, R., Sunderraman, R.: Bottom-up computation of the fitting model for general deductive databases. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 6(1), 59–75 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bagai, R., Sunderraman, R.: Computing the well-founded model of deductive databases. Int. J. Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 4(02), 157–175 (1996)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Belnap Jr., N.D.: A useful four-valued logic. In: Dunn, J.M., Epstein, G. (eds.) Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, pp. 5–37. Springer, Amsterdam (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boley, H., Hallmark, G., Kifer, M., Paschke, A., Polleres, A., Reynolds, D.: RIF core dialect. W3C Recommendation 22 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boley, H., Kifer, M.: RIF basic logic dialect. In: W3C Working Draft, July 2009

    Google Scholar 

  9. Da Costa, N.C., et al.: On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 15(4), 497–510 (1974)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: A hybrid system with datalog and concept languages. In: Ardizzone, E., Gaglio, S., Sorbello, F. (eds.) Trends in Artificial Intelligence. LNCS, vol. 549, pp. 88–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: Al-log: integrating datalog and description logics. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 10(3), 227–252 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R.: Well-founded semantics for description logic programs in the semantic web. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic (TOCL) 12(2), 11 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artif. Intell. 172(12), 1495–1539 (2008)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Polleres, A., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (KR 2004), Whistler, Canada, 2–5 June 2004, pp. 141–151 (2004). http://www.aaai.org/Library/KR/2004/kr04-017.php

  16. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Fitting, M.: Fixpoint semantics for logic programming a survey. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 278(1), 25–51 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 48–57. ACM (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S.: Owl 2 web ontology language primer. W3C Recommendation 27(1), 123 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.: Reducing owl entailment to description logic satisfiability. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 1(4), 345–357 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an owl rules language. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 723–731. ACM (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Bechhofer, S., Tsarkov, D.: Owl rules: a proposal and prototype implementation. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 3(1), 23–40 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M., et al.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining owl and ruleml. In: W3C Member Submission 21, 79 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Data complexity of reasoning in very expressive description logics. In: IJCAI, vol. 5, pp. 466–471 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Krisnadhi, A., Maier, F., Hitzler, P.: OWL and rules. In: Polleres, A., d’Amato, C., Arenas, M., Handschuh, S., Kroner, P., Ossowski, S., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2011. LNCS, vol. 6848, pp. 382–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P.: Complexity boundaries for horn description logics. In: AAAI, vol. 7, pp. 452–457 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.C.: Carin: A representation language combining horn rules and description logics’. In: ECAI, pp. 323–327. Citeseer (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.C.: Combining horn rules and description logics in carin. Artif. Intell. 104(1), 165–209 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Lukasiewicz, T.: A novel combination of answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 384–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. McGuinness, D.L., Van Harmelen, F., et al.: Owl web ontology language overview. In: W3C Recommendation 10(10), 2004 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Motik, B.: Reasoning in description logics using resolution and deductive databases. Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Motik, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Sattler, U.: Structured objects in owl: representation and reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 555–564. ACM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Modeling ontologies using owl, description graphs, and rules. In: OWLED (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Representing structured objects using description graphs. In: KR, pp. 296–306 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Representing ontologies using description logics, description graphs, and rules. Artif. Intell. 173(14), 1275–1309 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Rosati, R., Sattler, U.: Can OWL and logic programming live together happily ever after? In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 501–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Closing semantic web ontologies. Technical report, University of Manchester, UK (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Motik, B., Rosati, R.: A faithful integration of description logics with logic programming. In: IJCAI, vol. 7, pp. 477–482 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling description logics and rules. J. ACM (JACM) 57(5), 30 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 549–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 3(1), 41–60 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Paschke, A.: Rules and logic programming for the web. In: Polleres, A., d’Amato, C., Arenas, M., Handschuh, S., Kroner, P., Ossowski, S., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2011. LNCS, vol. 6848, pp. 326–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rosati, R.: Towards expressive KR systems integrating datalog and description logics: preliminary report. In: Description Logics, vol. 22 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rosati, R.: On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 3(1), 61–73 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rosati, R.: Semantic and computational advantages of the safe integration of ontologies and rules. In: Fages, F., Soliman, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3703, pp. 50–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Rosati, R.: Dl+ log: Tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In: KR, vol. 6, pp. 68–78 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rosati, R.: Integrating ontologies and rules: semantic and computational issues. In: Barahona, P., Bry, F., Franconi, E., Henze, N., Sattler, U. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2006. LNCS, vol. 4126, pp. 128–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Volz, R.: Web ontology reasoning with logic databases. Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe, Univ., Diss. (2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Badrinath Jayakumar & Rajshekhar Sunderraman

Authors
  1. Badrinath Jayakumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajshekhar Sunderraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Badrinath Jayakumar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Centro de Investigación en Computación, Mexico City, Mexico

    Grigori Sidorov

  2. Facultad de ciencias, Universidad Autónoma Nacional, México, Distrito Federal, Mexico

    Sofía N. Galicia-Haro

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jayakumar, B., Sunderraman, R. (2015). Description Logic Programs: A Paraconsistent Relational Model Approach. In: Sidorov, G., Galicia-Haro, S. (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing. MICAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9413. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27060-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27060-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27059-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27060-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation