A Defeasible Description Logic for Representing Bibliographic Data



In this chapter, we make a first step toward developing a defeasible description logic system that can represent a flexible publication ontology which can support intelligent queries. It involves using the description logic system ALC to build the ontology. We extend an ALC knowledge base with defeasible rules to yield a defeasible description logic system called Def-ALC. Def-ALC will be useful to users of a digital library and will be flexible and decidable. We shall show that a superiority relation between rules gives us a ranking of the rules which could be beneficial as it can be adjusted to meet the needs of various users and user groups. A prototype of a publication ontology is developed and implemented using Def-ALC.


Description logic Defeasible logic Nonmonotonic Ontology 


  1. 1.
    Arms WY (2001) Digital libraries. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garcia-Castro A, Labarga A, Garcia L, Giraldo O, Montaña C, Bateman JA (2010) Semantic web and social web heading towards living documents in the life sciences. web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web, vol 8, pp 155--162Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shotton D, Portwin K, Klyne G, Miles A (2009) Adventures in semantic publishing: exemplar semantic enhancement of a research article. PLoS Comput Biol 5(4):e100036124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader F, McGuiness D, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider P (2003) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moubaiddin A, Obeid N (2008) Dialogue and argumentation in multi-agent diagnosis. In: New challenges in applied intelligence technologies, studies in computational intelligence, vol 134. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 13--22Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moubaiddin A, Obeid N (2009) Partial information basis for agent-based collaborative dialogue. Appl Intell 30(2):142–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moubaiddin A, Obeid N (2007) The role of dialogue in remote diagnostics. In: Proceedings of 20th international conference on condition monitoring and diagnostic engineering management, pp 677–686Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moubaiddin A, Obeid N (2013) On formalizing social commitments in dialogue and argumentation models using temporal defeasible logic. Knowl Inf Syst 37(2):417–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nute D (1994) Defeasible logic In: Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, vol 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 353–395Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Obeid N (1996) Three valued logic and nonmonotonic reasoning. Comput Artif Intell 15(6):509–530Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Obeid N (2000) Towards a model of learning through communication. Knowl Inf Syst 2(4):498–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Obeid N (2005) A Formalism for Representing and Reasoning with Temporal Information event and change. Appl Intell 23(2):109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Obeid N, Moubaiddin A (2009) On the role of dialogue and argumentation in collaborative problem solving. In: Proceedings of 9th international conference on intelligent systems design and applications. IEEE, pp 1202–1208Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Obeid N, Rao RB (2010) On integrating event definition and event detection. Knowl Inf Syst 22(2):129–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sabri KE, Obeid N (2016) A temporal defeasible logic for handling access control policies. Appl Intell 44(1):30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Governatori G, Maher M, Antoniou G, Billington D (2004) Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J Logic Comput 14(5):675–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Governatori G (2005) Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int J Cooper Inf Syst 14(2–3):181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guarino N (1998) Formal ontology in information systems. In: Proceedings of FOIS’98, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang K, Billington D, Blee J, Antoniou G (2004) Combining description logic and defeasible logic for the semantic web. LNCS, Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grosof I, Horrocks R, Volz S, Decker S (2003) Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: 12th International conference on World Wide. ACM Press, pp 48–57Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grigoris A, Wagner G (2003) Rules and defeasible reasoning on the semantic web. In: Schroeder M, Wagner G (eds) RuleML 2003. LNCS, vol 2876. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–120Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kruk SR, Decker S, Zieborak L (2005) Jeromedl adding semantic web technologies to digital libraries. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3588. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 716–725Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mazzocchi S, Garland S, Lee R (2006) Simile: practical metadata for the semantic Web. XML.comGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Payette S, Staples T (2002) The mellon fedora project: digital library architecture meets XML and Web services. LNCS, vol 2459. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 406–421Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King Abdullah II School for Information TechnologyThe University of JordanAmmanJordan
  2. 2.Faculty of Foreign LanguagesThe University of JordanAmmanJordan

Personalised recommendations