A Novel Combination of Answer Set Programming with Description Logics for the Semantic Web

  • Thomas Lukasiewicz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4519)


We present a novel combination of disjunctive logic programs under the answer set semantics with description logics for the Semantic Web. The combination is based on a well-balanced interface between disjunctive logic programs and description logics, which guarantees the decidability of the resulting formalism without assuming syntactic restrictions. We show that the new formalism has very nice semantic properties. In particular, it faithfully extends both disjunctive programs and description logics. Furthermore, we describe algorithms for reasoning in the new formalism, and we give a precise picture of its computational complexity. We also provide a special case with polynomial data complexity.


Logic Program Description Logic Predicate Symbol Conjunctive Query Constant Symbol 
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.
    Alsaç, G., Baral, C.: Reasoning in description logics using declarative logic programming. Report, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Arizona State University (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angele, J., Boley, H., de Bruijn, J., Fensel, D., Hitzler, P., Kifer, M., Krummenacher, R., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., Studer, R.: Web Rule Language (WRL). W3C Member Submission. (Sept. 2005),
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G.: Nonmonotonic rule systems on top of ontology layers. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 394–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Weaving the Web. Harper, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: DL-Lite: Tractable description logics for ontologies. In: Proc. AAAI-2005, pp. 602–607 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Voronkov, A.: Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(3), 374–425 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Bruijn, J., Eiter, T., Polleres, A., Tompits, H.: Embedding non-ground logic programs into autoepistemic logic for knowledge-base combination. In: Proc. IJCAI-2007, pp. 304–309 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: \({\cal AL}\)-log: Integrating datalog and description logics. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 10(3), 227–252 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In: Proc. IJCAI-2005, pp. 90–96 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. KR-2004, pp. 141–151 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Recursive aggregates in disjunctive logic programs: Semantics and complexity. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J.A. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 200–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fensel, D., Wahlster, W., Lieberman, H., Hendler, J. (eds.): Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Comput. 9(3/4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logics. In: Proc. WWW-2003, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heymans, S., Van Nieuwenborgh, D., Vermeir, D.: Nonmonotonic ontological and rule-based reasoning with extended conceptual logic programs. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 392–407. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heymans, S., Vermeir, D.: Integrating semantic web reasoning and answer set programming. In: Proc. ASP-2003, pp. 194–208 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Position paper: A comparison of two modelling paradigms in the Semantic Web. In: Proc. WWW-2006, pp. 3–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission (May 2004), Available at
  22. 22.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\) and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. Web Sem. 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Reducing SHIQ-description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. In: Proc. KR-2004, pp. 152–162 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Iocchi, L., Lukasiewicz, T., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Reasoning about actions with sensing under qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty. In: Proc. ECAI-2004, pp. 818–822 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM TOCL 7(3), 499–562 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining Horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artif. Intell. 104(1–2), 165–209 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: Stratified probabilistic description logic programs. In: Proc. URSW-2005, pp. 87–97 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: Probabilistic description logic programs. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 737–749. Springer, Heidelberg (2005), Extended version in: Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, in pressGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: Fuzzy description logic programs under the answer set semantics for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. RuleML-2006, pp. 89–96 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: A novel combination of answer set programming with description logics for the Semantic Web. Report 1843-06-08, Institut für Informationssysteme, TU Wien (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lukasiewicz, T., Straccia, U.: Tightly Integrated Fuzzy Description Logic Programs Under the Answer Set Semantics for the Semantic Web. In: Marchiori, M., Pan, J.Z., de Sainte Marie, C. (eds.) RR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4524, pp. 289–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: A faithful integration of description logics with logic programming. In: Proc. IJCAI-2007, pp. 477–482 (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. J. Web Sem. 3(1), 41–60 (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosati, R.: On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. J. Web Sem. 3(1), 61–73 (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosati, R.: \(\mathcal{DL} + log\): Tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In: Proc. KR-2006, pp. 68–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sintek, M., Decker, S.: TRIPLE–A query, inference, and transformation language for the Semantic Web. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 364–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swift, T.: Deduction in ontologies via ASP. In: Lifschitz, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) LPNMR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2923, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tobies, S.: Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen, Germany (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    W3C. OWL web ontology language overview, 2004. W3C Recommendation (10 Feb. 2004), Available at

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Lukasiewicz
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Via Salaria 113, I-00198 RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations