Description Logics

Chapter
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)

Summary

In this chapter, we explain what description logics are and why they make good ontology languages. In particular, we introduce the description logic \(SHIQ\), which has formed the basis of several well-known ontology languages, including OWL. We argue that, without the last decade of basic research in description logics, this family of knowledge representation languages could not have played such an important rôle in this context.

Description logic reasoning can be used both during the design phase, in order to improve the quality of ontologies, and in the deployment phase, in order to exploit the rich structure of ontologies and ontology based information. We discuss the extensions to \(SHIQ\) that are required for languages such as OWL and, finally, we sketch how novel reasoning services can support building ontologies.

References

  1. 1.
    Franz Baader. Using automata theory for characterizing the semantics of terminological cycles. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 18(2–4): 175–219, 1996.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Franz Baader. Terminological cycles in a description logic with existential restrictions. In Georg Gottlob and Toby Walsh, editors, Proc. of the 18th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), pages 325–330. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franz Baader, Sebastian Brandt, and Ralf Küsters. Matching under side conditions in description logics. In Bernhard Nebel, editor, Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), pages 213–218. Morgan Kaufmann, Seattle, WA, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Franz Baader, Sebastian Brandt, and Carsten Lutz. Pushing the \(EL\) envelope. In Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franz Baader and Philipp Hanschke. A schema for integrating concrete domains into concept languages. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’91), pages 452–457, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franz Baader and Philipp Hanschke. Extensions of concept languages for a mechanical engineering application. In Proc. of the 16th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence (GWAI’92), volume 671 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 132–143. Springer, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franz Baader and Bernhard Hollunder. A terminological knowledge representation system with complete inference algorithm. In Proc. of the Workshop on Processing Declarative Knowledge (PDK’91), volume 567 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 67–86. Springer, Berlin, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franz Baader and Ralf Küsters. Computing the least common subsumer and the most specific concept in the presence of cyclic \(ALN\)-concept descriptions. In Proc. of the 22nd German Annual Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (KI’98), volume 1504 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 129–140. Springer, Berlin, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franz Baader and Ralf Küsters. Matching in description logics with existential restrictions. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), pages 261–272, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franz Baader, Ralf Küsters, Alex Borgida, and Deborah L. McGuinness. Matching in description logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(3):411–447, 1999.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franz Baader, Ralf Küsters, and Ralf Molitor. Computing least common subsumers in description logics with existential restrictions. In Proc. of the 16th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’99), pages 96–101, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franz Baader, Ralf Küsters, and Ralf Molitor. Rewriting concepts using terminologies. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), pages 297–308, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franz Baader, Carsten Lutz, and Bontawee Suntisrivaraporn. CEL – a polynomial-time reasoner for life science ontologies. In Ulrich Furbach and Natarajan Shankar, editors, Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), volume 4130 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 287–291. Springer, Berlin, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franz Baader and Ulrike Sattler. An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica, 69(1):5–40, 2001.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sean Bechhofer, Ian Horrocks, Carole Goble, and Robert Stevens. OilEd: a reason-able ontology editor for the semantic web. In Proc. of the 2001 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2001), pages 1–9. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2001.
  18. 18.
    Tim Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web. Harpur, San Francisco, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alexander Borgida. On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics. Artificial Intelligence, 82(1–2):353–367, 1996.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alexander Borgida and Deborah L. McGuinness. Asking queries about frames. In Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’96), pages 340–349, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pim Borst, Hans Akkermans, and Jan Top. Engineering ontologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46:365–406, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ronald J. Brachman. “Reducing” CLASSIC to practice: knowledge representation meets reality. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’92), pages 247–258. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque. The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In Proc. of the 4th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’84), pages 34–37, 1984.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ronald J. Brachman and James G. Schmolze. An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, 9(2):171–216, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sebastian Brandt. Polynomial time reasoning in a description logic with existential restrictions, GCI axioms, and – what else? In Ramon López de Mántaras and Lorenza Saitta, editors, Proc. of the 16th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), pages 298–302, 2004.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sebastian Brandt, Ralf Küsters, and Anni-Yasmin Turhan. Approximation and difference in description logics. In D. Fensel, F. Giunchiglia, D. McGuiness, and M.-A. Williams, editors, Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), pages 203–214. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paolo Bresciani, Enrico Franconi, and Sergio Tessaris. Implementing and testing expressive description logics: preliminary report. In Proc. of the 1995 Description Logic Workshop (DL’95), pages 131–139, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Martin Buchheit, Francesco M. Donini, Werner Nutt, and Andrea Schaerf. A refined architecture for terminological systems: terminology = schema + views. Artificial Intelligence, 99(2):209–260, 1998.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’98), pages 149–158, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Daniele Nardi. Reasoning in expressive description logics. In Alan Robinson and Andrei Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, chapter 23, pages 1581–1634. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, and Riccardo Rosati. Description logic framework for information integration. In Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’98), pages 2–13, 1998.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    William W. Cohen, Alex Borgida, and Haym Hirsh. Computing least common subsumers in description logics. In William Swartout, editor, Proc. of the 10th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’92), pages 754–760. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Austin, TX, 1992.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Yevgeny Kazakov, and Ulrike Sattler. Modular reuse of ontologies: theory and practice. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 31:273–318, 2008.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    The Gene Ontology Consortium. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics, 25:25–29, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Giuseppe De Giacomo. Decidability of Class-Based Knowledge Representation Formalisms. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1995.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giuseppe De Giacomo and Maurizio Lenzerini. Boosting the correspondence between description logics and propositional dynamic logics. In Proc. of the 12th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’94), pages 205–212, 1994.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Giuseppe De Giacomo and Maurizio Lenzerini. Concept language with number restrictions and fixpoints, and its relationship with μ-calculus. In Proc. of the 11th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’94), pages 411–415, 1994.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Giuseppe De Giacomo and Maurizio Lenzerini. TBox and ABox reasoning in expressive description logics. In Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’96), pages 316–327, 1996.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Francesco M. Donini, Bernhard Hollunder, Maurizio Lenzerini, Alberto Marchetti Spaccamela, Daniele Nardi, and Werner Nutt. The complexity of existential quantification in concept languages. Artificial Intelligence, 2–3:309–327, 1992.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Francesco M. Donini, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, and Werner Nutt. The complexity of concept languages. In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), pages 151–162, 1991.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Francesco M. Donini, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, and Werner Nutt. Tractable concept languages. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’91), pages 458–463, 1991.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jon Doyle and Ramesh S. Patil. Two theses of knowledge representation: language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services. Artificial Intelligence, 48:261–297, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dieter Fensel, Frank van Harmelen, Michel Klein, Hans Akkermans, Jeen Broekstra, Christiaan Fluit, Jos van der Meer, Hans-Peter Schnurr, Rudi Studer, John Hughes, Uwe Krohn, John Davies, Robert Engels, Bernt Bremdal, Fredrik Ygge, Thorsten Lau, Bernd Novotny, Ulrich Reimer, and Ian Horrocks. On-to-knowledge: ontology-based tools for knowledge management. In Proceedings of the eBusiness and eWork 2000 (eBeW’00) Conference, October 2000.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Birte Glimm, Ian Horrocks, Carsten Lutz, and Ulrike Sattler. Conjunctive query answering for the description logic \(SHIQ\). Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 31:157–204, 2008.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Erich Grädel. Guarded fragments of first-order logic: a perspective for new description logics? In Proc. of the 1998 Description Logic Workshop (DL’98). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-11/, 1998.
  46. 46.
    Erich Grädel. On the restraining power of guards. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 64:1719–1742, 1999.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Erich Grädel, Phokion G. Kolaitis, and Moshe Y. Vardi. On the decision problem for two-variable first-order logic. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 3(1):53–69, 1997.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Erich Grädel, Martin Otto, and Eric Rosen. Two-variable logic with counting is decidable. In Proc. of the 12th IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’97), 1997.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thomas Gruber. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199–220, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller. RACE system description. In Proc. of the 1999 Description Logic Workshop (DL’99), pages 130–132. CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-22/, 1999.
  51. 51.
    Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller. Expressive ABox reasoning with number restrictions, role hierarchies, and transitively closed roles. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), pages 273–284, 2000.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller. RACER system description. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 701–705. Springer, Berlin, 2001.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Patrick Hayes. RDF model theory. W3C Working Draft, April 2002. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/.
  54. 54.
    Bernhard Hollunder, Werner Nutt, and Manfred Schmidt-Schauß. Subsumption algorithms for concept description languages. In Proc. of the 9th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’90), pages 348–353. Pitman, London, 1990.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ian Horrocks. Using an expressive description logic: FaCT or fiction? In Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’98), pages 636–647, 1998.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ian Horrocks, Oliver Kutz, and Ulrike Sattler. The even more irresistible \(SROIQ\). In Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pages 57–67. AAAI Press, New York, 2006.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Frank van Harmelen. From \(SHIQ\) and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 1(1):7–26, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. A description logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(3):385–410, 1999.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. A tableaux decision procedure for \(SHOIQ\). In Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pages 448–453, 2005.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler, and Stephan Tobies. Practical reasoning for very expressive description logics. Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logic, 8(3):239–264, 2000.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler, and Stephan Tobies. Reasoning with individuals for the description logic \(SHIQ\). In David McAllester, editor, Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE 2000), volume 1831 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 482–496. Springer, Berlin, 2000.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Aditya Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, and Bernardo Cuenca-Grau. Hendler. Repairing Unsatisfiable Concepts in OWL Ontologies. In Proc. of 3rd Europ. Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC 2006), number 4011 of LNCS, Springer, Berlin, 2006.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Aditya Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, Bernardo Cuenca-Grau, and James Hendler. SWOOP: a web ontology editing browser. Journal of Web Semantics, 4(2), 2005.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Holger Knublauch, Ray Fergerson, Natalya Noy, and Mark Musen. The Protégé OWL Plugin: an open development environment for semantic web applications. In Sheila A. McIlraith, Dimitris Plexousakis, and Frank van Harmelen, editors, Proc. of the 2004 International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), number 3298 in LNCS, pages 229–243. Springer, Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ralf Küsters and Alex Borgida. What’s in an attribute? Consequences for the least common subsumer. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 14:167–203, 2001.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ralf Küsters and Ralf Molitor. Approximating most specific concepts in description logics with existential restrictions. In F. Baader, editor, Proc. of the Joint German/Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 24th German / 9th Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI 2001), volume 2174 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, 2001.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ralf Küsters and Ralf Molitor. Computing least common subsumers in ALEN. In Bernard Nebel, editor, Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), pages 219–224. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 2001.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Carsten Lutz. NEXPTIME-complete description logics with concrete domains. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 45–60. Springer, Berlin, 2001.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Carsten Lutz. Description logics with concrete domains – a survey. In Advances in Modal Logics Volume 4. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 2003.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Robert MacGregor. The evolving technology of classification-based knowledge representation systems. In John F. Sowa, editor, Principles of Semantic Networks, pages 385–400. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1991.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Eric Mays, Robert Dionne, and Robert Weida. K-Rep system overview. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3):93–97, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ralf Molitor. Unterstützung der Modellierung verfahrenstechnischer Prozesse durch Nicht-Standardinferenzen in Beschreibungslogiken. PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH-Aachen, Germany, 2000. In German.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bernhard Nebel. Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems, volume 422 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, 1990.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bernhard Nebel. Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable. Artificial Intelligence, 43:235–249, 1990.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bernhard Nebel. Terminological cycles: semantics and computational properties. In John F. Sowa, editor, Principles of Semantic Networks, pages 331–361. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1991.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Leszek Pacholski, Wieslaw Szwast, and Lidia Tendera. Complexity of two-variable logic with counting. In Proc. of the 12th IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’97), pages 318–327. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jeff Z. Pan and Ian Horrocks. Semantic web ontology reasoning in the \(SHOQ(\mathbf{{D}_{n}})\) description logic. In Proc. of the 2002 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2002), 2002.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Peter F. Patel-Schneider. DLP. In Proc. of the 1999 Description Logic Workshop (DL’99), pages 9–13. CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-22/, 1999.
  79. 79.
    Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Deborah L. McGuiness, Ronald J. Brachman, Lori Alperin Resnick, and Alexander Borgida. The CLASSIC knowledge representation system: guiding principles and implementation rational. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3):108–113, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Christof Peltason. The BACK system – an overview. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3):114–119, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    A. Rector, S. Bechhofer, C. A. Goble, I. Horrocks, W. A. Nowlan, and W. D. Solomon. The grail concept modelling language for medical terminology. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 9:139–171, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ulrike Sattler. Terminological knowledge representation systems in a process engineering application. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen, 1998.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ulrike Sattler. Description logics for the representation of aggregated objects. In Proc. of the 14th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), 2000.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Andrea Schaerf. Reasoning with individuals in concept languages. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 13(2):141–176, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Klaus Schild. A correspondence theory for terminological logics: preliminary report. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’91), pages 466–471, 1991.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Klaus Schild. Querying Knowledge and Data Bases by a Universal Description Logic with Recursion. PhD thesis, Universität des Saarlandes, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Stefan Schlobach, Zhisheng Huang, Ronald Cornet, and Frank van Harmelen. Debugging Incoherent Terminologies. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 39(3):317–349, 2007.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Manfred Schmidt-Schauß and Gert Smolka. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Stefan Schulz and Udo Hahn. Parts, locations, and holes – formal reasoning about anatomical structures. In Proc. of AIME 2001, volume 2101 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, 2001.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Evren Sirin, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, and Bijan Parsia. From wine to water: optimizing description logic reasoning for nominals. In Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pages 90–99. AAAI Press, New York, 2006.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Evren Sirin and Bijan Parsia. Pellet: an OWL DL reasoner. In Proc. of the 2004 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2004), 2004.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    K.A. Spackman, K.E. Campbell, and R.A. Cote. SNOMED RT: a reference terminology for health care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, pages 640–644, 1997. Fall Symposium Supplement.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Robert Stevens, Ian Horrocks, Carole Goble, and Sean Bechhofer. Building a reasonable bioinformatics ontology using OIL. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-2001 Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, pages 81–90. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2001.
  94. 94.
    Stephan Tobies. Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen, 2001.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Dmitry Tsarkov and Ian Horrocks. FaCT++ description logic reasoner: system description. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), volume 4130 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 292–297. Springer, Berlin, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Theoretische InformatikTU DresdenGermany
  2. 2.Computing LaboratoryOxford UniversityOxfordUK
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations