Hybrid Reasoning with Forest Logic Programs

  • Cristina Feier
  • Stijn Heymans
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5554)


Open Answer Set Programming (OASP) is an attractive framework for integrating ontologies and rules. Although several decidable fragments of OASP have been identified, few reasoning procedures exist. In this paper, we provide a sound, complete, and terminating algorithm for satisfiability checking w.r.t. forest logic programs, a fragment where rules have a tree shape and allow for inequality atoms and constants. We further introduce f-hybrid knowledge bases, a hybrid framework where \(\mathcal SHOQ\) knowledge bases and forest logic programs co-exist, and we show that reasoning with such knowledge bases can be reduced to reasoning with forest logic programs only. We note that f-hybrid knowledge bases do not require the usual (weakly) DL-safety of the rule component, providing thus a genuine alternative approach to hybrid reasoning.


Logic Program Description Logic Predicate Symbol Forest Model Open Answer 
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.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The DL Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donini, F., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: AL-log: Integrating Datalog and Description Logics. J. of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 10, 227–252 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artificial Intelligence 172(12-13), 1495–1539 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feier, C., Heymans, S.: Hybrid reasoning with forest logic programs. Technical Report Infsys Research Report 184-08-14, KBS Group, Vienna University of Technology, Austria (December 2008),
  5. 5.
    Feier, C., Heymans, S.: A sound and complete algorithm for simple conceptual logic programs. In: Proc. of ALPSWS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In: Proc. of ICLP 1988, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proc. of the World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heymans, S., de Bruijn, J., Predoiu, L., Feier, C., Van Nieuwenborgh, D.: Guarded hybrid knowledge bases. TPLP 8(3), 411–429 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heymans, S., Van Nieuwenborgh, D., Vermeir, D.: Conceptual logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (Special Issue on Answer Set Programming) 47(1–2), 103–137 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heymans, S., Van Nieuwenborgh, D., Vermeir, D.: Open answer set programming for the semantic web. J. of Applied Logic 5(1), 144–169 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heymans, S., Van Nieuwenborgh, D., Vermeir, D.: Open answer set programming with guarded programs. ACM Trans. on Comp. Logic 9(4) (October 2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an OWL rules language. In: Proc. of the World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pp. 723–731. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P.: Description logic rules. In: Proc. 18th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2008), pp. 80–84 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.: CARIN: A Representation Language Combining Horn Rules and Description Logics. In: Proc. of ECAI 1996, pp. 323–327 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Closing Semantic Web Ontologies. Technical report (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 41–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosati, R.: On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. Web Semantics 3(1), 41–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosati, R.: DL+log: Tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Principles of KR and Reas (KR), pp. 68–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosat, R.: On combining description logic ontologies and nonrecursive datalog rules. In: Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, M., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.: OWL Web Ontology Language Guide (2004),
  22. 22.
    Tobies, S.: Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, RWTH-Aachen (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about the past with two-way automata. In: Larsen, K.G., Skyum, S., Winskel, G. (eds.) ICALP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1443, p. 628. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Šimkus, M., Eiter, T.: \(\mathbb{FDNC}\): Decidable non-monotonic disjunctive logic programs with function symbols. In: Dershowitz, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4790, pp. 514–530. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Feier
    • 1
  • Stijn Heymans
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge-Based Systems Group, Institute of Information SystemsVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations