Advertisement

FO(ID) as an Extension of DL with Rules

  • Joost Vennekens
  • Marc Denecker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5554)

Abstract

There are many interesting Knowledge Representation questions surrounding rule languages for the Semantic Web. The most basic one is of course: which kind of rules should be used and how do they integrate with existing Description Logics? Similar questions have already been addressed in the field of Logic Programming, where one particular answer has been provided by the language of FO(ID). FO(ID) is an extension of first-order logic with a rule-based representation for inductive definitions. By offering a general integration of first-order logic and Logic Programs, it also induces a particular way of extending Description Logics with rules. The goal of this paper is to investigate this integration and discover whether there are interesting extensions of DL with rules that can be arrived at by imposing appropriate restrictions on the highly expressive FO(ID).

Keywords

Logic Program Logic Programming Description Logic Transitive Closure Horn Clause 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brachman, R.J., Levesque, H.J.: Competence in Knowledge Representation. In: AAAI, pp. 189–192 (1982)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Bruijn, J., Pearce, D., Polleres, A., Valverde, A.: Quantified equilibrium logic and hybrid rules. In: Marchiori, M., Pan, J.Z., Marie, C.d.S. (eds.) RR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4524, pp. 58–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denecker, M., Ternovska, E.: A logic of non-monotone inductive definitions. Transactions On Computational Logic (TOCL) (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denecker, M., Vennekens, J.: Well-founded semantics and the algebraic theory of non-monotone inductive definitions. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4483, pp. 84–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drabent, W., Henriksson, J., Maluszynski, J.: HD-rules: a hybrid system interfacing Prolog with DL-reasoners. In: 2nd Int’l. Workshop on Applications of Logic Programming to the Web, Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In: KR (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grädel, E., Walukiewicz, I.: Guarded fixed point logic. In: LICS, pp. 45–55 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: WWW (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heymans, S., Van Nieuwenborgh, D., Vermeir, D.: Open Answer Set Programming with guarded programs. ACM TOCL 9(4) (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A semantics web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Submission (2004), http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-SWRL-20040521/
  12. 12.
    De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: Tbox and ABox reasoning in expressive description logics. In: KR, pp. 316–327. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell, D., Ternovska, E.: A framework for representing and solving NP search problems. In: AAAI, pp. 430–435. AAAI Press/MIT Press (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: A faithful integration of description logics with logic programming. In: IJCAI (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosati, R.: DL+log: Tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In: KR, pp. 68–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vennekens, J., Denecker, M.: An algebraic account of modularity in ID-logic. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3662, pp. 291–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joost Vennekens
    • 1
  • Marc Denecker
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceK.U. LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations