Extending Logic Programs with Description Logic Expressions for the Semantic Web

  • Yi-Dong Shen
  • Kewen Wang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7031)


Recently much attention has been directed to extending logic programming with description logic (DL) expressions, so that logic programs have access to DL knowledge bases and thus are able to reason with ontologies in the Semantic Web. In this paper, we propose a new extension of logic programs with DL expressions, called normal DL logic programs. In a normal DL logic program arbitrary DL expressions are allowed to appear in rule bodies and atomic DL expressions (i.e., atomic concepts and atomic roles) allowed in rule heads. We extend the key condition of well-supportedness for normal logic programs under the standard answer set semantics to normal DL logic programs and define an answer set semantics for DL logic programs which satisfies the extended well-supportedness condition. We show that the answer set semantics for normal DL logic programs is decidable if the underlying description logic is decidable (e.g. \({\cal SHOIN}\) or \({\cal SROIQ}\)).


Logic Program Description Logic Predicate Symbol Atomic Concept Extend Logic Program 
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., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Bruijn, J., Eiter, T., Tompits, H.: Embedding approaches to combining rules and ontologies into autoepistemic logic. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), pp. 485–495 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Polleres, A.: Rules and ontologies for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2008), pp. 1–53 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In: IJCAI 2005, pp. 90–96 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Recursive aggregates in disjunctive logic programs: Semantics and complexity. In: Logics in Artificial Intelligence: European Workshop (JELIA 2004), pp. 200–212 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fages, F.: Consistency of clark’s completion and existence of stable models. Journal of Methods of Logic in Computer Science 1, 51–60 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP- 1988), pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: The next step for OWL. Journal of Web Semantics 6(4), 309–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., R. Volz, S.D.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logics. In: WWW 2003, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heymans, S., Bruijn, J.D., Predoiu, L., Feier, C., Niewenborgh, D.V.: Guarded hybrid knowledge bases. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8, 411–429 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible SROIQ. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2006), pp. 57–67 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. In: W3C Member Submission (2004),
  15. 15.
    Lifschitz, V.: Nonmonotonic databases and epistemic queries. In: IJCAI-1991, pp. 381–386 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: A novel combination of answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 22(11), 1577–1592 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moore, R.C.: Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence 25(1), 75–94 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling description logics and rules. J. ACM 57(5) (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosati, R.: DL+log: Tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2006), pp. 68–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shen, Y.D.: Well-supported semantics for description logic programs. In: IJCAI 2011, pp. 1081–1086 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi-Dong Shen
    • 1
  • Kewen Wang
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Computer Science, Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Computing and Information TechnologyGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations