Advertisement

Combining Semantic Web and Logic Programming for Agent Reasoning

  • Murat Şensoy
  • Wamberto W. Vasconcelos
  • Timothy J. Norman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7068)

Abstract

Web Ontology Language (OWL) provides means to semantically represent domain knowledge as ontologies. Then, ontological reasoning allows software agents to effectively share and semantically interpret the knowledge. OWL adopts open world semantics and in order to achieve decidability its expressiveness is strictly limited. Therefore, many real-life problems cannot be represented only using ontologies and cannot be solved using just ontological reasoning. On the other hand, traditional reasoning mechanisms for autonomous agents are mostly based on Logic Programming (LP) and closed world assumption. LP provides a very expressive formal language, however it requires domain knowledge to be encoded as a part of logic programs. In this paper, we propose Ontological Logic Programming (OLP), a novel approach that combines logic programming with ontological reasoning. The proposed approach enables the use of ontological terms (i.e., individuals, classes and properties) directly within logic programs. The interpretation of these terms are delegated to an ontology reasoner during the interpretation of the program. Unlike similar approaches, OLP makes use of the full capacity of both the ontological reasoning and logic programming. Using case-studies, we demonstrate the usefulness of OLP in multi-agent settings.

Keywords

Logic Program Logic Programming Prolog Program Agent Reasoning Ontological Reasoning 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML (2004), http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL
  2. 2.
    Antoy, S., Hanus, M.: Functional logic programming. Commun. ACM 53(4), 74–85 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apt, K.R.: From logic programming to Prolog. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bikakis, A., Antoniou, G.: DR-Prolog: a system for reasoning with rules and ontologies on the semantic web. In: AAAI 2005: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1594–1595. AAAI Press (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burnett, C., Norman, T.J., Sycara, K.: Bootstrapping trust evaluations through stereotypes. In: Proceedings of 9th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 241–248 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eriksson, H.: Using jesstab to integrate protégé and jess. IEEE Intelligent Systems 18(2), 43–50 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forgy, C.L.: RETE: a fast algorithm for the many pattern/many object pattern match problem. Expert Systems: A Software Methodology for Modern Applications, 324–341 (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosof, B.N., Gandhe, M.D., Finin, T.W.: SweetJess: Translating DAMLRuleML to JESS. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web, RuleML 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haase, P., Motik, B.: A mapping system for the integration of owl-dl ontologies. In: IHIS 2005: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Interoperability of Heterogeneous Information Systems, pp. 9–16. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanus, M., Kuchen, H., Moreno-Navarro, J.: Curry: A truly functional logic language. In: Proc. ILPS 1995 Workshop on Visions for the Future of Logic Programming, pp. 95–107 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hill, E.F.: Jess in Action: Java Rule-Based Systems. Manning Publications Co., Greenwich (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jang, M., Sohn, J.-C.: Bossam: An Extended Rule Engine for OWL Inferencing. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarvenpaa, S.L., Leidner, D.E.: Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(4) (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laera, L., Tamma, V.A.M., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Semeraro, G.: SweetProlog: A System to Integrate Ontologies and Rules. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 188–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Macrae, C.N., Bodenhausen, G.V.: Social cognition: categorical person perception. British Journal of Psychology 92(1), 239–255 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meyerson, D., Weick, K., Kramer, R.: Swift trust and temporary groups. In: Kramer, R., Tyler, T. (eds.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp. 166–195. Sage Publications (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moss, C.: Prolog++: The Power of Object-Oriented and Logic Programming. Addison-Wesley (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noy, N.F., Fergerson, R.W., Musen, M.A.: The Knowledge Model of Protégé-2000: Combining Interoperability and Flexibility. In: Dieng, R., Corby, O. (eds.) EKAW 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1937, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piancastelli, G., Benini, A., Omicini, A., Ricci, A.: The architecture and design of a malleable object-oriented Prolog engine. In: Wainwright, R.L., Haddad, H.M., Menezes, R., Viroli, M. (eds.) 23rd ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2008), pp. 191–197 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robinson, J.A.: Logic and logic programming. Commun. ACM 35(3), 40–65 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Samuel, K., Obrst, L., Stoutenberg, S., Fox, K., Franklin, P., Johnson, A., Laskey, K., Nichols, D., Lopez, S., Peterson, J.: Translating owl and semantic web rules into prolog: Moving toward description logic programs. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 8(3), 301–322 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Semant. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L.: OWL: Web ontology language guide (February 2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sterling, L., Shapiro, E.: The art of Prolog: advanced programming techniques. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Şensoy
    • 1
  • Wamberto W. Vasconcelos
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Norman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations