Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining

2014 Edition
| Editors: Reda Alhajj, Jon Rokne

Description Logics

  • Adila Krisnadhi
  • Pascal Hitzler
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6170-8_108

Glossary

KR

Knowledge representation

DLs

Description logics; a family of logic-based KR languages for representing knowledge through assertions about concepts, individuals, and relationships among them

(Logic-Based) Semantics

A way to interpret any statement in a language; logic-based semantics interprets such a statement using operations in mathematical logic

Interpretation

A mathematical structure realizing the semantics of a language, typically consisting of an underlying set (domain of interest) and a mapping from the statements in the language to the set or mathematical operations on it

Model

An interpretation that interprets logical statements in a non-contradictory way

Individual

An element of the domain of interest. Individual names are atomic statements in a DL corresponding to such elements

Concept

A statement in a DL corresponding to sets of individuals

Role

A statement in a DL corresponding to a binary relation between individuals

Axiom

A statement in a DL that asserts...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baader F, Lutz C (2007) Description logic. In: Blackburn P, van Benthem J, Wolter F (eds) Handbook of modal logic. Studies in logic and practical reasoning, vol 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam/Boston, pp 757–819Google Scholar
  2. Baader F, Nutt W (2007) Basic description logics. In: Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Baader F, Brandt S, Lutz C (2005) Pushing the EL envelope. In: The 19th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-05). Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) (2007) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvanese D, de Giacomo G, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2007) Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: the DL-Lite family. J Autom Reason 39(3):385–429MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Donini FM (2007) Complexity of reasoning. In: Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Grosof BN, Horrocks I, Volz R, Decker S (2003) Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: The 12th international World Wide Web conference (WWW 2003), Budapest, pp 48–57Google Scholar
  8. Hayes P, Patel-Schneider PF, Horrocks I (2004) OWL web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/.. Accessed on 18 Oct 2012
  9. Hitzler P, Krötzsch M, Rudolph S (2009) Foundations of semantic web technologies. Chapman & Hall/CRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF (2004) Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. J Web Semant 1(4):345–357Google Scholar
  11. Horrocks I, Kutz O, Sattler U (2006) The even more irresistible SROIQ. In: The 10th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2006), English Lake District. AAAI, pp 57–67Google Scholar
  12. Kazakov Y (2008) RIQ and SROIQ are harder than SHOIQ. In: The 11th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2008), Sydney. AAAI, pp 274–284Google Scholar
  13. Krötzsch M, Simančík F, Horrocks I (2012) A description logic primer. CoRR abs/1201.4089, University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Motik B, Fokoue A, Horrocks I, Wu Z, Lutz C, Grau BC (2009) OWL 2 web ontology language profiles. W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/.. Accessed on 18 Oct 2012
  15. Sattler U, Calvanese D, Molitor R (2007) Relationships with other formalisms. In: Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. W3C OWL Working Group (2009) OWL 2 web ontology language document overview. W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/.. Accessed on 18 Oct 2012

Recommended Reading

  1. Baader et al (2007) is the standard text for DLs; covers almost all major results in DLs, written in semi-textbook style; and requires some basics in mathematical logic.Google Scholar
  2. Hitzler et al (2009) is an introductory level textbook in semantic web technologies which also covers significant amount of DLs material, especially in the context of their application in the Semantic Web.Google Scholar
  3. Krötzsch et al (2012) is a text intended as a very first reading on DLs without requiring formal logic background.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adila Krisnadhi
    • 1
  • Pascal Hitzler
    • 2
  1. 1.Kno.e.sis Center, 377 Joshi Research Center, Wright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Wright State UniversityDaytonUSA