Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining

Living Edition
| Editors: Reda Alhajj, Jon Rokne

Description Logics

  • Adila Krisnadhi
  • Pascal Hitzler
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7163-9_108-1

Synonyms

Glossary

(Logic-Based) Semantics

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

ABox

A set of axioms constraining particular individuals.

Axiom

A statement in a DL that asserts certain constraints that have to be satisfied by some concepts, roles and individuals.

Class

Synonymous with concept; usually used (instead of concept) in the context of ontology engineering literature.

Classification

A reasoning problem that, given a collection of concepts, corresponds to find the subsumption relationship between any two concepts; the answer of this problem is a subsumption hierarchy among the concepts.

Concept

A logical expression in a DL corresponding to sets of individuals.

DLs

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

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

Notes

Acknowledgements

Both authors acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) project “TROn – Tractable Reasoning with Ontologies” under the award 1017225 III: Small.

The first author acknowledges the support of Fulbright Indonesia Presidential Scholarship PhD Grant 2010–2013.

References

  1. Baader F, Hollunder B (1991) KRIS: knowledge representation and inference system. SIGART Bull 2(3):8–14.  https://doi.org/10.1145/122296.122298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baader F, Lutz C (2007) Description logic, chap 13. In: Blackburn P, van Benthem J, Wolter F (eds) Handbook of modal logic, studies in logic and practical reasoning, vol 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 757–819Google Scholar
  3. Baader F, Nutt W (2007) Basic description logics, chap 2. 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, pp 47–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baader F, Brandt S, Lutz C (2005) Pushing the EL envelope. In: Kaelbling LP, Saffiotti A (eds) IJCAI05, Proceedings of the nineteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 30–August 5, 2005. Professional Book Center, pp 364–369. http://www.ijcai.org/papers/0372.pdf
  5. 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, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Baader F, Horrocks I, Lutz C, Sattler U (2017) An introduction to description logics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Brachman RJ (1977) A structural paradigm for representing knowledge. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Brachman RJ (1979) On the epistemological status of semantic networks. In: Findler NV (ed) Associative networks. Academic, pp 3–50, republished in [Brachman and Levesque 1985], Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Brachman RJ, Levesque HJ (1984) The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In: Brachman RJ (ed) Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, Austin, TX, August 6–10, 1984. AAAI Press, pp 34–37. http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/1984/aaai84-036.php
  10. Brachman RJ, Levesque HJ (eds) (1985) Readings in knowledge representation. Morgan Kauffmann, Los AltoszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Brachman RJ, Schmolze JG (1985) An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cogn Sci 9(2):171–216.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0902 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brachman RJ, McGuinness DL, Patel-Schneider PF, Resnick LA, Borgida A (1991) Living with CLAS-SIC: when and how to use a KL-ONE-like language. In: Sowa JF (ed) Principles of semantic networks. Morgan Kauffmann, Los Altos, pp 401–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):385–429.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-007-9078-x MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. De Giacomo G, Lenzerini M (1994) Boosting the correspondence between description logics and propositional dynamic logics. In: Hayes-Roth B, Korf RE (eds) Proceedings of the 12th national conference on artificial intelligence, Seattle, WA, July 31–August 4, 1994, vol 1. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, pp 205–212. http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/1994/aaai94-032.php
  15. De Giacomo G, Lenzerini M (1996) Tbox and abox reasoning in expressive description logics. In: Aiello LC, Doyle J, Shapiro SC (eds) Proceedings of the fifth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’96), Cambridge, MA, November 5–8, 1996. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 316–327Google Scholar
  16. Donini FM (2007) Complexity of reasoning, chap 3. 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, pp 105–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donini FM, Lenzerini M, Nardi D, Nutt W (1991a) The complexity of concept languages. In: Allen JF, Fikes R, Sandewall E (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’91), Cambridge, MA, April 22–25, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 151–162Google Scholar
  18. Donini FM, Lenzerini M, Nardi D, Nutt W (1991b) Tractable concept languages. In: Mylopoulos J, Reiter R (eds) Proceedings of the 12th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Sydney, Australia, August 24–30, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 458–465Google Scholar
  19. Donini FM, Lenzerini M, Nardi D, Hollunder B, Nutt W, Marchetti-Spaccamela A (1992) The complexity of existential quantification in concept languages. Artif Intell 53(2–3):309–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(92)90076-A MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Franconi E (1998) CRACK. In: Franconi E, Giacomo GD, MacGregor RM, Nutt W, Welty CA (eds) Proceedings of the 1998 international workshop on description logics (DL’98), IRST, Povo – Trento, Italy, June 6–8, 1998, CEUR-WS.org, CEUR workshop proceedings, vol 11. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-11/CRACK.ps
  21. Glimm B, Horrocks I, Motik B, Stoilos G, Wang Z (2014) HermiT: an OWL 2 reasoner. J Autom Reason 53(3):245–269.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-014-9305-1 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Grosof BN, Horrocks I, Volz R, Decker S (2003) Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Hencsey G, White B, Chen YR, Kovács L, Lawrence S (eds) Proceedings of the twelfth international World Wide Web conference, WWW 2003, Budapest, Hungary, May 20–24, 2003. ACM, pp 48–57.  https://doi.org/10.1145/775152.775160
  23. Haarslev V, Möller R (1999) RACE system description. In: Lambrix P, Borgida A, Lenzerini M, Möller R, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) Proceedings of the 1999 international workshop on description logics (DL’99), Linköping, Sweden, July 30–August 1, 1999, CEUR-WS.org, CEUR workshop proceedings, vol 22. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-22/haarslev.ps
  24. Haarslev V, Hidde K, Möller R, Wessel M (2012) The RacerPro knowledge representation and reasoning system. Semantic Web 3(3):267–277.  https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-2011-0032 Google Scholar
  25. Hayes PJ (1979) The logic of frames. In: Metzing D (ed) Frame conceptions and text understanding. Walter de Gruyter, pp 46–61. Republished in [Brachman and Levesque 1985], BerlinGoogle Scholar
  26. Hitzler P, Krötzsch M, Rudolph S (2010) Foundations of semantic web technologies. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Baco Raton. http://www.semantic-web-book.org/ Google Scholar
  27. Hollunder B, Nutt W, Schmidt-Schauß M (1990) Subsumption algorithms for concept description languages. In: Aiello, LC (eds), Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’90, Stockholm, Sweden, 1990. Pitman, London/Boston, pp 348–353Google Scholar
  28. Horrocks I (1998) Using an expressive description logic: fact or fiction? In: Cohn AG, Schubert LK, Shapiro SC (eds) Proceedings of the sixth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’98), Trento, Italy, June 2–5, 1998. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 636–649Google Scholar
  29. Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF (2004) Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. J Web Semant 1(4):345–357.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2004.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horrocks I, Sattler U (1999) A description logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies. J Log Comput 9(3):385–410.  https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/9.3.385 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Horrocks I, Sattler U, Tobies S (1999) Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In: Ganzinger H, McAllester DA, Voronkov A (eds) Logic programming and automated reasoning, 6th international conference, LPAR’99, Tbilisi, Georgia, September 6–10, 1999, proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1705. Springer, pp 161–180.  https://doi.org/10.1007/3–540–48242-3 11
  32. Horrocks I, Kutz O, Sattler U (2006) The even more irresistible SROIQ. In: Doherty P, Mylopoulos J, Welty CA (eds) Proceedings, tenth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Lake District of the United Kingdom, June 2–5, 2006. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp 57–67. http://www.aaai.org/Library/KR/2006/kr06-009.php
  33. Kazakov Y (2008) RIQ and SROIQ are harder than SHOIQ. In: Brewka G, Lang J (eds) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the eleventh international conference, KR 2008, Sydney, September 16–19, 2008. AAAI Press, pp 274–284. http://www.aaai.org/Library/KR/2008/kr08-027.php
  34. Kazakov Y, Krötzsch M, Simancik F (2014) The incredible ELK – from polynomial procedures to efficient reasoning with EL ontologies. J Autom Reason 53(1):1–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-013-9296-3 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Krisnadhi A, Maier F, Hitzler P (2011) OWL and rules. In: Polleres A, d’Amato C, Arenas M, Handschuh S, Kroner P, Ossowski S, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) Reasoning web. Semantic technologies for the web of data – 7th international summer school 2011, Galway, Ireland, August 23–27, 2011, Tutorial lectures, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6848. Springer, pp 382–415.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–642-23032-5 7
  36. Krötzsch M (2010) Efficient inferencing for OWL EL. In: Janhunen T, Niemelä I (eds) Logics in artificial intelligence – 12th European conference, JELIA 2010, Helsinki, Finland, September 13–15, 2010. Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6341. Springer, pp 234–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–642-15675-5 21
  37. Krötzsch M, Simancik F, Horrocks I (2012) A description logic primer. CoRR abs/1201.4089, http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4089
  38. MacGregor RM (1991) Inside the LOOM description classifier. SIGART Bull 2(3):88–92.  https://doi.org/10.1145/122296.122309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mays E, Dionne R, Weida RA (1991) K-Rep system overview. SIGART Bull 2(3):93–97.  https://doi.org/10.1145/122296.122310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McGuinness DL, van Harmelen FC (eds) (2004) OWL web ontology language overview. W3C recommendation 10 Feb 2004. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  41. Minsky M (1981) A framework for representing knowledge. In: Haugeland J (ed) Mind design, The MIT Press, a longer version appears in The psychology of computer vision (1975), republished in [Brachman and Levesque 1985]Google Scholar
  42. Motik B, Fokoue A, Horrocks I, Wu Z, Lutz C, Grau BC (eds) (2012) OWL 2 web ontology language profiles, 2nd edn. W3C recommendation 11 Dec 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/
  43. Patel-Schneider PF, Hayes P, Horrocks I (eds) (2004) OWL web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C recommendation 10 Feb 2004. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/
  44. Peltason C (1991) The BACK system – an overview. SIGART Bull 2(3):114–119.  https://doi.org/10.1145/122296.122314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quillian M (1967) Word concepts: a theory and simulation of some basic capabilities. Behav Sci 12:410–430. republished in [Brachman and Levesque 1985]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sattler U, Calvanese D, Molitor R (2007) Relationships with other formalisms, chap 4. 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, pp 149–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schild K (1991) A correspondence theory for terminological logics: preliminary report. In: Mylopoulos J, Reiter R (eds) Proceedings of the 12th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Sydney, Australia, August 24–30, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 466–471Google Scholar
  48. Schmidt-Schauß M, Smolka G (1991) Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artif Intell 48(1):1–26MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Sirin E, Parsia B, Grau BC, Kalyanpur A, Katz Y (2007) Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoner. J Web Semant 5(2):51–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2007.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steigmiller A, Liebig T, Glimm B (2014) Konclude: system description. J Web Semant 27:78–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2014.06.003 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsarkov D, Horrocks I (2006) FaCT++ description logic reasoner: system description. In: Furbach U, Shankar N (eds) Automated reasoning, third international joint conference, IJCAR 2006, Seattle, WA, August 17–20, 2006, proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4130. Springer, pp 292–297.  https://doi.org/10.1007/11814771 26
  52. W3C OWL Working Group (2012) OWL 2 web ontology language document overview, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation 11 Dec 2012. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

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; requires some basics in mathematical logicGoogle Scholar
  2. [Baader et al 2017] is a principled and thorough textbook formally introducing description logics, including mathematical proofs of properties and algorithm correctnessGoogle Scholar
  3. [Hitzler et al 2010] is a 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 WebGoogle Scholar
  4. [Krötzsch et al 2012] is a text intended as a very first reading on DLs without requiring formal logic backgroundGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringWright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversitas IndonesiaDepokIndonesia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Thomas Gottron
    • 1
  • Stefan Schlobach
    • 2
  • Steffen Staab
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Web Science and TechnologiesUniversität Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany
  2. 2.YUAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute for Web Science and TechnologiesUniversität Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany