ELP: Tractable Rules for OWL 2

Krötzsch, Markus; Rudolph, Sebastian; Hitzler, Pascal

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88564-1_41

Cited by 71 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly as in Section 6.1, this makes the rules applicable only to the individuals that are known in O by name. Recently, Krötzsch et al [2008b] have proposed an approach in which the rules are syntactically restricted such that they can be transformed to equivalent DL axioms.…”

Section: Extensions Of Dls With First-order Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling description logics and rules

Motik

Rosati

2008

J. ACM

181

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Description logics (DLs) and rules are formalisms that emphasize different aspects of knowledge representation: whereas DLs are focused on specifying and reasoning about conceptual knowledge, rules are focused on nonmonotonic inference. Many applications, however, require features of both DLs and rules. Developing a formalism that integrates DLs and rules would be a natural outcome of a large body of research in knowledge representation and reasoning of the last two decades; however, achieving this goal is very challenging and the approaches proposed thus far have not fully reached it. In this paper, we present a hybrid formalism of MKNF + knowledge bases, which integrates DLs and rules in a coherent semantic framework. Achieving seamless integration is nontrivial, since DLs use an open-world assumption, while the rules are based on a closed-world assumption. We overcome this discrepancy by basing the semantics of our formalism on the logic of minimal knowledge and negation as failure (MKNF) by Lifschitz. We present several algorithms for reasoning with MKNF + knowledge bases, each suitable to different kinds of rules, and establish tight complexity bounds.

show abstract

Section: Extensions Of Dls With First-order Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling description logics and rules

Motik

Rosati

2008

J. ACM

181

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 It is known that fragments of various DLs can be translated into equivalent or equisatisfiable datalog programs, and this has also been exploited to solve reasoning tasks. This has been demonstrated, e.g., for the description logics Horn-SHIQ and EL ++ [15,22,17,18]. In this paper we address the question whether there is a maximal fragment that can be mapped into datalog.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

On the Semantic Relationship between Datalog and Description Logics

Krötzsch

Rudolph

Schmitt

2010

Web Reasoning and Rule Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Translations to (first-order) datalog have been used in a number of inferencing techniques for description logics (DLs), yet the relationship between the semantic expressivities of function-free Horn logic and DL is understood only poorly. Although Description Logic Programs (DLP) have been described as DLs in the "expressive intersection" of DL and datalog, it is unclear what an intersection of two syntactically incomparable logics is, even if both have a first-order logic semantics. In this work, we offer a characterisation for DL fragments that can be expressed, in a concrete sense, in datalog. We then determine the largest such fragment for the DL ALC, and provide an outlook on the extension of our methods to more expressive DLs.

show abstract

“…A common solution to this problem is to extend OWL 2 with a rule-based formalism such as SWRL; 3 however, this either results in undecidability [9] or requires restrictions in the shape of the rules [8], which typically prevent the rules from axiomatising the required structures. An alternative approach suggests a combination of OWL 2, rules, and description graphs (DGs) [12]-a graphical notation for describing non-tree-like structures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%