Semantic and Computational Advantages of the Safe Integration of Ontologies and Rules

Description Logics (DLs) are playing a central role in ontologies and in the Semantic Web, since they are currently the most used formalisms for building ontologies. Both semantic and computational issues arise when extending DLs with rule-based components. In particular, integrating DLs with nonmonotonic rules requires to properly deal with two semantic discrepancies: (a) DLs are based on the Open World Assumption, while rules are based on (various forms of) Closed World Assumption; (b) The DLs specifically designed for the Semantic Web, i.e., OWL and OWL-DL, are not based on the Unique Name Assumption, while rule-based systems typically adopt the Unique Name Assumption. In this paper we present the following contributions: (1) We define safe hybrid knowledge bases, a general formal framework for integrating ontologies and rules, which provides for a clear treatment of the above semantic issues; (2) We present a reasoning algorithm and establish general decidability and complexity results for reasoning in safe hybrid KBs; (3) As a consequence of these general results, we close a problem left open in [18], i.e., decidability of OWL-DL with DL-safe rules.

[1]  Grigoris Antoniou,et al.  Nonmonotonic Rule Systems on Top of Ontology Layers , 2002, SEMWEB.

[2]  Gerald Pfeifer,et al.  The KR System dlv: Progress Report, Comparisons and Benchmarks , 1998, KR.

[3]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Datalog and Description Logics: Expressive Power , 1997, APPIA-GULP-PRODE.

[4]  Jos de Bruijn,et al.  OWL DL vs. OWL flight: conceptual modeling and reasoning for the semantic Web , 2005, WWW '05.

[5]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  The Semantic Web - ISWC 2003 , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Grigoris Antoniou.  A Nonmonotonic Rule System using Ontologies , 2002, RuleML.

[7]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules , 2005, J. Web Semant..

[8]  Zuoquan Lin,et al.  An Extension to OWL with General Rules , 2004, RuleML.

[9]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic , 2003, WWW '03.

[10]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  AL-log: Integrating Datalog and Description Logics , 1998, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

[11]  Stijn Heymans,et al.  Integrating Description Logics and Answer Set Programming , 2003, PPSWR.

[12]  Stephan Tobies,et al.  Complexity results and practical algorithms for logics in knowledge representation , 2001, ArXiv.

[13]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Disjunctive datalog , 1997, TODS.

[14]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Combining Horn Rules and Description Logics in CARIN , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability , 2004, Journal of Web Semantics.

[16]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A proposal for an owl rules language , 2004, WWW '04.

[17]  Stijn Heymans,et al.  Semantic Web Reasoning with Conceptual Logic Programs , 2004, RuleML.

[18]  Sebastian Maneth,et al.  Efficient Memory Representation of XML Documents , 2005, DBPL.

[19]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  Applying KAoS Services to Ensure Policy Compliance for Semantic Web Services Workflow Composition and Enactment , 2004, SEMWEB.

[20]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[21]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Recursive Query Plans for Data Integration , 2000, J. Log. Program..

[22]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  Towards expressive KR systems integrating datalog and description logics: preliminary report , 1999, Description Logics.

[23]  Boris Motik,et al.  Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules , 2004, International Semantic Web Conference.

[24]  François Fages,et al.  Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, Third International Workshop, PPSWR 2005, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, September 11-16, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, PPSWR.