Advertisement

Augmenting Datalog\(^{\frac{+}{}}\) with Customizable Metalogic Features for Powerful Ontological Reasoning

  • Stefania Costantini
  • Andrea FormisanoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11946)

Abstract

In recent work by Gottlob et al., the usefulness and adequacy of Datalog, and precisely Open image in new window augmented with rules with existential heads to implement ontological reasoning has been shown. Also, it has been shown how to express forms of reasoning that go beyond the expressive capabilities of Description Logics. In our recent work [25] we present a methodology for introducing customizable metalogic features in logic-based knowledge representation and reasoning languages. We made the specific case of Answer Set Programming (ASP), where such features may be part of software engineering toolkits for this programming paradigm. In this paper we show how such metalogic features can further enrich Open image in new window with minor changes to its operational semantics (provided in terms of “chase”) and no additional complexity burden.

Keywords

Ontologies Meta-reasoning Open image in new window 

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G., Harmelen, F.: Web ontology language: OWL. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies. IHIS, pp. 91–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apt, K.R., Bol, R.N.: Logic programming and negation: a survey. J. Log. Program. 19(20), 9–71 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: The DL-Lite family and relations. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 36, 1–69 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barklund, J.: What is a meta-variable in Prolog? In: Meta-Programming in Logic Programming, pp. 383–98. The MIT Press (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barklund, J., Costantini, S., Dell’Acqua, P., Lanzarone, G.A.: Semantical properties of encodings in logic programming. In: Proceedings of 1995 International Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 288–302. MIT Press (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barklund, J., Costantini, S., Dell’Acqua, P., Lanzarone, G.A.: Reflection principles in computational logic. J. Log. Comput. 10(6), 743–786 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barklund, J., Dell’Acqua, P., Costantini, S., Lanzarone, G.A.: SLD-resolution with reflection. In: Bruynooghe, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1994 International Symposium on Logic Programming. MIT Press (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barklund, J., Dell’Acqua, P., Costantini, S., Lanzarone, G.A.: Semantical properties of SLD-resolution with reflection. In: Sterling, L. (ed.) Proceedings of Logic Programming, ICLP 1995. MIT Press (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bellomarini, L., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A., Sallinger, E.: Swift logic for big data and knowledge graphs. In: Sierra, C. (ed.) Proc. of IJCAI 2017, pp. 2–10. ijcai.org (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bellomarini, L., Sallinger, E., Gottlob, G.: The Vadalog system: datalog-based reasoning for knowledge graphs. PVLDB 11(9), 975–987 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonatti, P.A.: Model theoretic semantics for Demo. In: Pettorossi, A. (ed.) META 1992. LNCS, vol. 649, pp. 220–234. Springer, Heidelberg (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56282-6_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bordini, R.H., et al.: A survey of programming languages and platforms for multi-agent systems. Informatica (Slovenia) 30(1), 33–44 (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bowen, K.A., Kowalski, R.A.: Amalgamating language and metalanguage in logic programming. In: Logic Programming, pp. 153–172. Academic Press (1982)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set programming: an introduction to the special issue. AI Mag. 37(3), 5–6 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Kifer, M.: Taming the infinite chase: query answering under expressive relational constraints. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 48, 115–174 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. J. Web Semant. 14, 57–83 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Pieris, A.: Datalog+/-: a family of languages for ontology querying. In: de Moor, O., Gottlob, G., Furche, T., Sellers, A. (eds.) Datalog 2.0 2010. LNCS, vol. 6702, pp. 351–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24206-9_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: DL-Lite: tractable description logics for ontologies. In: Veloso, M.M., Kambhampati, S. (eds.) Proceedings of AAAI 2005, pp. 602–607. AAAI Press/The MIT Press (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carlucci Aiello, L., Levi, G.: The uses of metaknowledge in AI systems. In: Meta-Level Architectures and Reflection, pp. 243–254. North-Holland (1988)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen, W., Kifer, M., Warren, D.S.: HILOG: a foundation for higher-order logic programming. J. Log. Program. 15(3), 187–230 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Costantini, S.: Semantics of a metalogic programming language. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 1, 233–247 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Costantini, S.: Meta-reasoning: a survey. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS, vol. 2408, pp. 253–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45632-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Costantini, S., Dell’Acqua, P., Lanzarone, G.A.: Extending Horn clause theories by reflection principles. In: MacNish, C., Pearce, D., Pereira, L.M. (eds.) JELIA 1994. LNCS, vol. 838, pp. 400–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0021987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Costantini, S., Formisano, A.: Augmenting knowledge representation and reasoning languages with customizable metalogic features. In: Proceedings of CILC 2019. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2396, pp. 14–29. CEUR-WS.org (2019)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Costantini, S., Lanzarone, G.A.: A metalogic programming approach: language, semantics and applications. J. Exp. Theoret. Artif. Intell. 6(3), 239–287 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dix, J.: A classification theory of semantics of normal logic programs: I. Strong properties. Fundamenta Informaticae 22(3), 227–255 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eiter, T., et al.: The DLVHEX system. KI 32(2–3), 187–189 (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gottlob, G., Manna, M., Pieris, A.: Polynomial rewritings for linear existential rules. In: Yang, Q., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) Proceedings of IJCAI 2015, pp. 2992–2998. AAAI Press (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Beyond SPARQL under OWL 2 QL entailment regime: rules to the rescue. In: Yang, Q., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) Proceedings of IJCAI 2015, pp. 2999–3007. AAAI Press (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gottlob, G., Pieris, A., Sallinger, E.: Vadalog: recent advances and applications. In: Calimeri, F., Leone, N., Manna, M. (eds.) JELIA 2019. LNCS, vol. 11468, pp. 21–37. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19570-0_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grosof, B.N., Kifer, M., Fodor, P.: Rulelog: highly expressive semantic rules with scalable deep reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Doctoral Consortium, Challenge, Industry Track, Tutorials and Posters @ RuleML+RR 2017 hosted by RuleML+RR 2017. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1875. CEUR-WS.org (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harmelen, F.: Definable naming relations in meta-level systems. In: Pettorossi, A. (ed.) META 1992. LNCS, vol. 649, pp. 89–104. Springer, Heidelberg (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56282-6_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Harmelen, F., et al.: Knowledge-level reflection. In: Enhancing the Knowledge Engineering Process - Contributions from ESPRIT, pp. 175–204. Elsevier Science (1992)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hill, P.M., Lloyd, J.W.: Analysis of metaprograms. In: Meta-Programming in Logic Programming, pp. 23–51. The MIT Press (1988)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hill, P.M., Lloyd, J.W.: The Gödel Programming Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. J. Web Sem. 1(1), 7–26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Konolige, K.: Reasoning by introspection. In: Meta-Level Architectures and Reflection, pp. 61–74. North-Holland (1988)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., Schmitt, P.H.: A closer look at the semantic relationship between datalog and description logics. Semant. Web 6(1), 63–79 (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83189-8CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università di L’AquilaL’AquilaItaly
  2. 2.INdAM-GNCS and Università di PerugiaPerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations