Advertisement

Merging and Aligning Ontologies in dl-Programs

  • Kewen Wang
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Rodney Topor
  • Abdul Sattar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3791)

Abstract

The language of dl-programs is a latest effort in developing an expressive representation for Web-based ontologies. It allows to build answer set programming (ASP) on top of description logic and thus some attractive features of ASP can be employed in the design of the Semantic Web architecture. In this paper we first generalize dl-programs by allowing multiple knowledge bases and then accordingly, define the answer set semantics for the dl-programs. A novel technique called forgetting is developed in the setting of dl-programs and applied to ontology merging and aligning.

Keywords

Logic Program Description Logic Atomic Concept Nonmonotonic Logic Extended Logic Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G., Wagner, G.: A rule-based approach to the semantic web (preliminary report). In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web (RuleML2003), pp. 111–120 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Connolly, D., van Harmelen, F., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: Daml+oil reference description. W3C Note (December 18, 2001), http://www.w3.org/tr/2001/note-daml+oilreference-20011218.html
  4. 4.
    Dean, M., Connolly, D., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P., Stein, L.: Owl web ontology language reference, 3C Recommendation ( February10 2004), http://www.w3.org/tr/2004/rec-owl-ref-20040210/
  5. 5.
    Donini, F., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: AL-log: Integrating datalog and description logics. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10(3), 227–252 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., Scarcello, F.: A kr system dlv: Progress report, comparisons and benchmarks. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 406–417. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 141–151 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fikes, R., Farquhar, A.: Large-scale repositories of highly expressive reusable knowledge. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(2), 73–79 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 579–597 (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Combining owl ontologies using e-connections. Technical Report TR-2005-01, University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS) (January 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logics. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Propositional independence: Formula-variable independence and forgetting. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 18, 391–443 (2003)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lenat, D.: Cyc: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of ACM 38(11), 33–38 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niemelä, I., Simons, P.: Smodels: An implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal logic programs. In: Dix, J., Furbach, U., Nerode, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 420–429. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noy, N., Musen, M.: An algorithm for merging and aligning ontologies: Automation and tool support. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontology Management at AAAI 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Swift, T.: Deduction in ontologies via asp. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, K., Sattar, A., Su, K.: A theory of forgetting in logic programming. In: Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, Y., Foo, N., Wang, K.: Solving logic program conflicts through strong and weak forgettings. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 627–632. The Professional Book Centre, USA (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kewen Wang
    • 1
  • Grigoris Antoniou
    • 2
  • Rodney Topor
    • 1
  • Abdul Sattar
    • 1
  1. 1.Griffith UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.University of CreteGreece

Personalised recommendations