<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Matthias Knorr</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pascal Hitzler</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dov. M. Gabbay</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">John Woods</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jörg Siekmann</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Description Logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Handbook of the History of Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elsevier</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">679-710</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Matthias Knorr</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">David Carral</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pascal Hitzler</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adila Krisnadhi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frederick Maier</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cong Wang</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Markus Krötzsch</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Umberto Straccia</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Recent Advances in Integrating OWL and Rules</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Web Reasoning and Rule Systems - 6th International Conference, RR 2012, Vienna, Austria, September 10-12, 2012. Proceedings</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">description logics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OWL</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rules</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">09/2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33203-6_20</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Austria, Vienna</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7497</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">225-228</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">As part of the quest for a unifying logic for the Semantic Web Technology Stack, a central issue is finding suitable ways of integrating description logics based on the Web Ontology Language (OWL) with rule-based approaches based on logic programming. Such integration is difficult since naive approaches typically result in the violation of one or more desirable design principles. For example, while both OWL 2 DL and RIF Core (a dialect of the Rule Interchange Format RIF) are decidable, their naive union is not, unless carefully chosen syntactic restrictions are applied.

We report on recent advances and ongoing work by the authors in integrating OWL and rulesWe take an OWL-centric perspective, which means that we take OWL 2 DL as a starting point and pursue the question of how features of rulebased formalisms can be added without jeopardizing decidability. We also report on incorporating the closed world assumption and on reasoning algorithms. This paper essentially serves as an entry point to the original papers, to which we will refer throughout, where detailed expositions of the results can be found.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Matthias Knorr</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pascal Hitzler</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frederick Maier</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Luc De Raedt</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Christian Bessière</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Didier Dubois</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Patrick Doherty</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Paolo Frasconi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fredrik Heintz</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peter J. F. Lucas</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reconciling OWL and Non-monotonic Rules for the Semantic Web</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ECAI 2012 - 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence (PAIS-2012) System Demonstrations Track</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-474</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IOS Press</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Montpellier, France</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">242</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">474–479</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p class=&quot;rtejustify&quot;&gt;We propose a description logic extending SROIQ (the description logic underlying OWL 2 DL) and at the same time encompassing some of the most prominent monotonic and nonmonotonic rule languages, in particular Datalog extended with the answer set semantics. Our proposal could be considered a substantial contribution towards fulfilling the quest for a unifying logic for the Semantic Web. As a case in point, two non-monotonic extensions of description logics considered to be of distinct expressiveness until now are covered in our proposal. In contrast to earlier such proposals, our language has the “look and feel” of a description logic and avoids hybrid or first-order syntaxes.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Matthias Knorr</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">José Júlio Alferes</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pascal Hitzler</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Local Closed World Reasoning with Description Logics under the Well-Founded Semantics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Artificial Intelligence</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Description Logic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Knowledge representation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic Programming</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Non-monotonic reasoning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ontologies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Semantic Web</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2011.01.007</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">175</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1528–1554</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p class=&quot;rtejustify&quot;&gt;An important question for the upcoming Semantic Web is how to best combine open world ontology languages, such as the OWL-based ones, with closed world rule-based languages. One of the most mature proposals for this combination is known as hybrid MKNF knowledge bases [52], and it is based on an adaptation of the Stable Model Semantics to knowledge bases consisting of ontology axioms and rules. In this paper we propose a well-founded semantics for nondisjunctive hybrid MKNF knowledge bases that promises to provide better efficiency of reasoning, and that is compatible with both the OWL-based semantics and the traditional Well-Founded Semantics for logic programs. Moreover, our proposal allows for the detection of inconsistencies, possibly occurring in tightly integrated ontology axioms and rules, with only little additional effort. We also identify tractable fragments of the resulting language.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9-10</style></issue></record></records></xml>