A resolution-based decision procedure for SHOIQ (Journal of Automated Reasoning DOI: 10.1007/s10817-007-9090-1);A resolution-based decision procedure for SHOIQ

Journal of Automated Reasoning

Volumn 40, Issue 2-3, 2008, Pages 89-116

  Kazakov, Yevgeny ^a   Motik, Boris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Description logics; Nominals; Resolution decision procedures

Indexed keywords

FORMAL LANGUAGES; ONTOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; SEMANTIC WEB;

DESCRIPTION LOGICS; RESOLUTION DECISION PROCEDURES;

DECISION THEORY;

EID: 40849118430     PISSN: 01687433     EISSN: 15730670     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10817-008-9100-y     Document Type: Erratum

References (48)

1. Armando, A., Ranise, S., Rusinowitch, M.: Uniform derivation of decision procedures by superposition. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Computer Science Logic (CSL' 01). LNCS, vol. 2142, pp. 549-563. Paris, France (2001)
2. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)
3. Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press (1998)
4. Bachmair, L., Ganzinger, H.: Rewrite-based equational theorem proving with selection and simplification. J. Log. Comput. 4(3), 217-247 (1994)
5. Bachmair, L., Ganzinger, H.: Resolution theorem proving. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. 1, Chapt. 2, pp. 19-99. Elsevier Science (2001)
6. Bachmair, L., Ganzinger, H., Lynch, C., Snyder, W.: Basic Paramodulation. Inf. Comput. 121(2), 172-192 (1995)
7. Bachmair, L., Ganzinger, H., Waldmann, U.: Superposition with simplification as a decision procedure for the monadic class with equality. In: Proceedings of the Third Kurt Gödel Colloquium on Computational Logic and Proof Theory (KGC '93). LNCS, vol. 713, pp. 83-96. Brno, Czech Republic (1993)
8. Baumgartner, P., Schmidt, R.A.: Blocking and other enhancements for bottom-Up model generation methods. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), LNCS, vol. 4130, pp. 125-139. Seattle, WA (2006)
9. Bergamaschi, S., Castano, S., Vincini, M., Beneventano, D.: Semantic integration of heterogeneous information sources. Data Knowl. Eng. 36(3), 215-249 (2001)
10. Borgida, A.: On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics. Artif. Intell. 82(1-2), 353-367 (1996)
11. Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D.: Unifying class-based representation formalisms. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 11, 199-240 (1999)
12. de Nivelle, H.: Ordering Refinements of Resolution. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft (1995)
13. de Nivelle, H.: Deciding the E-plus class by an a posteriori, liftable order. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 88(1), 219-232 (2000)
14. de Nivelle, H., de Rijke, M.: Deciding the guarded fragments by resolution. J. Symb. Comput. 35, 21-58 (2003).
15. de Nivelle, H., Pratt-Hartmann, I.: A resolution-based decision procedure for the two-variable fragment with equality. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001). LNAI, vol. 2083, pp. 211-225. Siena, Italy (2001)
16. Fermüller, C., Tammet, T., Zamov, N., Leitsch, A.: Resolution Methods for the Decision Problem. LNAI, vol. 679. Springer (1993)
17. Fermüller, C.G., Leitsch, A., Hustadt, U., Tammet, T.: Resolution decision procedures. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. 2, Chapt. 25, pp. 1791-1849. Elsevier Science (2001)
18. Ganzinger, H., de Nivelle, H.: A superposition decision procedure for the guarded fragment with equality. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS '99), pp. 295-305. Trento, Italy (1999)
19. Goasdoué, F., Rousset, M.-C.: Answering queries using views: a KRDB perspective for the semantic web. ACM Trans. Internet Technology 4(3), 255-288 (2004)
20. Haarslev, V., Timmann, M., Möller, R.: Combining tableaux and algebraic methods for reasoning with qualified number restrictions. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2001). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 49. Stanford, CA (2001)
21. Haken, A.: The intractability of resolution. Theor. Comp. Sci. 39, 297-308 (1985)
22. Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Ontology reasoning in the SHOQ(D) description logic. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), pp. 199-204. Seattle, WA (2001)
23. Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pp. 448-453. Edinburgh, UK (2005)
24. Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Reasoning with individuals for the description logic SHIQ. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-17). LNAI, vol. 1831, pp. 482-496. Pittsburgh (2000)
25. Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Reducing SHIQ- Description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pp. 152-162. Whistler, Canada, (2004)
26. Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: A decomposition rule for decision procedures by resolution-based calculi. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (LPAR 2004). LNAI, vol. 3452, pp. 21-35. Montevideo, Uruguay (2005)
27. Hustadt, U., Schmidt, R.A.: Maslov's class K revisited. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-16), LNAI, vol. 1632, pp. 172-186. Trento, Italy (1999)
28. Joyner, W.H.: Resolution strategies as decision procedures. J. ACM 23(3), 398-417 (1976)
29. Kazakov, Y.: Saturation-Based Decision Procedures for Extensions of the Guarded Fragment. Ph.D. thesis, Univesität des Saarlandes, Germany (2006)
30. Kazakov, Y., de Nivelle, H.: A resolution decision procedure for the guarded fragment with transitive guards. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2004). LNAI, vol. 3097, pp. 122-136. Cork, Ireland (2004)
31. Kazakov, Y., Motik, B.: A resolution-based decision procedure for SHOIQ. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), vol. 4130 of LNCS, pp. 662-667. Seattle, WA (2006)
32. Leitsch, A.: Deciding clause classes by semantic clash resolution. Fundam. Inform. 18, 163-182 (1993)
33. Levy, A.Y., Srivastava, D., Kirk, T.: Data model and query evaluation in global information systems. J. Intell. Inform. Syst. 5(2), 121-143 (1995)
34. Motik, B.: Reasoning in Description Logics using Resolution and Deductive Databases. Ph.D. thesis, Univesität Karlsruhe, Germany (2006)
35. Motik, B., Sattler, U.: A comparison of reasoning techniques for querying large description logic ABoxes. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (LPAR 2006), LNCS, vol. 4246, pp. 227-241. Phnom Penh, Cambodia (2006)
36. Nieuwenhuis, R., Rubio, A.: Theorem proving with ordering and equality constrained clauses. J. Symb. Comput. 19(4), 312-351 (1995)
37. Nieuwenhuis, R., Rubio, A.: Paramodulation-based theorem proving. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. 1, Chapt. 7, pp. 371-443. Elsevier Science (2001)
38. Nivelle, H.D., Schmidt, R.A., Hustadt, U.: Resolution-based methods for modal logics. Log. J. IGPL 8(3), 265-292 (2000)
39. Pacholski, L., Szwast, W., Tendera, L.: Complexity results for first-order two-variable logic with counting. SIAM J. Comput. 29(4), 1083-1117 (2000)
40. Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL Web Ontology Language: Semantics and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/ (2004)
41. Peltier, N.: On the decidability of the PVD class with equality. Log. J. IGPL 9(4), 601-624 (2001)
42. Plaisted, D.A., Greenbaum, S.: A structure-preserving clause form translation. J. Symb. Comput. 2(3), 293-304 (1986)
43. Pratt-Hartmann, I.: Complexity of the two-variable fragment with counting quantifiers. J. Logic, Lang. Inf. 14(3), 369-395 (2005)
44. Schmidt, R.A., Hustadt, U.: A principle for incorporating axioms into the first-order translation of modal formulae. In: Proc. of the 19th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE-19). LNAI, vol. 2741, pp. 412-426. Miami Beach, FL (2003)
45. Tammet, T.: Resolution Methods for Decision Problems and Finite-Model Building. Ph.D. thesis, Göteborg University, Sweden (1992)
46. Tobies, S.: Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen, Germany (2001)
47. Vardi, M.Y.: Why is modal logic so robustly decidable? In: Immerman, N., Kolaitis, P. (eds.) Proc. of a DIMACS Workshop on Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 31, pp. 149-184. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (1996)
48. Weidenbach, C.: Combining superposition, sorts and splitting. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. 2, Chapt. 27, pp. 1965-2013. Elsevier Science (2001)