Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T09:40:28.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction to the TPLP special issue, logic programming in databases: From Datalog to semantic-web rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

GIORGIO ORSI and
LETIZIA TANCA
GIORGIO ORSI
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy (e-mail: orsi@elet.polimi.it, tanca@elet.polimi.it)
LETIZIA TANCA
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy (e-mail: orsi@elet.polimi.it, tanca@elet.polimi.it)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Much has happened in data and knowledge base research since the introduction of the relational model in Codd (1970) and its strong logical foundations influence its advances ever since. Logic has been a common ground where Database and Artificial Intelligence research competed and collaborated with each other for a long time (Abiteboul et al. 1995). The product of this joint effort has been a set of logic-based formalisms, such as the Relational Calculus (Codd 1970), Datalog (Ceri et al. 1990), Description Logics (Baader et al. 2007), etc., capturing not only the structure but also the semantics of data in an explicit way, thus enabling complex inference procedures.

References

Abiteboul, S., Hull, R. and Vianu, V., Eds. 1995. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
Abiteboul, S., Omar, O. and Milo, T. 2008. The active xml project: An overview. VLDB Journal 17, 5, 1019–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramson, H. and Dahl, V. 1989. Logic Grammars. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. and Chomicki, J. 1999. Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In Proc. of PODS. 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. L., Nardi, D. and Patel-Schneider, P. F. 2007. The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baget, J., Leclere, M. and Mugnier, M. 2010. Walking the decidability line for rules with existential variables. In Proc. of KR. (in press).Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T. 2006. Linked data. URL: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html.Google Scholar
Calí, A., Gottlob, G. and Lukasiewicz, T. 2009. A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. In Proc. of PODS. 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G. D. and Lenzerini, M. 2008. Conjunctive query containment and answering under description logic constraints. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 9, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceri, S., Gottlob, G. and Tanca, L. 1990. Logic Programming and Databases. Springer.Google Scholar
Codd, E. F. 1970. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM 13, 6, 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Virgilio, R., Giunchiglia, F. and Tanca, L. 2010. Semantic Web Information ManagementA Model-Based Perspective. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D. and Schaerf, A. 1998. -log: Integrating datalog and description logics. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10, 3, 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A. and Nutt, W. 1992. Adding epistemic operators to concept languages. In Proc. of KR. 342–353.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proc. of ICLP/SLP. 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gottlob, G., Koch, C., Baumgartner, R., Herzog, M. and Flesca, S. 2004. The lixto data extraction project: back and forth between theory and practice. In Proc. of PODS. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, I. and Patel-Schneider, P. F. 2007. A comparison of two modelling paradigms in the semantic web. Journal of Web Semantics 5, 4, 240–250.Google Scholar
Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S. and Hitzler, P. 2008. ELP: Tractable rules for OWL 2. In Proc. of ISWC. 649–664.Google Scholar
Leone, N., Rullo, P. and Scarcello, F. 1997. Disjunctive stable models: Unfounded sets, fixpoint semantics and computation. Information and Computation 135, 2, 69–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, A. Y. and Rousset, M. C. 1998. Combining horn rules and description logics in carin. Artificial Intelligence 104, 1–2, 165–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V. 1991. Nonmonotonic databases and epistemic queries. In Proc. of IJCAI. 381–386.Google Scholar
Lukasiewicz, T. 2007. A novel combination of answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In Proc. of ESWC. 384–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, D., Mendelzon, A. O. and Sagiv, Y. 1979. Testing implications of data dependencies. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 4, 4, 455–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. 1980. Circumscription – A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 1–2, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minker, J. and Seipel, D. 2002. Disjunctive logic programming: A survey and assessment. In Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, Kakas, A. C. and Sadri, F., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2408. Springer, 472–511.Google Scholar
Motik, B. and Rosati, R. 2010. Reconciling description logics and rules. Journal of ACM (in press).Google Scholar
Motik, B., Sattler, U. and Studer, R. 2005. Query answering for owl-dl with rules. Journal of Web Semantics 3, 1, 41–60.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. 1987. Readings in Non-monotonic Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Chapter On Closed World Data Bases, 300–310.Google Scholar
Rosati, R. 2006. : A tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In Proc. of KR. 68–78.Google Scholar
Zaniolo, C. 1982. Database relations with null values. In Proc. of PODS. 27–33.Google Scholar