Skip to main content

References

📍 Where we are: The evidence base for the whole volume, gathered in one place.

Every inline marker like [1] in a chapter resolves here. References are grouped by chapter, and the numbering is local to each chapter — each chapter's list restarts at [1], so find the chapter heading first, then the number. A citation appears inline as [k], where the fragment names the chapter and k is the entry's number within that chapter's list. Each entry gives the author, title, venue, and year, is annotated with what it supports, and closes with a bracketed evidence-tier tag.

Triples and Graphs: Facts as a Network​

  1. Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., and Lanthaler, M. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation, 2014. — The triple as the atom of the RDF data model. [Evidence tier: standard]
  2. Hogan, A., et al. "Knowledge Graphs." ACM Computing Surveys, 2021. — Triples, graphs, and knowledge-graph fundamentals. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., and Rudolph, S. Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. CRC Press, 2010. — Graph-structured knowledge and its semantics. [Evidence tier: textbook]

RDF and OWL: The Web’s Knowledge Languages​

  1. Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., and Lanthaler, M. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation, 2014. — The RDF data model. [Evidence tier: standard]
  2. Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., and Rudolph, S. Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. CRC Press, 2010. — RDF, RDFS, and OWL together. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. W3C OWL Working Group. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Document Overview. 2nd ed., W3C Recommendation, 2012. — The OWL 2 language and its parts. [Evidence tier: standard]

TBox and ABox: Schema versus Data​

  1. Baader, F., et al. (eds.) The Description Logic Handbook. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2007. — The TBox/ABox architecture. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  2. Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., and Rudolph, S. Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. CRC Press, 2010. — Schema versus instance data on the Semantic Web. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., and Sattler, U. An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017. — TBox, ABox, and knowledge-base semantics. [Evidence tier: textbook]

Description Logic: Concepts, Roles, and Individuals​

  1. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., and Sattler, U. An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017. — Concepts, roles, individuals, and constructors. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  2. Baader, F., et al. (eds.) The Description Logic Handbook. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2007. — The family of description logics and their semantics. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. Krötzsch, M., Simančík, F., and Horrocks, I. "A Description Logic Primer." arXiv:1201.4089, 2013. — A compact introduction to DL syntax and semantics. [Evidence tier: preprint]

The EL Family: Small Logic, Big Ontologies​

  1. Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. "Pushing the EL Envelope." IJCAI, 2005. — The EL and EL++ family and its tractability. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., and Sattler, U. An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017, ch. 6. — Lightweight description logics. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. "Pushing the EL Envelope Further." OWLED Workshop, 2008. — Extensions of EL++ and their limits. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

OWL 2 Profiles: EL, QL, RL, and DL​

  1. Motik, B., et al. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles. 2nd ed., W3C Recommendation, 2012. — The EL, QL, RL, and DL profiles. [Evidence tier: standard]
  2. Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. "Pushing the EL Envelope." IJCAI, 2005. — The logic behind OWL 2 EL. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Calvanese, D., et al. "Tractable Reasoning and Efficient Query Answering in Description Logics: The DL-Lite Family." Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2007. — The logic behind OWL 2 QL. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

The Complexity of Reasoning: Why Profiles Exist​

  1. Tobies, S. Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen, 2001. — Complexity bounds for expressive description logics. [Evidence tier: thesis]
  2. Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. "Pushing the EL Envelope." IJCAI, 2005. — PTIME subsumption in EL. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., and Sattler, U. An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017. — Complexity of reasoning across description logics. [Evidence tier: textbook]

Normalization: Reducing to Normal Forms​

  1. Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. "Pushing the EL Envelope." IJCAI, 2005. — Normal forms and the completion algorithm. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., and Sattler, U. An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017. — Normalization as a conservative extension. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. Krötzsch, M. "Efficient Inferencing for OWL EL." JELIA, 2010. — Normalization and completion procedures for EL. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Completion Rules: CR1–CR4 and the Bottom Rule​

  1. Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. "Pushing the EL Envelope." IJCAI, 2005. — The completion rules CR1–CR4, the bottom rule, and role chains. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., and Sattler, U. An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017. — Rule-based classification for EL. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. Kazakov, Y., Krötzsch, M., and Simančík, F. "The Incredible ELK: From Polynomial Procedures to Efficient Reasoning with EL Ontologies." Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2014. — Optimized completion for EL. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Soundness and Completeness: Why the Rules Suffice​

  1. Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. "Pushing the EL Envelope." IJCAI, 2005. — Soundness and completeness of the EL completion algorithm. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., and Sattler, U. An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017. — Canonical models and correctness proofs. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. Glimm, B., et al. "HermiT: An OWL 2 Reasoner." Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2014. — A complete OWL 2 DL reasoner used here as an oracle. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Consequence-Based Reasoning: PTIME Classification​

  1. Simančík, F., Kazakov, Y., and Horrocks, I. "Consequence-Based Reasoning beyond Horn Ontologies." IJCAI, 2011. — The consequence-based reasoning paradigm. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. "Pushing the EL Envelope." IJCAI, 2005. — PTIME classification by saturation. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Kazakov, Y., Krötzsch, M., and Simančík, F. "The Incredible ELK." Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2014. — Consequence-based classification for EL at scale. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Datalog: Rules, the T_P Operator, and Least Fixpoint​

  1. Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., and Vianu, V. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995. — Datalog, the immediate-consequence operator, and least fixpoint. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  2. Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., and Tanca, L. Logic Programming and Databases. Springer, 1990. — Datalog semantics and evaluation. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., and Tanca, L. "What You Always Wanted to Know About Datalog (And Never Dared to Ask)." IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1989. — A tutorial on Datalog. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Existential Rules and the Chase​

  1. Calì, A., Gottlob, G., and Lukasiewicz, T. "A General Datalog-Based Framework for Tractable Query Answering over Ontologies." Journal of Web Semantics, 2012. — Existential rules (Datalog±) and the chase. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P. G., Miller, R. J., and Popa, L. "Data Exchange: Semantics and Query Answering." Theoretical Computer Science, 2005. — The chase and its variants. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Cuenca Grau, B., et al. "Acyclicity Notions for Existential Rules and Their Application to Query Answering in Ontologies." Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2013. — Chase termination conditions. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Certain Answers: Query Answering as Homomorphism​

  1. Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P. G., Miller, R. J., and Popa, L. "Data Exchange: Semantics and Query Answering." Theoretical Computer Science, 2005. — Certain answers and universal models. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., and Vianu, V. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995. — Conjunctive queries and homomorphisms. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. Calì, A., Gottlob, G., and Lukasiewicz, T. "A General Datalog-Based Framework for Tractable Query Answering over Ontologies." Journal of Web Semantics, 2012. — Certain answers over existential rules. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

EL Reasoners: ELK and CEL​

  1. Baader, F., Lutz, C., and Suntisrivaraporn, B. "CEL — A Polynomial-Time Reasoner for Life Science Ontologies." IJCAR, 2006. — The CEL reasoner. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Kazakov, Y., Krötzsch, M., and Simančík, F. "The Incredible ELK: From Polynomial Procedures to Efficient Reasoning with EL Ontologies." Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2014. — The ELK reasoner. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Glimm, B., et al. "HermiT: An OWL 2 Reasoner." Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2014. — A complete OWL 2 DL reasoner used as a superset oracle. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Datalog and DL Engines: RDFox, HermiT, Konclude​

  1. Motik, B., Nenov, Y., Piro, R., Horrocks, I., and Olteanu, D. "Parallel Materialisation of Datalog Programs in Centralised, Main-Memory RDF Systems." AAAI, 2014. — The RDFox engine. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Glimm, B., et al. "HermiT: An OWL 2 Reasoner." Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2014. — The HermiT tableau reasoner. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Steigmiller, A., Liebig, T., and Glimm, B. "Konclude: System Description." Journal of Web Semantics, 2014. — The Konclude reasoner. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Reasoning Benchmarks: LUBM, OWL2Bench, ORE​

  1. Guo, Y., Pan, Z., and Heflin, J. "LUBM: A Benchmark for OWL Knowledge Base Systems." Journal of Web Semantics, 2005. — The Lehigh University Benchmark. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Singh, G., et al. "OWL2Bench: A Benchmark for OWL 2 Reasoners." ISWC, 2020. — A profile-aware reasoning benchmark. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Parsia, B., et al. "The OWL Reasoner Evaluation (ORE) 2015 Competition Report." Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2017. — The ORE reasoner competition. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Provenance Semirings: Where Facts Come From​

  1. Green, T. J., Karvounarakis, G., and Tannen, V. "Provenance Semirings." PODS, 2007. — The semiring framework for provenance. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Karvounarakis, G., and Green, T. J. "Semiring-Annotated Data: Queries and Provenance." SIGMOD Record, 2012. — Semiring-annotated query evaluation. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Cheney, J., Chiticariu, L., and Tan, W.-C. "Provenance in Databases: Why, How, and Where." Foundations and Trends in Databases, 2009. — A survey of database provenance. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Annotated Logic: Intervals, Lattices, and Confidence​

  1. Straccia, U. Foundations of Fuzzy Logic and Semantic Web Languages. CRC Press, 2013. — Fuzzy description logics and graded truth. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  2. Hájek, P. Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic. Kluwer, 1998. — T-norms and the [0,1] truth lattice. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  3. Kifer, M., and Subrahmanian, V. S. "Theory of Generalized Annotated Logic Programming and Its Applications." Journal of Logic Programming, 1992. — Annotated logic programs. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Temporal Reasoning: Allen’s Algebra and PyReason​

  1. Allen, J. F., and Hayes, P. J. "A Common-Sense Theory of Time." IJCAI, 1985. — The interval calculus. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Allen, J. F. "Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals." Communications of the ACM, 1983. — The interval algebra and its 13 relations. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Aditya, D., et al. "PyReason: Software for Open World Temporal Logic." AAAI Spring Symposium Series, 2023. — Annotated temporal logic in practice. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

Open-World and Inconsistency: Abstention and Repair​

  1. Reiter, R. "On Closed World Data Bases." In Logic and Data Bases, Plenum Press, 1978. — The closed-world assumption. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  2. Lembo, D., et al. "Inconsistency-Tolerant Semantics for Description Logics." RR, 2010. — Query answering over inconsistent ontologies. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Bienvenu, M., and Bourgaux, C. "Inconsistency-Tolerant Querying of Description Logic Knowledge Bases." Reasoning Web, 2016. — Repairs and inconsistency-tolerant reasoning. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]

The Honest Verdict: What Symbols Guarantee​

  1. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., and Sattler, U. An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017. — What description-logic reasoning guarantees. [Evidence tier: textbook]
  2. Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. "Pushing the EL Envelope." IJCAI, 2005. — Soundness, completeness, and tractability for EL. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]
  3. Garcez, A. d’Avila, and Lamb, L. C. "Neurosymbolic AI: The 3rd Wave." Artificial Intelligence Review, 2023. — Why symbolic guarantees need neural robustness. [Evidence tier: peer-reviewed]