This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the International Workshop on Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, PPSWR 2003, held in Mumbai, India in December 2003 as satellite meeting of ICLP 2003. The 13 revised full papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected for inclusion in the proceedings. The papers are organized in topical sections on foundations of semantic Web reasoning, reasoning in practice, query- and rule-languages, and semantics and knowledge representation. The Semantic Web Is A Major Endeavor Aimed At Enriching The Existing Web Withmetadataandprocessingmethodssoastoprovideweb-basedsystemswith Advanced(so-calledintelligent)capabilities,inparticularwithcontext-awareness And Decision Support. The Advanced Capabilities Striven For In Most Semantic Web Application S- Narios Primarily Call For Reasoning. Reasoning Capabilities Are O?ered By Exi- Ing Semantic Web Languages, Such As Bpel4ws, Bpml, Consvisor, Daml-s, Jtp, Triple, And Others. These Languages, However, Were Developed Mostly From Functionality-centered (e.g., Ontology Reasoning Or Access Validation) Or Application-centered (e.g., Web Service Retrieval And Composition) Perspectives. A Perspective Centered On The Reasoning Techniques (e.g., Forward Or Backward Chaining, Tableau-like Methods, Constraint Reasoning, Etc.) Complementing The Above-mentioned Activities Appears Desirable For Semantic Web Systems And - Plications. The Workshop On “principles And Practice Of Semantic Web Reas- Ing,” Which Took Place On December 8, 2003, In Mumbai, India, Was The ?rst Of A Series Of Scienti?c Meetings Devoted To Such A Perspective. Justasthecurrentwebisinherentlyheterogeneousindataformatsanddata Semantics, The Semantic Web Will Be Inherently Heterogeneous In Its Reasoning Forms.indeed,anysingleformof Reasoningturnsouttobeirrealin Thesemantic Web. For Example, Ontology Reasoning In General Relies On Monotonic Negation (for The Metadata Often Can Be Fully Speci?ed), While Databases, Web Databases, And Web-based Information Systems Call For Non-monotonic Reasoning (for One Would Not Specify Non-existing Trains In A Railway Timetable); Constraint Reas- Ing Is Needed When Dealing With Time (for Time Intervals Have To Be Dealt With), While(forwardand/orbackward)chainingisthereasoningofchoicewhencoping With Database-like Views (for Views, I.e., Virtual Data, Can Be Derived From Actual Data Using Operations Such As Join And Projections). Composing Frameworks And Components For Families Of Semantic Web Applications / Luis Ajimann -- Semantic Web Logic Programming Tools / Jose Julia Alferes, Carlos Viegas Domano And Luis Moniz Pereira -- Web Rules Need Two Kinds Of Negation / Gerd Wagner -- Towards The Adaptive Semantic Web / Peter Dolog, Nicola Henze, Wolfgang Negdl And Michael Sintek. François Bry, Nicola Henze, Jan Małuszyński (eds.). Includes Bibliographical References And Index. The Semantic Web is a major endeavor aimed at enriching the existing Web withmetadataandprocessingmethodssoastoprovideWeb-basedsystemswith advanced(so-calledintelligent)capabilities, inparticularwithcontext-awareness and decision support. The advanced capabilities striven for in most Semantic Web application s- narios primarily call for reasoning. Reasoning capabilities are o?ered by exi- ing Semantic Web languages, such as BPEL4WS, BPML, ConsVISor, DAML-S, JTP, TRIPLE, and others. These languages, however, were developed mostly from functionality-centered (e.g., ontology reasoning or access validation) or application-centered (e.g., Web service retrieval and composition) perspectives. A perspective centered on the reasoning techniques (e.g., forward or backward chaining, tableau-like methods, constraint reasoning, etc.) complementing the above-mentioned activities appears desirable for Semantic Web systems and - plications. The workshop on "Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reas- ing," which took place on December 8, 2003, in Mumbai, India, was the?rst of a series of scienti?c meetings devoted to such a perspective. JustasthecurrentWebisinherentlyheterogeneousindataformatsanddata semantics, the Semantic Web will be inherently heterogeneous in its reasoning forms. Indeed, anysingleformof reasoningturnsouttobeirrealin theSemantic Web. For example, ontology reasoning in general relies on monotonic negation (for the metadata often can be fully speci?ed), while databases, Web databases, and Web-based information systems call for non-monotonic reasoning (for one would not specify non-existing trains in a railway timetable); constraint reas- ing is needed when dealing with time (for time intervals have to be dealt with), while(forwardand/orbackward)chainingisthereasoningofchoicewhencoping with database-like views (for views, i.e., virtual data, can be derived from actual data using operations such as join and projections) Front Matter....Pages - Composing Frameworks and Components for Families of Semantic Web Applications....Pages 1-15 Semantic Web Logic Programming Tools....Pages 16-32 Web Rules Need Two Kinds of Negation....Pages 33-50 Towards the Adaptive Semantic Web....Pages 51-68 On Reasoning on Time and Location on the Web....Pages 69-83 Reasoning about Communicating Agents in the Semantic Web....Pages 84-98 A Visual Language for Web Querying and Reasoning....Pages 99-112 XML Document Adaptation Queries (XDAQ): An Approach to Adaptation Reasoning Using Web Query Languages....Pages 113-127 On Types for XML Query Language Xcerpt....Pages 128-145 Integrating Description Logics and Answer Set Programming....Pages 146-159 Extracting Mathematical Semantics from ${L\kern-.36em\raise.3ex\hbox{\sc a}\kern-.15em T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}$ Documents....Pages 160-173 Reasoning in Attempto Controlled English....Pages 174-188 Systematics and Architecture for a Resource Representing Knowledge about Named Entities....Pages 189-207 Back Matter....Pages -
