Active integrity constraints for general-purpose knowledge bases

  • Luís Cruz-Filipe
  • Graça Gaspar
  • Isabel Nunes
  • Peter Schneider-Kamp


In the database world, integrity constraints are essential to guarantee database integrity. The related problem of database repair deals with finding the best way to change a database so that it satisfies its integrity constraints. These two topics have been studied intensively since the 1980s. The formalism of active integrity constraints, proposed in 2004, aims at addressing them jointly, by providing a syntax whereby a particular subclass of integrity constraints can be specified together with preferred ways to repair inconsistency. In the last decade, several authors have proposed adaptations of the notion of integrity constraints to other reasoning frameworks than relational databases. In this article, we extend this line of work in two ways. First, we target multi-context systems, a general-purpose framework for combining heterogeneous reasoning systems, able to model most other reasoning frameworks, as we demonstrate. Second, we extend the notions of active integrity constraints and grounded repairs to this generalized setting. This way of including repair suggestions inside integrity constraints, subject to a validity check, enables us to define simple iterative algorithms to find all possible grounded repairs for an inconsistent multi-context system, avoiding the need to solve complex or undecidable problems.


Integrity constraints Multi-context systems Repairs Ontologies 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

03B80 68P15 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S.: Updates, a new frontier. In: Gyssens, M., Paredaens, J., van Gucht, D. (eds.) ICDT, volume 326 of LNCS, pp. 1–18. Springer (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison Wesley, Boston (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L.E., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Vianu, V., Papadimitriou, C.H. (eds.) PODS, pp. 68–79. ACM Press (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asirelli, P., de Santis, M., Martelli, M.: Integrity constraints for logic databases. J. Log Program. 2(3), 221–232 (1985)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogaerts, B., Cruz-Filipe, L.: Semantics for active integrity constraints using approximation fixpoint theory. In: Sierra, C. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 866–872 (2017). ijcai.orgGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bogaerts, B., Vennekens, J., Denecker, M.: Grounded fixpoints and their applications in knowledge representation. Artif. Intell. 224, 51–71 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Equilibria in heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: AAAI, pp. 385–390. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Fink, M.: Nonmonotonic multi-context systems: A flexible approach for integrating heterogeneous knowledge sources. In: Balduccini, M., Cao Son, T. (eds.) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning - Essays Dedicated to Michael Gelfond on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, volume 6565 of LNCS, pp. 233–258. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Managed multi-context systems. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 786–791 (2011). IJCAI/AAAIGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caroprese, L., Greco, S., Sirangelo, C., Zumpano, E.: Declarative semantics of production rules for integrity maintenance. In: Etalle, S., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) ICLP, volume 4079 of LNCS, pp. 26–40. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caroprese, L., Trubitsyna, I., Truszczynski, M., Zumpano, E.: The view-update problem for indefinite databases. In: Fariñas del Cerro, L., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA, volume 7519 of LNCS, pp. 134–146. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caroprese, L., Truszczynski, M.: Declarative semantics for active integrity constraints. In: de la Banda, M.G., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP, volume 5366 of LNCS, pp. 269–283. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caroprese, L., Truszczyński, M.: Active integrity constraints and revision programming. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 11(6), 905–952 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caroprese, L., Zumpano, E.: Consistent data integration in P2P deductive databases. In: Prade, H., Subrahmanian, V.S. (eds.) SUM, volume 4772 of LNCS, pp. 230–243. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Beierle, C., Meghini, C.: Optimizing computation of repairs from active integrity constraints. In: FoIKS, volume 8367 of LNCS, pp. 361–380. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cruz-Filipe, L.: Grounded fixpoints and active integrity constraints. In: Carro, M., King, A., De Vos, M., Saeedloei, N. (eds.) ICLP’16, volume 52 of OASIcs, pp. 11.1–11.14. Schloss Dagstuhl (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Engrácia, P., Gaspar, G., Nunes, I.: Computing repairs from active integrity constraints. In: Wang, H., Banach, R. (eds.) TASE, pp. 183–190. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Franz, M., Hakhverdyan, A., Ludovico, M., Nunes, I., Schneider-Kamp, P.: repAIrC: A tool for ensuring data consistency by means of active integrity constraints. In: Fred, A.L.N., Dietz, J.L.G., Aveiro, D., Liu, K., Filipe, J. (eds.) KMIS, pp. 17–26. SciTePress (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Gaspar, G., Nunes, I.: Information flow within relational multi-context systems. In: Janowicz, K., Schlobach, S., Lambrix, P., Hyvönen, E. (eds.) EKAW, volume 8876 of LNAI, pp. 97–108. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Gaspar, G., Nunes, I., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Active integrity constraints for multi-context systems. In: Blomqvist, E., Vitali, F., Ciancarini, P., Poggi, F. (eds.) EKAW 2016, volume 10024 of LNAI. Springer (2016). accepted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Nunes, I., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Integrity constraints for general-purpose knowledge bases. In: Gyssens, M., Simari, G. (eds.) FoIKS, volume 9616 of LNCS, pp. 235–254. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: Distributed nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: Lin, F., Sattler, U., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) KR. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T.: Dynamic distributed nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: Brewka, G., Marek, V., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Essays Celebrating its 30th Anniversary, volume 31 of Studies in Logic. College Publications (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Ianni, G., Schüller, P.: The IMPL policy language for managing inconsistency in multi-context systems. In: Tompits, H., Abreu, S., Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., Seipel, D., Umeda, M., Wolf, A. (eds.) INAP/WLP, volume 7773 of LNCS, pp. 3–26. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Ianni, G., Schüller, P.: Towards a policy language for managing inconsistency in multi-context systems. In: Mileo, A., Fink, M. (eds.) Workshop on Logic-based Interpretation of Context: Modelling and Applications, pp. 23–35 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Schu̇ller, P.: Finding explanations of inconsistency in multi-context systems. Artif Intell. 216, 233–274 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. Artif. Intell. 57(2-3), 227–270 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fang, M.: Maintaining integrity constraints in semantic web. Ph.D. thesis Georgia State University (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fang, M., Li, W., Sunderraman, R.: Maintaining integrity constraints among distributed ontologies. In: CISIS, pp. 184–191. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fink, M., Ghionna, L., Weinzierl, A.: Relational information exchange and aggregation in multi-context systems. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR, volume 6645 of LNCS, pp. 120–133. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Flesca, S., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: Active integrity constraints. In: Moggi, E., Scott Warren, D. (eds.) PPDP, pp. 98–107. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gallaire, H., Minker, J., Nicolas, J.-M.: Logic and databases: A deductive approach. ACM Comput. Surv. 16(2), 153–185 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F.: Local models semantics, or contextual reasoning=locality+compatibility. Artif. Intell. 127(2), 221–259 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Giunchiglia, F., Serafini, L.: Multilanguage hierarchical logics or: How we can do without modal logics. Artif. Intell. 65(1), 29–70 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gonçalves, R., Knorr, M., Leite, J.: Evolving multi-context systems. In: Schaub, T., Friedrich, G., O’Sullivan, B. (eds.) ECAI, volume 263 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 375–380. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gonçalves, R., Knorr, M., Leite, J.: Evolving multi-context systems. In: Schaub, T., Friedrich, G., O’Sullivan, B. (eds.) PAIS, volume 263 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 375–380. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guessoum, A.: Abductive knowledge base updates for contextual reasoning. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 11(1), 41–67 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. J. Web Sem. 3(2–3), 158–182 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCarthy, J.: Notes on formalizing context. In: Bajcsy, R. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 555–562. Morgan Kaufmann (1993)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases, vol. 7 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling description logics and rules. J. ACM, 57, Article Nr 30 (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ouyang, D., Cui, X., Ye, Y.: Integrity constraints in OWL ontologies based on grounded circumscription. Front Comput Sci 7(6), 812–821 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Franconi, E.: Ontology constraints in incomplete and complete data. In: Cudré-Mauroux, P., Heflin, J., Sirin, E., Tudorache, T., Euzenat, J., Hauswirth, M., Parreira, J.X., Hendler, J., Schreiber, G., Bernstein, A., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC, volume 7649 of LNCS, pp. 444–459. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Przymusinski, T.C., Turner, H.: Update by means of inference rules. J Log. Program. 30(2), 125–143 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pührer, J., Heymans, S., Eiter, T.: Dealing with inconsistency when combining ontologies and rules using dl-programs. In: Aroyo, L., Antoniou, G., Hyvönen, E., ten Teije, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Cabral, L., Tudorache, T. (eds.) ESWC(1), volume 6088 of LNCS, pp. 183–197. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schlipf, J.S.: Complexity and undecidability results for logic programming. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 15(3–4), 257–288 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Staworko, S., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in the presence of universal constraints. Inf. Syst. 35(1), 1–22 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tao, J., Sirin, E., Bao, J., McGuinness, D.L. In: Fox, M., Poole, D. (eds.) AAAI. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tasharrofi, S., Ternovska, E.: Generalized multi-context systems. In: Baral, C., de Giacomo, G., Eiter, T. (eds.) KR. AAAI Press (2014)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Teniente, E., Olivé, A.: Updating knowledge bases while maintaining their consistency. VLDB J. 4(2), 193–241 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Thalheim, B.: Dependencies in Relational Databases. Teubner-Texte zur Mathematik, B.G Teubner (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ullman, J.D.: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, vol. I. Computer Science Press, Rockville (1988)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Weinzierl, A.: Advancing multi-context systems by inconsistency management. In: Bragaglia, S., Damásio, C., Montali, M., Preece, A.D., Petrie, C.J., Proctor, M., Straccia, U. (eds.) RuleML2011@BRF Challenge, volume 799 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. (2011)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Winslett, M.: Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.BioISI—Biosystems, Integrative Sciences Institute, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of LisbonCampo GrandePortugal

Personalised recommendations