Skip to main content

A Short Survey on Inconsistency Handling in Ontology-Mediated Query Answering

Abstract

This paper provides a concise overview of the literature on inconsistency handling for ontology-mediated query answering, a topic which has grown into an active area of research over the last decade. The focus of this survey is on the case where errors are localized in the data (i.e., the ontology is deemed reliable) and where inconsistency-tolerant semantics are employed with the aim of obtaining meaningful information from inconsistent knowledge bases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The results apply to common DL-Lite dialects, such as DL-Lite\({}_{\mathsf{core}}\), DL-Lite\({}_{\mathcal{R}}\), and DL-Lite\({}_{\mathcal{A}}\), see [13] for details.

  2. 2.

    In [8], only polynomial data complexity is proven, which we improve to \({\textsf {AC}}^{0}\). It is also not too hard to show that the combined complexity matches classical semantics.

  3. 3.

    QuID: www.dis.uniroma1.it/~ruzzi/quid/

  4. 4.

    CQAPri: www.lri.fr/~bourgaux/CQAPri/

  5. 5.

    SaQAI: www.image.ece.ntua.gr/~etsalap/SaQAI/

References

  1. 1.

    Arenas M, Bertossi LE, Chomicki J (1999) Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Proceedings of PODS, pp. 68–79

  2. 2.

    Arioua A, Croitoru M (2016) Dialectical characterization of consistent query explanation with existential rules. In: Proceedings of FLAIRS

  3. 3.

    Arioua A, Tamani N, Croitoru M (2015) Query answering explanation in inconsistent datalog +/- knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of DEXA

  4. 4.

    Baader F, Horrocks I, Lutz C, Sattler U (2017) An introduction to description logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Baader F, Kriegel F, Nuradiansyah A, Peñaloza R (2018) Making repairs in description logics more gentle. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 319–328

  6. 6.

    Baget J, Benferhat S, Bouraoui Z, Croitoru M, Mugnier M, Papini O, Rocher S, Tabia K (2016) Inconsistency-tolerant query answering: rationality properties and computational complexity analysis. In: Proceedings of JELIA, pp. 64–80

  7. 7.

    Belabbes S, Benferhat S (2019) Inconsistency handling for partially preordered ontologies: going beyond Elect. In: Proceedings of KSEM

  8. 8.

    Benferhat S, Bouraoui Z, Croitoru M, Papini O, Tabia K (2016) Non-objection inference for inconsistency-tolerant query answering. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 3684–3690

  9. 9.

    Bertossi LE (2011) Synthesis lectures on data management. Database repairing and consistent query answering. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bienvenu M (2011) First-order expressibility results for queries over inconsistent DL-Lite knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of DL Workshop

  11. 11.

    Bienvenu M (2012) On the complexity of consistent query answering in the presence of simple ontologies. In: Proceedings of AAAI

  12. 12.

    Bienvenu M (2018) Inconsistency-tolerant ontology-based data access revisited: Taking mappings into account. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 1721–1729

  13. 13.

    Bienvenu M, Bourgaux C (2016) Inconsistency-tolerant querying of description logic knowledge bases. Reasoning web tutorial lectures. Springer, Berlin, pp 156–202

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bienvenu M, Bourgaux C (2020) Querying and repairing inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases: Complexity analysis and links with abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of KR

  15. 15.

    Bienvenu M, Rosati R (2013) Tractable approximations of consistent query answering for robust ontology-based data access. In: Proceedings of IJCAI

  16. 16.

    Bienvenu M, Bourgaux C, Goasdoué F (2014) Querying inconsistent description logic knowledge bases under preferred repair semantics. In: Proceedings of AAAI

  17. 17.

    Bienvenu M, Bourgaux C, Goasdoué F (2016a) Explaining inconsistency-tolerant query answering over description logic knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of AAAI

  18. 18.

    Bienvenu M, Bourgaux C, Goasdoué F (2016b) Query-driven repairing of inconsistent DL-Lite knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of IJCAI

  19. 19.

    Bienvenu M, Bourgaux C, Goasdoué F (2019) Computing and explaining query answers over inconsistent DL-Lite knowledge bases. J Artif Intell Res 64:563–644

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bourgaux C, Koopmann P, Turhan A (2019) Ontology-mediated query answering over temporal and inconsistent data. Semant Web 10(3):475–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bravo L, Bertossi LE (2003) Logic programs for consistently querying data integration systems. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 10–15

  22. 22.

    Calì A, Lembo D, Rosati R (2003) Query rewriting and answering under constraints in data integration systems. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 16–21

  23. 23.

    Calì A, Gottlob G, Lukasiewicz T (2012) A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. J Web Semant 14:57–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2007) Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: the DL-Lite family. J Autom Reason 39(3):385–429

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Chomicki J (2007) Consistent query answering: five easy pieces. In: Proceedings of ICDT, pp. 1–17

  26. 26.

    Console M, Lenzerini M (2014) Data quality in ontology-based data access: the case of consistency. In: Proceedings of AAAI, pp. 1020–1026

  27. 27.

    Croitoru M, Vesic S (2013) What can argumentation do for inconsistent ontology query answering? In: Proceedings of SUM

  28. 28.

    De Giacomo G, Lenzerini M, Poggi A, Rosati R (2009) On instance-level update and erasure in description logic ontologies. J Log Comput 19(5):745–770

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Du J, Qi G, Shen YD (2013) Weight-based consistent query answering over inconsistent \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\) knowledge bases. Knowl Inf Syst 34(2):335–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Eiter T, Lukasiewicz T, Predoiu L (2016) Generalized consistent query answering under existential rules. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 359–368

  31. 31.

    Hansen P, Lutz C, Seylan I, Wolter F (2015) Efficient query rewriting in the description logic \(\mathcal{EL}\) and beyond. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp 3034–3040

  32. 32.

    Kalyanpur A, Parsia B, Sirin E, Hendler JA (2005) Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies. J Web Sem 3(4):268–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Koutris P, Wijsen J (2017) Consistent query answering for self-join-free conjunctive queries under primary key constraints. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 42(2):9:1–9:45

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R, Ruzzi M, Savo DF (2010) Inconsistency-tolerant semantics for description logics. In: Proceedings of RR

  35. 35.

    Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R, Ruzzi M, Savo DF (2011) Query rewriting for inconsistent DL-Lite ontologies. In: Proceedings of RR

  36. 36.

    Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R, Ruzzi M, Savo DF (2015a) Inconsistency-tolerant query answering in ontology-based data access. J Web Sem 33:3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Lembo D, Mora J, Rosati R, Savo DF, Thorstensen E (2015b) Mapping analysis in ontology-based data access: Algorithms and complexity. In: Proceedings of ISWC, pp. 217–234

  38. 38.

    Lembo D, Rosati R, Santarelli V, Savo DF, Thorstensen E (2017) Mapping repair in ontology-based data access evolving systems. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 1160–1166

  39. 39.

    Lembo D, Rosati R, Savo DF (2019) Revisiting controlled query evaluation in description logics. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 1786–1792

  40. 40.

    Liu H, Lutz C, Milicic M, Wolter F (2011) Foundations of instance level updates in expressive description logics. Artif Intell 175(18):2170–2197

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Lukasiewicz T, Martinez MV, Simari GI (2012) Inconsistency handling in Datalog+/- ontologies. In: Proceedings of ECAI

  42. 42.

    Lukasiewicz T, Martinez MV, Pieris A, Simari GI (2015) From classical to consistent query answering under existential rules. In: Proceedings of AAAI, pp. 1546–1552

  43. 43.

    Lukasiewicz T, Malizia E, Vaicenavicius A (2019) Complexity of inconsistency-tolerant query answering in Datalog+/- under cardinality-based repairs. In: Proceedings of AAAI

  44. 44.

    Mugnier M, Thomazo M (2014) An introduction to ontology-based query answering with existential rules. In: Reasoning Web Tutorial Lectures, pp. 245–278

  45. 45.

    Nikitina N, Rudolph S, Glimm B (2012) Interactive ontology revision. Journal of Web Semantics 12:118–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ortona S, Meduri VV, Papotti P (2018) Rudik: rule discovery in knowledge bases. PVLDB 11(12):1946–1949

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Peñaloza R, Sertkaya B (2010) Complexity of axiom pinpointing in the DL-Lite family of description logics. In: Proceedings of ECAI

  48. 48.

    Rosati R (2011) On the complexity of dealing with inconsistency in description logic ontologies. In: Proceedings of IJCAI

  49. 49.

    Rosati R, Ruzzi M, Graziosi M, Masotti G (2012) Evaluation of techniques for inconsistency handling in OWL 2 QL ontologies. In: Proceedings of ISWC

  50. 50.

    Schlobach S, Cornet R (2003) Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 355–362

  51. 51.

    Staworko S, Chomicki J, Marcinkowski J (2012) Prioritized repairing and consistent query answering in relational databases. Ann Math Artif Intell 64(2–3):209–246

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    ten Cate B, Halpert RL, Kolaitis PG (2016) Exchange-repairs - Managing inconsistency in data exchange. Journal of Data Semantics 5(2):77–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Trivela D, Stoilos G, Vassalos V (2018) A framework and positive results for IAR-answering. In: Proceedings of AAAI

  54. 54.

    Tsalapati E, Stoilos G, Stamou GB, Koletsos G (2016) Efficient query answering over expressive inconsistent description logics. In: Proceedings of IJCAI

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Camille Bourgaux, who was a co-author of the survey chapter [13] and contributed to the running example reproduced here.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghyn Bienvenu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bienvenu, M. A Short Survey on Inconsistency Handling in Ontology-Mediated Query Answering. Künstl Intell 34, 443–451 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-020-00680-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Inconsistency handling
  • Ontology-mediated query answering
  • Description logics