Mixing Description Logics in Privacy-Preserving Ontology Publishing

  • Franz Baader
  • Adrian NuradiansyahEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11793)


In previous work, we have investigated privacy-preserving publishing of Description Logic (DL) ontologies in a setting where the knowledge about individuals to be published is an \(\mathcal {EL} \) instance store, and both the privacy policy and the possible background knowledge of an attacker are represented by concepts of the DL \(\mathcal {EL}\). We have introduced the notions of compliance of a concept with a policy and of safety of a concept for a policy, and have shown how, in the context mentioned above, optimal compliant (safe) generalizations of a given \(\mathcal {EL}\) concept can be computed. In the present paper, we consider a modified setting where we assume that the background knowledge of the attacker is given by a DL different from the one in which the knowledge to be published and the safety policies are formulated. In particular, we investigate the situations where the attacker’s knowledge is given by an \(\mathcal {FL}_0 \) or an \(\mathcal {FLE} \) concept. In both cases, we show how optimal safe generalizations can be computed. Whereas the complexity of this computation is the same (ExpTime) as in our previous results for the case of \(\mathcal {FL}_0 \), it turns out to be actually lower (polynomial) for the more expressive DL \(\mathcal {FLE} \).


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Borgwardt, S., Morawska, B.: Extending unification in \(\cal{EL}\) towards general TBoxes. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2012), pp. 568–572. AAAI Press (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\cal{EL}\) envelope. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2005, pp. 364–369. Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers, Edinburgh (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Knechtel, M., Peñaloza, R.: Context-dependent views to axioms and consequences of semantic web ontologies. J. Web Semant. 12, 22–40 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Kriegel, F., Nuradiansyah, A.: Privacy-preserving ontology publishing for \(\cal{EL} \) instance stores. In: Calimeri, F., Leone, N., Manna, M. (eds.) JELIA 2019. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11468, pp. 323–338. Springer, Cham (2019). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baader, F., Küsters, R., Molitor, R.: Computing least common subsumers in description logics with existential restrictions. In: Dean, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1999), pp. 96–103 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Hollunder, B., Nutt, W., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A.: The complexity of existential quantification in concept languages. Artif. Intell. 53(2–3), 309–327 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: Hypergraph transversal computation and related problems in logic and AI. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Ianni, G., Leone, N. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 549–564. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fredman, M.L., Khachiyan, L.: On the complexity of dualization of monotone disjunctive normal forms. J. Algorithms 21(3), 618–628 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gottlob, G., Malizia, E.: Achieving new upper bounds for the hypergraph duality problem through logic. SIAM J. Comput. 47(2), 456–492 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grau, B.C., Kostylev, E.V.: Logical foundations of privacy-preserving publishing of linked data. In: Schuurmans, D., Wellman, M.P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 12–17 February 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pp. 943–949 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grau, B.C., Kostylev, E.V.: Logical foundations of linked data anonymisation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 64, 253–314 (2019)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoehndorf, R., Schofield, P.N., Gkoutos, G.V.: The role of ontologies in biological and biomedical research: a functional perspective. Brief. Bioinform. 16(6), 1069–1080 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Li, L., Turi, D., Bechhofer, S.: The instance store: DL reasoning with large numbers of individuals. In: Haarslev, V., Möller, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2004), 6–8 June 2004, Whistler, British Columbia, Canada (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levesque, H.J., Brachman, R.J.: Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning. Comput. Intell. 3, 78–93 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Polynomial-time reasoning support for design and maintenance of large-scale biomedical ontologies. Doctoral thesis, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Theoretical Computer ScienceDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations