Advertisement

Computing Repairs for Inconsistent DL-programs over \(\mathcal{EL}\) Ontologies

  • Thomas Eiter
  • Michael Fink
  • Daria Stepanova
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8761)

Abstract

DL-programs couple nonmonotonic logic programs with DL- ontologies through queries in a loose way which may lead to inconsistency, i.e., lack of an answer set. Recently defined repair answer sets remedy this. In particular, for \(DL-Lite_{\mathcal{A}}\) ontologies, the computation of deletion repair answer sets can effectively be reduced to constraint matching based on so-called support sets. Here we consider the problem for DL-programs over \(\mathcal{EL}\) ontologies. This is more challenging than adopting a suitable notion of support sets and their computation. Compared to \(DL-Lite_{\mathcal{A}}\), support sets may neither be small nor few, and completeness may need to be given up in favor of sound repair computation on incomplete support information. We provide such an algorithm and discuss partial support set computation, as well as a declarative implementation. Preliminary experiments show a very promising potential of the partial support set approach.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\mathcal{EL}\) envelope. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) IJCAI, pp. 364–369. Prof. Book Center (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bienvenu, M.: Complexity of abduction in the \(\mathcal{EL}\) family of lightweight description logics. In: KR Proc., pp. 220–230. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bienvenu, M., Rosati, R.: New inconsistency-tolerant semantics for robust ontology-based data access. In: DL CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1014, pp. 53–64. CEUR-WS.org (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonatti, P.A., Faella, M., Sauro, L.: \(\mathcal{EL}\) with default attributes and overriding. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borgida, A., Calvanese, D., Rodriguez-Muro, M.: Explanation in DL-Lite. In: DL CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 353. CEUR-WS.org (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T., Redl, C.: Liberal safety for answer set programs with external sources. In: AAAI, pp. 267-275. AAAI Press (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T., Redl, C., Schüller, P.: Efficient HEX-program evaluation based on unfounded sets. J. of Artif. Intell. Res. 49, 269–321 (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Redl, C., Stepanova, D.: Exploiting support sets for answer set programs with external computations. In: AAAI (to appear, 2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Stepanova, D.: Data repair of inconsistent DL-programs. In: IJCAI, pp. 869-876. IJCAI/AAAI (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Stepanova, D.: Towards practical deletion repair of inconsistent DL-programs. In: ECAI 2014 (to appear, 2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artif. Intell. 172(12-13), 1495–1539 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eiter, T., Schneider, P., Simkus, M., Xiao, G.: Using openstreetmap data to create benchmarks for ontology-based query answering systems. In: ORE 2014 (to appear, 2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gardiner, T., Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: Framework for an automated comparison of description logic reasoners. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 654–667. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gottlob, G., Pichler, R., Wei, F.: Efficient datalog abduction through bounded treewidth. In: AAAI, pp. 1626–1631. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansen, P., Lutz, C., Seylan, I., Wolter, F.: Query rewriting under \(\mathcal{EL}\)-TBoxes:efficient algorithms In: DL (to appear, 2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hermann, M., Pichler, R.: Counting complexity of minimal cardinality and minimal weight abduction. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 206–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kazakov, Y., Krötzsch, M., Simancik, F.: The incredible ELK. J. of Autom. Reason, 1–61 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kontchakov, R., Lutz, C., Toman, D., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: The combined approach to query answering in DL-Lite. In: KR Proc., pp. 247–257. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lutz, C., Toman, D., Wolter, F.: Conjunctive query answering in \(\mathcal{EL}\) using a database system. In: OWLED. CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 432. CEUR-WS.org (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masotti, G., Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M.: Practical abox cleaning in DL-Lite (progress report). In: DL. CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 745. CEUR-WS.org (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling Description Logics and Rules. J. of the ACM 57(5), 1–62 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pérez-Urbina, H., Motik, B., Horrocks, I.: Tractable query answering and rewriting under description logic constraints. J. of Applied Logic 8(2), 186–209 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosati, R.: On conjunctive query answering in \(\mathcal{EL}\). In: DL CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 250. CEUR-WS.org (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M., Graziosi, M., Masotti, G.: Evaluation of techniques for inconsistency handling in OWL 2 QL ontologies. In: Cudré-Mauroux, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7650, pp. 337–349. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stefanoni, G., Motik, B., Horrocks, I.: Small datalog query rewritings for \(\mathcal{EL}\). In: DL CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 846, CEUR-WS.org (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.): Modular Ontologies. LNCS, vol. 5445. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xiao, G., Eiter, T., Heymans, S.: The DReW system for nonmonotonic DL-programs. In: CSWS 2012 and CWSC 2012, pp. 383–389. Springer, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhao, Y., Pan, J.Z., Ren, Y.: Implementing and evaluating a rule-based approach to querying regular \(\mathcal{EL}\)+ ontologies. In: HIS (3), pp. 493–498. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the Semantic Web. Artif. Intell. 172(12-13), 1495–1539 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Michael Fink
    • 1
  • Daria Stepanova
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information SystemsVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations