Tractable Computation of Representative ABox Repairs in Description Logic Ontologies

  • Jianfeng DuEmail author
  • Guilin Qi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9403)


Computing all ABox repairs is a key to cautious or brave reasoning over inconsistent description logic (DL) ontologies. However, the number of ABox repairs can be exponential in the number of assertions in the ABox even for very lightweight DLs. Hence we propose to compute a minimal representative set of ABox repairs. A set of ABox repairs is representative, if every assertion occurring in at least one ABox repair also occurs in at least one element of this set, while every assertion occurring in all ABox repairs occurs in all elements of this set. Cautious or brave reasoning then can be approximated by standard reasoning over a minimal representative set other than the complete set of ABox repairs. However, computing a minimal representative set of ABox repairs is still intractable in general. To guarantee the tractability in data complexity for computing a minimal representative set, we focus on a class of DL ontologies called the first-order rewritable class. We propose a tractable method for computing a minimal representative set of ABox repairs in an inconsistent first-order rewritable ontology. Experimental results demonstrate the high efficiency and scalability of the proposed method.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    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 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bienvenu, M., Bourgaux, C., Goasdoué, F.: Querying inconsistent description logic knowledge bases under preferred repair semantics. In: AAAI, pp. 996–1002 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. J. Web Sem. 14, 57–83 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Du, J., Qi, G., Shen, Y.: Weight-based consistent query answering over inconsistent \(\cal SHIQ\) knowledge bases. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 34(2), 335–371 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Du, J., Wang, K., Shen, Y.: Towards tractable and practical ABox abduction over inconsistent description logic ontologies. In: AAAI, pp. 1489–1495 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Faber, W., Fink, M., Pfeifer, G., Woltran, S.: Complexity of model checking and bounded predicate arities for non-ground answer set programming. In: KR, pp. 377–387 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Reasoning in description logics by a reduction to disjunctive datalog. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 351–384 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Junker, U.: QUICKXPLAIN: Preferred explanations and relaxations for over-constrained problems. In: AAAI, pp. 167–172 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M., Savo, D.F.: Inconsistency-tolerant semantics for description logics. In: Hitzler, P., Lukasiewicz, T. (eds.) RR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6333, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer, T., Lee, K., Booth, R.: Knowledge integration for description logics. In: Veloso, M., Kambhampati, S. (eds.) AAAI, pp. 645–650 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U.: A comparison of reasoning techniques for querying large description logic aboxes. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4246, pp. 227–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Sullivan, B., Papadopoulos, A., Faltings, B., Pu, P.: Representative explanations for over-constrained problems. In: AAAI, pp. 323–328 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pérez-Urbina, H., Motik, B., Horrocks, I.: Tractable query answering and rewriting under description logic constraints. J. Applied Logic 8(2), 186–209 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (, which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guangdong University of Foreign StudiesGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Southeast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations