Updating DL-Lite Ontologies Through First-Order Queries

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
  • Xavier Oriol
  • Riccardo Rosati
  • Domenico Fabio Savo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9981)


In this paper we study instance-level update in \(\textit{DL-Lite}_{A} \), the description logic underlying the owl 2 ql standard. In particular we focus on formula-based approaches to ABox insertion and deletion. We show that \(\textit{DL-Lite}_{A} \), which is well-known for enjoying first-order rewritability of query answering, enjoys a first-order rewritability property also for updates. That is, every update can be reformulated into a set of insertion and deletion instructions computable through a non-recursive datalog program. Such a program is readily translatable into a first-order query over the ABox considered as a database, and hence into sql. By exploiting this result, we implement an update component for \(\textit{DL-Lite}_{A} \)-based systems and perform some experiments showing that the approach works in practice.


  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison Wesley Publ. Co., Boston (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmeti, A., Calvanese, D., Polleres, A.: Updating RDFS ABoxes and TBoxes in SPARQL. In: Mika, P., Tudorache, T., Bernstein, A., Welty, C., Knoblock, C., Vrandečić, D., Groth, P., Noy, N., Janowicz, K., Goble, C. (eds.) ISWC 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8796, pp. 441–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmeti, A., Calvanese, D., Polleres, A., Savenkov, V.: Dealing with inconsistencies due to class disjointness in SPARQL update. In: Proceedings of DL 2015, CEUR, vol. 1350 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: the DL-Lite family. J. Autom. Reason. 39(3), 385–429 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. Artif. Intell. 195, 335–360 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvanese, D., Kharlamov, E., Nutt, W., Zheleznyakov, D.: Evolution of DL-Lite knowledge bases. 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. 112–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: On instance-level update erasure in description logic ontologies. J. Log. Comput. Spec. Issue Ontol. Dyn. 19(5), 745–770 (2009)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates and counterfactuals. Artif. Intell. 57, 227–270 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fagin, R., Ullman, J.D., Vardi, M.Y.: On the semantics of updates in databases. In: Proceedings of PODS 1983, pp. 352–365 (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flouris, G., Manakanatas, D., Kondylakis, H., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: Ontology change: classification and survey. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 23(2), 117–152 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flouris, G., Plexousakis, D.: Handling ontology change: survey and proposal for a future research direction. Technical report TR-362 FORTH-ICS, Institute of Computer Science, Forth, Greece (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Propositional logic based on the dynamics of belief. J. Symb. Log. 50(2), 390–394 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ginsberg, M.L.: Counterfactuals. Artif. Intell. 30(1), 35–79 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ginsberg, M.L., Smith, D.E.: Reasoning about action I: a possible worlds approach. Technical report KSL-86-65, Knowledge Systems, AI Laboratory (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: LUBM: a benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. J. Web Semant. 3(2–3), 158–182 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Proceedings of KR 1991, pp. 387–394 (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kharlamov, E., Zheleznyakov, D., Calvanese, D.: Capturing model-based ontology evolution at the instance level: the case of DL-Lite. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 79(6), 835–872 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lenzerini, M., Savo, D.F.: On the evolution of the instance level of DL-Lite knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of DL 2011, CEUR, vol. 745 (2011). http://www.ceur-ws.org
  19. 19.
    Lenzerini, M., Savo, D.F.: Updating inconsistent description logic knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, H., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Wolter, F.: Updating description logic ABoxes. In: Proceedings of KR 2006, pp. 46–56 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poggi, A., Lembo, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Linking data to ontologies. In: Spaccapietra, S. (ed.) Journal on Data Semantics X. LNCS, vol. 4900, pp. 133–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stojanovic, L., Maedche, A., Motik, B., Stojanovic, N.: User-driven ontology evolution management. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp. 133–140 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Winslett, M.: Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
    • 1
  • Xavier Oriol
    • 2
  • Riccardo Rosati
    • 1
  • Domenico Fabio Savo
    • 1
  1. 1.Sapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations