Evolution of DL − Lite Knowledge Bases

  • Diego Calvanese
  • Evgeny Kharlamov
  • Werner Nutt
  • Dmitriy Zheleznyakov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6496)


We study the problem of evolution for Knowledge Bases (KBs) expressed in Description Logics (DLs) of the DL − Lite family. DL − Lite is at the basis of OWL 2 QL, one of the tractable fragments of OWL 2, the recently proposed revision of the Web Ontology Language. We propose some fundamental principles that KB evolution should respect. We review known model and formula-based approaches for evolution of propositional theories. We exhibit limitations of a number of model-based approaches: besides the fact that they are either not expressible in DL − Lite or hard to compute, they intrinsically ignore the structural properties of KBs, which leads to undesired properties of KBs resulting from such an evolution. We also examine proposals on update and revision of DL KBs that adopt the model-based approaches and discuss their drawbacks. We show that known formula-based approaches are also not appropriate for DL − Lite evolution, either due to high complexity of computation, or because the result of such an action of evolution is not expressible in DL − Lite. Building upon the insights gained, we propose two novel formula-based approaches that respect our principles and for which evolution is expressible in DL − Lite. For our approaches we also developed polynomial time algorithms to compute evolution of DL − Lite KBs.


Polynomial Time Algorithm Description Logic Ontology Evolution Revision Operator Atomic Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J.: Conceptual modeling with description logics. In: [13], ch.10, pp. 349–372Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flouris, G., Manakanatas, D., Kondylakis, H., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: Ontology change: Classification and survey. Knowledge Engineering Review 23(2), 117–152 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abiteboul, S., Grahne, G.: Update semantics for incomplete databases. In: Proc. of VLDB 1985 (1985)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Proc. of KR 1991, pp. 387–394 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates and counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 57, 227–270 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winslett, M.: Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flouris, G.: On belief change in ontology evolution. AI Communications 19(4) (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qi, G., Du, J.: Model-based revision operators for terminologies in description logics. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2009, pp. 891–897 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peters, R.J., Özsu, M.T.: An axiomatic model of dynamic schema evolution in objectbase systems. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 22(1), 75–114 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: On instance-level update and erasure in description logic ontologies. J. of Logic and Computation, Special Issue on Ontology Dynamics 19(5), 745–770 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, H., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Wolter, F.: Updating description logic ABoxes. In: Proc. of KR 2006, pp. 46–56 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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. of Automated Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: The DL-Lite family and relations. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research 36, 1–69 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poggi, A., Lembo, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Linking data to ontologies. J. on Data Semantics X, 133–173 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Forbus, K.D.: Introducing actions into qualitative simulation. In: Proc. of IJCAI 1989 (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borgida, A.: Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 10(4), 565–603 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dalal, M.: Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision. In: Proc. of AAAI 1988, pp. 475–479 (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Calvanese, D., Kharlamov, E., Nutt, W.: A proof theory for DL-Lite. In: Proc. of DL 2007. CEUR, vol. 250, pp. 235–242 (2007),
  21. 21.
    De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: On the update of description logic ontologies at the instance level. In: Proc. of AAAI 2006, pp. 1271–1276 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zheleznyakov, D., Calvanese, D., Kharlamov, E., Nutt, W.: Updating TBoxes in DL-Lite. In: Proc. of DL 2010. CEUR, vol. 573, pp. 102–113 (2010),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego Calvanese
    • 1
  • Evgeny Kharlamov
    • 1
  • Werner Nutt
    • 1
  • Dmitriy Zheleznyakov
    • 1
  1. 1.KRDB Research CentreFree University of Bozen-BolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations