Advertisement

Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Rewriting for Linear Datalog+/–

  • Thomas Lukasiewicz
  • Maria Vanina Martinez
  • Gerardo I. Simari
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7494)

Abstract

Inconsistency management in knowledge bases is an important problem that has been studied for a long time. During the recent years, additional interest in this topic has been sparked with the advent of the Semantic Web, which has made this problem even more relevant, since inconsistencies are very likely to occur in open environments such as the Web. Inconsistency-tolerant semantics to query answering have therefore become of special interest for representation and reasoning formalisms for the Semantic Web. Datalog+/– is a family of ontology languages that is in particular useful for representing and reasoning over lightweight ontologies in the Semantic Web. In this paper, we focus on inconsistency-tolerant query answering under the intersection semantics in linear Datalog+/–, a sublanguage of Datalog+/– that generalizes the DL-Lite family of tractable description logics (DLs). In particular, we show that query answering in linear Datalog+/– is first-order rewritable under this inconsistency-tolerant semantics, and therefore very efficiently computable in the data complexity.

Keywords

Integrity Constraint Conjunctive Query Query Answer Query Answering Consistent Answer 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L.E., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Proc. of PODS, pp. 68–79 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beeri, C., Vardi, M.Y.: The Implication Problem for Data Dependencies. In: Even, S., Kariv, O. (eds.) ICALP 1981. LNCS, vol. 115, pp. 73–85. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Kifer, M.: Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 70–80 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. In: Proc. of PODS, pp. 77–86 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Query rewriting under non-guarded rules. In: Proc. of AMW (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answering: Five easy pieces. In: Proc. of ICDT, pp. 1–17 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chomicki, J., Marcinkowski, J.: On the Computational Complexity of Minimal-Change Integrity Maintenance in Relational Databases. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 119–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deutsch, A., Nash, A., Remmel, J.B.: The chase revisited. In: Proc. of PODS, pp. 149–158 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: Semantics and query answering. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336(1), 89–124 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fuxman, A., Miller, R.J.: First-order query rewriting for inconsistent databases. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 73(4), 610–635 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M., Savo, D.F.: Query Rewriting for Inconsistent DL-Lite Ontologies. In: Rudolph, S., Gutierrez, C. (eds.) RR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6902, pp. 155–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosati, R.: On the complexity of dealing with inconsistency in description logic ontologies. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 1057–1062 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Lukasiewicz
    • 1
  • Maria Vanina Martinez
    • 1
  • Gerardo I. Simari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordUK

Personalised recommendations