Advertisement

Complexity of Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering in Datalog+/–

  • Thomas Lukasiewicz
  • Maria Vanina Martinez
  • Gerardo I. Simari
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8185)

Abstract

The study of inconsistency-tolerant semantics for query answering in ontological languages has recently gained much attention. In this work, we consider three inconsistency-tolerant semantics recently proposed in the literature, namely: consistent query answering, the intersection (also called IAR) semantics, and the intersection of closed repairs (ICR) semantics. We study the data complexity of conjunctive query answering under these semantics for a wide set of tractable fragments of Datalog+/–. The Datalog+/– family of ontology languages covers several important description logics (DLs), bridging the gap in expressive power between database query languages and DLs as ontology languages, and extending the well-known Datalog language in order to embed DLs. Its properties of decidability of query answering and of tractability of query answering in the (data) complexity make Datalog+/– very useful in modeling real-world applications in which inconsistency-tolerant reasoning is essential.

Keywords

Description Logic Dependency Graph Conjunctive Query 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. PODS 1999, pp. 68–79. ACM Press (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baget, J.F., Leclère, M., Mugnier, M.L.: Walking the decidability line for rules with existential variables. In: Proc. KR 2010, pp. 466–476. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baget, J.F., Leclère, M., Mugnier, M.L., Salvat, E.: Extending decidable cases for rules with existential variables. In: Proc. IJCAI 2009, pp. 677–682 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baget, J.F., Mugnier, M.L., Rudolph, S., Thomazo, M.: Walking the complexity lines for generalized guarded existential rules. In: Proc. IJCAI 2011, pp. 712–717. IJCAI/AAAI Press (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Bienvenu, M.: First-order expressibility results for queries over inconsistent DL-Lite knowledge bases. In: Proc. DL 2011. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 745. CEUR-WS.org (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bienvenu, M.: Inconsistency-tolerant conjunctive query answering for simple ontologies. In: Proc. DL 2012. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 846. CEUR-WS.org (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bienvenu, M.: On the complexity of consistent query answering in the presence of simple ontologies. In: Proc. AAAI 2012, pp. 705–711. AAAI Press (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Kifer, M.: Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In: Proc. KR 2008, pp. 70–80. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Advanced processing for ontological queries. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 3(1/2), 554–565 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Query answering under non-guarded rules in Datalog+/-. In: Hitzler, P., Lukasiewicz, T. (eds.) RR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6333, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chandra, A.K., Lewis, H.R., Makowsky, J.A.: Embedded implicational dependencies and their inference problem. In: Proc. STOC 1981, pp. 342–354. ACM Press (1981)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answering: Five easy pieces. In: Schwentick, T., Suciu, D. (eds.) ICDT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4353, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Voronkov, A.: Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(3), 374–425 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deutsch, A., Nash, A., Remmel, J.B.: The chase revisited. In: Proc. PODS 2008, pp. 149–158. ACM Press (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: Semantics and query answering. Theor. Comp. Sci. 336(1), 89–124 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang, Z., van Harmelen, F., ten Teije, A.: Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies. In: Proc. IJCAI 2005, pp. 354–359. Professional Book Center (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S.: Extending decidable existential rules by joining acyclicity and guardedness. In: Proc. IJCAI 2011, pp. 963–968. IJCAI/AAAI Press (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Lukasiewicz, T., Martinez, M.V., Simari, G.I.: Inconsistency handling in Datalog+/– ontologies. In: Proc. ECAI 2012, pp. 558–563. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lukasiewicz, T., Martinez, M.V., Simari, G.I.: Inconsistency-tolerant query rewriting for linear Datalog+/–. In: Barceló, P., Pichler, R. (eds.) Datalog 2.0 2012. LNCS, vol. 7494, pp. 123–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ma, Y., Hitzler, P.: Paraconsistent reasoning for OWL 2. In: Polleres, A., Swift, T. (eds.) RR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5837, pp. 197–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging OWL ontologies. In: Proc. WWW 2005, pp. 633–640. ACM Press (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qi, G., Du, J.: Model-based revision operators for terminologies in description logics. In: Proc. IJCAI 2009, pp. 891–897 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosati, R.: On the complexity of dealing with inconsistency in description logic ontologies. In: Proc. IJCAI 2011, pp. 1057–1062. IJCAI/AAAI Press (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations