Advertisement

Controlled Query Evaluation over OWL 2 RL Ontologies

  • Bernardo Cuenca Grau
  • Evgeny Kharlamov
  • Egor V. Kostylev
  • Dmitriy Zheleznyakov
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8218)

Abstract

We study confidentiality enforcement in ontology-based information systems where ontologies are expressed in OWL 2 RL, a profile of OWL 2 that is becoming increasingly popular in Semantic Web applications. We formalise a natural adaptation of the Controlled Query Evaluation (CQE) framework to ontologies. Our goal is to provide CQE algorithms that (i) ensure confidentiality of sensitive information; (ii) are efficiently implementable by means of RDF triple store technologies; and (iii) ensure maximality of the answers returned by the system to user queries (thus restricting access to information as little as possible). We formally show that these requirements are in conflict and cannot be satisfied without imposing restrictions on ontologies. We propose a fragment of OWL 2 RL for which all three requirements can be satisfied. For the identified fragment, we design a CQE algorithm that has the same computational complexity as standard query answering and can be implemented by relying on state-of-the-art triple stores.

Keywords

User Query Query Evaluation Conjunctive Query Ground Atom Query Interface 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Biskup, J., Bonatti, P.A.: Controlled Query Evaluation for Enforcing Confidentiality in Complete Information Systems. Int. J. Inf. Sec. 3(1), 14–27 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biskup, J., Bonatti, P.A.: Lying Versus Refusal for Known Potential Secrets. Data Knowl. Eng. 38(2), 199–222 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonatti, P.A., Kraus, S., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Foundations of Secure Deductive Databases. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 7(3), 406–422 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biskup, J.: For Unknown Secrecies Refusal Is Better than Lying. Data Knowl. Eng. 33(1), 1–23 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biskup, J., Weibert, T.: Keeping Secrets in Incomplete Databases. Int. J. Inf. Sec. 7(3), 199–217 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sicherman, G.L., de Jonge, W., van de Riet, R.P.: Answering Queries Without Revealing Secrets. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 8(1), 41–59 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Motik, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bishop, B., Kiryakov, A., Ognyanoff, D., Peikov, I., Tashev, Z., Velkov, R.: OWLim: A Family of Scalable Semantic Repositories. Semantic Web J. 2(1), 33–42 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu, Z., Eadon, G., Das, S., Chong, E.I., Kolovski, V., Annamalai, M., Srinivasan, J.: Implementing an Inference Engine for RDFS/OWL Constructs and User-Defined Rules in Oracle. In: ICDE, pp. 1239–1248 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Recommendation (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the Complexity of Propositional Knowledge Base Revision, Updates, and Counterfactuals. In: PODS, pp. 261–273 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Biskup, J., Bonatti, P.: Controlled Query Evaluation with Open Queries for a Decidable Relational Submodel. Ann. Math. and Artif. Intell. 50(1-2), 39–77 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miklau, G., Suciu, D.: A Formal Analysis of Information Disclosure in Data Exchange. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 73(3), 507–534 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rizvi, S., Mendelzon, A.O., Sudarshan, S., Roy, P.: Extending Query Rewriting Techniques for Fine-Grained Access Control. In: SIGMOD. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang, Z., Mendelzon, A.O.: Authorization Views and Conditional Query Containment. In: Eiter, T., Libkin, L. (eds.) ICDT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3363, pp. 259–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deutsch, A., Papakonstantinou, Y.: Privacy in Database Publishing. In: Eiter, T., Libkin, L. (eds.) ICDT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3363, pp. 230–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kifer, D., Machanavajjhala, A.: A Rigorous and Customizable Framework for Privacy. In: PODS, pp. 77–88 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evfimievski, A.V., Fagin, R., Woodruff, D.P.: Epistemic Privacy. In: PODS, pp. 171–180. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Konev, B., Walther, D., Wolter, F.: Forgetting and Uniform Interpolation in Large-Scale Description Logic Terminologies. In: IJCAI, pp. 830–835 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Motik, B.: Reasoning over Ontologies with Hidden Content: The Import-by-Query Approach. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 45, 197–255 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tao, J., Slutzki, G., Honavar, V.: Secrecy-Preserving Query Answering for Instance Checking in \(\mathcal{EL}\). In: Hitzler, P., Lukasiewicz, T. (eds.) RR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6333, pp. 195–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bao, J., Slutzki, G., Honavar, V.: Privacy-Preserving Reasoning on the Semantic Web. In: WI, pp. 791–797. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stouppa, P., Studer, T.: A Formal Model of Data Privacy. In: Virbitskaite, I., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2006. LNCS, vol. 4378, pp. 400–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: View-based Query Answering over Description Logic Ontologies. In: KR. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernardo Cuenca Grau
    • 1
  • Evgeny Kharlamov
    • 1
  • Egor V. Kostylev
    • 2
  • Dmitriy Zheleznyakov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordUK
  2. 2.School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations