Advertisement

The IMPL Policy Language for Managing Inconsistency in Multi-Context Systems

  • Thomas Eiter
  • Michael Fink
  • Giovambattista Ianni
  • Peter Schüller
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7773)

Abstract

Multi-context systems are a declarative formalism for interlinking knowledge-based systems (contexts) that interact via (possibly nonmonotonic) bridge rules. Interlinking knowledge provides ample opportunity for unexpected inconsistencies. These are undesired and come in different categories: some may simply be repaired automatically, while others are more serious and must be inspected by a human operator. In general, no one-fits-all solution exists, since these categories depend on the application scenario. To nevertheless tackle inconsistencies in a general and principled way, we thus propose a declarative policy language for inconsistency management in multi-context systems. We define its syntax and semantics, discuss methodologies for applying the language in real world applications, and outline an implementation by rewriting to acthex, a formalism extending Answer Set Programs.

Keywords

Belief State Action Atom Rule Modification Impl Policy External Atom 
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.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basol, S., Erdem, O., Fink, M., Ianni, G.: HEX programs with action atoms. In: ICLP, pp. 24–33 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bögl, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Schüller, P.: The MCS-IE system for explaining inconsistency in multi-context systems. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6341, pp. 356–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonatti, P.A., De Coi, J.L., Olmedilla, D., Sauro, L.: Rule-based policy pepresentations and reasoning. In: Bry, F., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) Semantic Techniques for the Web. LNCS, vol. 5500, pp. 201–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Equilibria in heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 385–390 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Managed multi-context systems. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 786–791 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewka, G., Roelofsen, F., Serafini, L.: Contextual default reasoning. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 268–273 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., Rullo, P.: Strong and weak constraints in disjunctive datalog. In: Dix, J., Furbach, U., Nerode, A. (eds.) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 1265, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caroprese, L., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: Active integrity constraints for database consistency maintenance. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 21(7), 1042–1058 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caroprese, L., Truszczyński, M.: Declarative semantics for active integrity constraints. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 269–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caroprese, L., Truszczyński, M.: Declarative semantics for revision programming and connections to active integrity constraints. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 100–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chomicki, J., Lobo, J., Naqvi, S.A.: A logic programming approach to conflict resolution in policy management. In: KR, pp. 121–132 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duma, C., Herzog, A., Shahmehri, N.: Privacy in the semantic web: what policy languages have to offer. In. POLICY, pp. 109–118 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Greco, G., Lembo, D.: Repair localization for query answering from inconsistent databases. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 33(2), 10:01–10:51 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Ianni, G., Schüller, P.: Managing inconsistency in multi-context systems using the IMPL policy language. Tech. Rep. INFSYS RR-1843-12-05, Vienna University of Technology, Institute for, Information Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Schüller, P., Weinzierl, A.: Finding explanations of inconsistency in nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: KR, pp. 329–339 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Preference-based inconsistency assessment in multi-context systems. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6341, pp. 143–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) IJCAI, pp. 90–96. Pofessional Book Center, Denver (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faber, W., Pfeifer, G., Leone, N.: Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming. Artif. Intell. 175(1), 278–298 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fink, M., Ghionna, L., Weinzierl, A.: Relational information exchange and aggregation in multi-context systems. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 120–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9(3/4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giunchiglia, F., Serafini, L.: Multilanguage hierarchical logics, or: how we can do without modal logics. Artif. Intell. 65(1), 29–70 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greco, G., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: A logical framework for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 15(6), 1389–1408 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marileo, M.C., Bertossi, L.E.: The consistency extractor system: answer set programs for consistent query answering in databases. Data Knowl. Eng. 69(6), 545–572 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinez, M.V., Parisi, F., Pugliese, A., Simari, G.I., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Inconsistency management policies. In: KR, pp. 367–377 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Subrahmanian, V., Bonatti, P., Dix, J., Eiter, T., Kraus, S., Ozcan, F., Ross, R.: Heterogeneous Agent Systems: Theory and Implementation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Michael Fink
    • 1
  • Giovambattista Ianni
    • 2
  • Peter Schüller
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Matematica, Cubo 30BUniversità della CalabriaRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations