Skip to main content

Inconsistency-Tolerant Reasoning in Datalog\(^{\pm }\) Ontologies via an Argumentative Semantics

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 8864)

Abstract

The Semantic Web provides an effective infrastructure that allows data to be easily shared and reused across applications. At its core is the description of ontological knowledge using ontological languages which are powerful knowledge representation tools with good decidability and tractability properties; Datalog\(^{\pm }\) is one of these tools.The problem of inconsistency has been acknowledged in both the Semantic Web and Database Theory communities. Here we introduce elements of defeasible argumentative reasoning in Datalog\(^{\pm }\), consequences to represent statements whose truth can be challenged leading to a better handling of inconsistency in ontological languages.

Keywords

  • Defeasible Argumentation
  • Inconsistency-tolerant reasoning
  • Datalog\(^{\pm }\)

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12027-0_2
  • Chapter length: 13 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-12027-0
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Eng. Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Beeri, C., Vardi, M.Y.: The implication problem for data dependencies. In: Even, S., Kariv, O. (eds.) Automata, Languages and Programming. LNCS, vol. 115, pp. 73–85. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)

    MATH  MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Bienvenu, M.: On the complexity of consistent query answering in the presence of simple ontologies. In: Proc. of AAAI (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bienvenu, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable approximations of consistent query answering for robust ontology-based data access. In: Proc. of IJCAI (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. J. Web Sem. 14, 57–83 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)

    MATH  MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Croitoru, M., Vesic, S.: What Can Argumentation Do for Inconsistent Ontology Query Answering? In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 15–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Deagustini, C.A.D., Dalibón, S.E.F., Gottifredi, S., Falappa, M.A., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Relational databases as a massive information source for defeasible argumentation. Knowl. Based Syst. 51, 93–109 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    MATH  MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Dunne, P., Wooldridge, M.: Complexity of Abstract Argumentation. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 85–104. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. TPLP 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: Delp-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers. Argument & Computation 5(1), 63–88 (2014)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Gómez, S.A., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Ontoarg: A decision support framework for ontology integration based on argumentation. Expert Syst. Appl. 40(5), 1858–1870 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang, Z., van Harmelen, F., ten Teije, A.: Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 354–359 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lukasiewicz, T., Martinez, M.V., Simari, G.I.: Inconsistency handling in Datalog+/- ontologies. In: Proc. of ECAI, pp. 558–563 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Martinez, M.V., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: On the use of presumptions in structured defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 185–196 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non-Classical Logics 7(1) (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Qi, G., Du, J.: Model-based revision operators for terminologies in description logics. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 891–897 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artif. Intel. 13(1–2), 81–132 (1980)

    MATH  MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif. Intell. 53(2–3), 125–157 (1992)

    MATH  MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Stolzenburg, F., García, A.J., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Computing generalized specificity. J. of Applied Non-Classical Logics 13(1), 87–113 (2003)

    MATH  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang, X., Lin, Z.: An argumentation framework for description logic ontology reasoning and management. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 40(3), 375–403 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristhian Ariel David Deagustini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Martinez, M.V., Deagustini, C.A.D., Falappa, M.A., Simari, G.R. (2014). Inconsistency-Tolerant Reasoning in Datalog\(^{\pm }\) Ontologies via an Argumentative Semantics. In: Bazzan, A., Pichara, K. (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence -- IBERAMIA 2014. IBERAMIA 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8864. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12027-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12027-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12026-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12027-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)