Handling Inconsistencies Due to Class Disjointness in SPARQL Updates

  • Albin AhmetiEmail author
  • Diego Calvanese
  • Axel Polleres
  • Vadim Savenkov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9678)


The problem of updating ontologies has received increased attention in recent years. In the approaches proposed so far, either the update language is restricted to sets of ground atoms or, where the full SPARQL update language is allowed, the TBox language is restricted so that no inconsistencies can arise. In this paper we discuss directions to overcome these limitations. Starting from a DL-Lite fragment covering RDFS and concept disjointness axioms, we define three semantics for SPARQL instance-level (ABox) update: under cautious semantics, inconsistencies are resolved by rejecting updates potentially introducing conflicts; under brave semantics, instead, conflicts are overridden in favor of new information where possible; finally, the fainthearted semantics is a compromise between the former two approaches, designed to accommodate as much of the new information as possible, as long as consistency with the prior knowledge is not violated. We show how these semantics can be implemented in SPARQL via rewritings of polynomial size and draw first conclusions from their practical evaluation.


Variable Binding Triple Pattern Triple Store Class Disjointness Disjointness Condition 
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.



This work was supported by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF), project ICT12-SEE, and EU IP project Optique (Scalable End-user Access to Big Data), grant agreement n. FP7-318338.


  1. 1.
    Ahmeti, A., Calvanese, D., Polleres, A.: Updating RDFS ABoxes and TBoxes in SPARQL. In: Mika, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8796, pp. 441–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckett, D., Berners-Lee, T., Prud’hommeaux, E., Carothers, G.: RDF 1.1 Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2014Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benferhat, S., Bouraoui, Z., Papini, O., Würbel, E.: A prioritized assertional-based revision for DL-Lite knowledge bases. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 442–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: the DL-Lite family. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., Kharlamov, E., Nutt, W., Zheleznyakov, D.: Evolution of DL \(-\) Lite knowledge bases. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 112–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: On instance-level update and erasure in description logic ontologies. J. Log. Comput. 19(5), 745–770 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flouris, G., Konstantinidis, G., Antoniou, G., Christophides, V.: Formal foundations for RDF/S kb evolution. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 35(1), 153–191 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gearon, P., Passant, A., Polleres, A.: SPARQL 1.1 update. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, March 2013Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: LUBM: a benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. J. Web Seman. 3(2–3), 158–182 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansson, S.: A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis 50(2–3), 413–427 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, March 2013Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayes, P., Patel-Schneider, P.: RDF 1.1 semantics. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2014Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kharlamov, E., Zheleznyakov, D., Calvanese, D.: Capturing model-based ontology evolution at the instance level: the case of DL-Lite. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 79(6), 835–872 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, H., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Wolter, F.: Updating description logic aboxes. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) KR, pp. 46–56. AAAI Press (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lutz, C., Seylan, I., Toman, D., Wolter, F.: The combined approach to OBDA: taming role hierarchies using filters. In: Kagal, L., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8218, pp. 314–330. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C.: Owl 2 web ontology language profiles, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, December 2012Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muñoz, S., Pérez, J., Gutierrez, C.: Minimal deductive systems for RDF. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 53–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nikitina, N., Rudolph, S., Glimm, B.: Interactive ontology revision. Web Seman. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 12–13, 118–130 (2012). reasoning with context in the Semantic WebCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Polleres, A., Hogan, A., Delbru, R., Umbrich, J.: RDFS and OWL reasoning for linked data. In: Rudolph, S., Gottlob, G., Horrocks, I., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) Reasoning Weg 2013. LNCS, vol. 8067, pp. 91–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winslett, M.: Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albin Ahmeti
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Diego Calvanese
    • 2
  • Axel Polleres
    • 3
  • Vadim Savenkov
    • 3
  1. 1.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  3. 3.Vienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations