Query Rewriting for Inconsistent DL-Lite Ontologies

  • Domenico Lembo
  • Maurizio Lenzerini
  • Riccardo Rosati
  • Marco Ruzzi
  • Domenico Fabio Savo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6902)


In this paper we study the problem of obtaining meaningful answers to queries posed over inconsistent DL − Lite ontologies. We consider different variants of inconsistency-tolerant semantics and show that for some of such variants answering unions of conjunctive queries (UCQs) is first-order (FOL) rewritable, i.e., it can be reduced to standard evaluation of a FOL/SQL query over a database. Since FOL-rewritability of query answering for UCQs over consistent ontologies under first-order logic semantics is one of the distinguishing features of DL − Lite, in this paper we actually identify some settings in which such property is preserved also under inconsistency-tolerant semantics. We therefore show that in such settings inconsistency-tolerant query answering has the same computational complexity of standard query answering and that it can rely on well-established relational database technology, as under standard DL semantics.


Description Logic Belief Revision Conjunctive Query Query Answering Atomic Concept 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L.E., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Proc. of PODS 1999, pp. 68–79 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rodriguez-Muro, M., Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M., Savo, D.F.: The Mastro system for ontology-based data access. Semantic Web Journal 2(1), 43–53 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In: Proc. of KR 2006, pp. 260–270 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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. of Automated Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dolby, J., Fokoue, A., Kalyanpur, A., Ma, L., Schonberg, E., Srinivas, K., Sun, X.: Scalable grounded conjunctive query evaluation over large and expressive knowledge bases. In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 403–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates and counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 57, 227–270 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuxman, A., Miller, R.J.: First-order query rewriting for inconsistent databases. J. of Computer and System Sciences 73(4), 610–635 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gärdenfors, P., Rott, H.: Belief revision. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 4, pp. 35–132. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: Conjunctive query answering for the description logic \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\). In: Proc. of IJCAI 2007, pp. 399–404 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grieco, L., Lembo, D., Ruzzi, M., Rosati, R.: Consistent query answering under key and exclusion dependencies: Algorithms and experiments. In: Proc. of CIKM 2005, pp. 792–799 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haase, P., van Harmelen, F., Huang, Z., Stuckenschmidt, H., Sure, Y.: A framework for handling inconsistency in changing ontologies. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 353–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang, Z., van Harmelen, F., ten Teije, A.: Reasoning with inconsistent ontologies. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2005, pp. 454–459 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kontchakov, R., Lutz, C., Toman, D., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: The combined approach to query answering in DL-Lite. In: Proc. of KR 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Lembo, D., Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M.: On the first-order reducibility of unions of conjunctive queries over inconsistent databases. In: Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Inconsistency and Incompleteness in Databases, IIDB 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging OWL ontologies. In: Proc. of WWW 2005, pp. 633–640 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poggi, A., Lembo, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Linking data to ontologies. J. on Data Semantics X, 133–173 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qi, G., Du., J.: Model-based revision operators for terminologies in description logics. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2009, pp. 891–897 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang, Z., Wang, K., Topor, R.W.: A new approach to knowledge base revision in DL-Lite. In: Proc. of AAAI 2010. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domenico Lembo
    • 1
  • Maurizio Lenzerini
    • 1
  • Riccardo Rosati
    • 1
  • Marco Ruzzi
    • 1
  • Domenico Fabio Savo
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica Antonio RubertiUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”Italy

Personalised recommendations