Capturing Instance Level Ontology Evolution for DL-Lite

  • Evgeny Kharlamov
  • Dmitriy Zheleznyakov
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7031)


Evolution of Knowledge Bases (KBs) expressed in Description Logics (DLs) proved its importance. Recent studies of the topic mostly focussed on model-based approaches (MBAs), where an evolution (of a KB) results in a set of models. For KBs expressed in tractable DLs, such as DL − Lite, it was shown that the evolution suffers from inexpressibility, i.e., the result of evolution cannot be expressed in DL − Lite. What is missing in these studies is understanding: in which DL − Lite fragments evolution can be captured, what causes the inexpressibility, which logics is sufficient to express evolution, whether and how one can approximate it in DL − Lite. This work provides some understanding of these issues for eight of MBAs which cover the case of both update and revision. We found what causes inexpressibility and isolated a fragment of DL − Lite where evolution is expressible. For this fragment we provided polynomial-time algorithms to compute evolution results. For the general case we proposed techniques (based on what we called prototypes) to capture DL − Lite evolution corresponding to a well-known Winslett’s approach in a DL \(\mathcal{SHOIQ}\) (which is subsumed by OWL 2 DL). We also showed how to approximate this evolution in DL − Lite.


Description Logic Canonical Model Evolution Setting Local Semantic Sound Approximation 
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.


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flouris, G., Manakanatas, D., Kondylakis, H., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: Ontology change: Classification and survey. Knowledge Engineering Review 23(2), 117–152 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abiteboul, S., Grahne, G.: Update semantics for incomplete databases. In: VLDB (1985)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Proc. of KR 1991, pp. 387–394 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates and counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 57, 227–270 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu, H., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Wolter, F.: Updating description logic ABoxes. In: KR (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., 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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: On instance-level update and erasure in description logic ontologies. J. of Logic and Computation 19(5), 745–770 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, Z., Wang, K., Topor, R.W.: A new approach to knowledge base revision in DL-Lite. In: AAAI (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Calvanese, D., Kharlamov, E., Nutt, W., Zheleznyakov, D.: Evolution of DL-Lite knowledge bases (extended version). Technical report, KRDB Research Centre, Free Univ. of Bolzano (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: The DL-Lite family and relations. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research 36, 1–69 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poggi, A., Lembo, D., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Linking data to ontologies. J. on Data Semantics, 133–173 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvanese, D., Kharlamov, E., Nutt, W.: A proof theory for DL-Lite. In: DL (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winslett, M.: Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge University Press (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: A tableau decision procedure for SHOIQ. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 249–276 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evgeny Kharlamov
    • 1
  • Dmitriy Zheleznyakov
    • 1
  1. 1.KRDB Research CentreFree University of Bozen-BolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations