Query Failure Explanation in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: A Dialogical Approach

In the EcoBioCap project (www.ecobiocap.eu) about the next generation of packaging, a decision support system has been built that uses argumentation to deal with stakeholder preferences. However, when testing the tool the domain experts did not always understand the output of the system. The approach developed in this paper is the first step to the construction of a decision support system endowed with an explanation module. We place ourselves in the equivalent setting of inconsistent Ontology-Based Data Access (OBDA) and addresses the problem of explaining Boolean Conjunctive Query (BCQ) failure. Our proposal relies on an interactive and argumentative approach where the processes of explanation takes the form of a dialogue between the User and the Reasoner. We exploit the equivalence between argumentation and inconsistency tolerant semantics to prove that the Reasoner can always provide an answer for user’s questions.

[1]  Abdallah Arioua,et al.  Query Failure Explanation in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases Using Argumentation , 2014, COMMA.

[2]  Meghyn Bienvenu,et al.  On the Complexity of Consistent Query Answering in the Presence of Simple Ontologies , 2012, AAAI.

[3]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  What Can Argumentation Do for Inconsistent Ontology Query Answering? , 2013, SUM.

[4]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  Tractable Approximations of Consistent Query Answering for Robust Ontology-based Data Access , 2013, IJCAI.

[5]  Douglas Walton,et al.  A new dialectical theory of explanation , 2004 .

[6]  Tharam S. Dillon,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, OTM 2010 , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  Thomas Lukasiewicz,et al.  Complexity of Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering in Datalog+/- under Cardinality-Based Repairs , 2019, SEBD.

[8]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Formalizing dialectical explanation support for argument-based reasoning in knowledge-based systems , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[10]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Tractable Reasoning and Efficient Query Answering in Description Logics: The DL-Lite Family , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[11]  Andrea Calì,et al.  A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies , 2012, J. Web Semant..

[12]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Walking the Complexity Lines for Generalized Guarded Existential Rules , 2011, IJCAI.

[13]  D. Walton.  A Dialogue System Specification for Explanation , 2011 .

[14]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Explanation in the DL-LiteFamily of Description Logics , 2008, OTM Conferences.

[15]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Linking Data to Ontologies , 2008, J. Data Semant..

[16]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant Semantics for Description Logics , 2010, RR.

[17]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Reasoning about Explanations for Negative Query Answers in DL-Lite , 2013, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[18]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Usability Issues in Knowledge Representation Systems , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[19]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Datalog±: a unified approach to ontologies and integrity constraints , 2009, ICDT '09.

[20]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  An Argument-Based Approach to Using Multiple Ontologies , 2009, SUM.

[22]  Franz Baader,et al.  Pushing the EL Envelope , 2005, IJCAI.