Tractable Computation of Representative ABox Repairs in Description Logic Ontologies

Computing all ABox repairs is a key to cautious or brave reasoning over inconsistent description logic DL ontologies. However, the number of ABox repairs can be exponential in the number of assertions in the ABox even for very lightweight DLs. Hence we propose to compute a minimal representative set of ABox repairs. A set of ABox repairs is representative, if every assertion occurring in at least one ABox repair also occurs in at least one element of this set, while every assertion occurring in all ABox repairs occurs in all elements of this set. Cautious or brave reasoning then can be approximated by standard reasoning over a minimal representative set other than the complete set of ABox repairs. However, computing a minimal representative set of ABox repairs is still intractable in general. To guarantee the tractability in data complexity for computing a minimal representative set, we focus on a class of DL ontologies called the first-order rewritable class. We propose a tractable method for computing a minimal representative set of ABox repairs in an inconsistent first-order rewritable ontology. Experimental results demonstrate the high efficiency and scalability of the proposed method.

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

[2]  Jianfeng Du,et al.  Towards Tractable and Practical ABox Abduction over Inconsistent Description Logic Ontologies , 2015, AAAI.

[3]  Jianfeng Du,et al.  Weight-based consistent query answering over inconsistent $${\mathcal {SHIQ}}$$ knowledge bases , 2012, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[4]  François Goasdoué,et al.  Querying Inconsistent Description Logic Knowledge Bases under Preferred Repair Semantics , 2014, Description Logics.

[5]  Richard Booth,et al.  Knowledge Integration for Description Logics , 2005, AAAI.

[6]  Boris Motik,et al.  Tractable query answering and rewriting under description logic constraints , 2010, J. Appl. Log..

[7]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[8]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Complexity of Model Checking and Bounded Predicate Arities for Non-ground Answer Set Programming , 2004, KR.

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

[10]  Jeff Heflin,et al.  LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems , 2005, J. Web Semant..

[11]  Ulrich Junker,et al.  QUICKXPLAIN: Preferred Explanations and Relaxations for Over-Constrained Problems , 2004, AAAI.

[12]  Barry O'Sullivan,et al.  Representative Explanations for Over-Constrained Problems , 2007, AAAI.

[13]  Boris Motik,et al.  A Comparison of Reasoning Techniques for Querying Large Description Logic ABoxes , 2006, LPAR.

[14]  Boris Motik,et al.  Reasoning in Description Logics by a Reduction to Disjunctive Datalog , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

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