Consistent Query Answering over Description Logic Ontologies

Description Logics (DLs) have been widely used in the last years as formal language for specifying ontologies over the web. Due to the dynamic nature of this setting, it may frequently happen that data retrieved from the web contradict the intensional knowledge provided by the ontology through which they are collected, which therefore may result inconsistent. In this paper, we analyze the problem of consistent query answering over DL ontologies, i.e., the problem of providing meaningful answers to queries posed over inconsistent ontologies. We provide inconsistency tolerant semantics for DLs, and study the computational complexity of consistent query answering over ontologies specified in DL-Lite, a family of DLs specifically tailored to deal with large amounts of data. We show that the above problem is coNP-complete w.r.t. data complexity, i.e., the complexity measured w.r.t. the size of the data only. Towards identification of tractable cases of consistent query answering over DL-Lite ontologies, we then study the problem of consistent instance checking, i.e., the instance checking problem considered under our inconsistency-tolerant semantics. We provide an algorithm for it which runs in time polynomial in the size of the data, thus showing that the problem is in PTIME w.r.t. data complexity.

[1]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language , 2003, J. Web Semant..

[2]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  Consistent query answering under key and exclusion dependencies: algorithms and experiments , 2005, CIKM '05.

[3]  Renée J. Miller,et al.  First-order query rewriting for inconsistent databases , 2005, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[4]  Wendy Hall,et al.  The Semantic Web Revisited , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[5]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  On the Complexity of Propositional Knowledge Base Revision, Updates, and Counterfactuals , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Debugging OWL ontologies , 2005, WWW '05.

[7]  Andrea Calì,et al.  On the decidability and complexity of query answering over inconsistent and incomplete databases , 2003, PODS.

[8]  Moshe Y. Vardi.  The complexity of relational query languages (Extended Abstract) , 1982, STOC '82.

[9]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases , 1999, PODS '99.

[10]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Efficient Evaluation of Logic Programs for Querying Data Integration Systems , 2003, ICLP.

[11]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  On the Computational Complexity of Minimal-Change Integrity Maintenance in Relational Databases , 2005, Inconsistency Tolerance.

[12]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Data Complexity of Answering Unions of Conjunctive Queries in SHIQ , 2006, Description Logics.

[13]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[14]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies , 2005, IJCAI.

[15]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  The Complexity of Nested Counterfactuals and Iterated Knowledge Base Revisions , 1993, IJCAI.

[16]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Data integration: a theoretical perspective , 2002, PODS.

[17]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  QuOnto: Querying Ontologies , 2005, AAAI.

[18]  Mieczyslaw M. Kokar,et al.  Consistency Checking of Semantic Web Ontologies , 2002, SEMWEB.

[19]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Editorial: Introduction to: Data extraction, cleaning, and reconciliation a special issue of information systems, an international journal , 2001 .

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

[21]  Stefan Schlobach,et al.  Non-Standard Reasoning Services for the Debugging of Description Logic Terminologies , 2003, IJCAI.

[22]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Introduction to the special issue on data extraction, cleaning, and reconciliation , 2001, Inf. Syst..

[23]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Data Complexity of Query Answering in Description Logics , 2006, Description Logics.

[24]  James A. Hendler,et al.  A Portrait of the Semantic Web in Action , 2001, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[25]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Answering Queries Using Views over Description Logics Knowledge Bases , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

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

[27]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  Conceptual Modeling with Description Logics , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[28]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Computing consistent query answers using conflict hypergraphs , 2004, CIKM '04.

[29]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  A Framework for Handling Inconsistency in Changing Ontologies , 2005, SEMWEB.

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

[31]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  DL-Lite: Tractable Description Logics for Ontologies , 2005, AAAI.

[32]  Michel C. A. Klein,et al.  Integrity and Change in Modular Ontologies , 2003, IJCAI.