Inconsistency-Tolerant Ontology-Based Data Access Revisited: Taking Mappings into Account

Inconsistency-tolerant query answering in the presence of ontologies has received considerable attention in recent years. However, existing work assumes that the data is expressed using the vocabulary of the ontology and is therefore not directly applicable to ontology-based data access (OBDA), where relational data is connected to the ontology via mappings. This motivates us to revisit existing results in the wider context of OBDA with mappings. After formalizing the problem, we perform a detailed analysis of the data complexity of inconsistency-tolerant OBDA for ontologies formulated in DL-Lite and other data-tractable description logics, considering three different semantics (AR, IAR, and brave), two notions of repairs (subset and symmetric difference), and two classes of global-as-view (GAV) mappings. We show that adding plain GAV mappings does not affect data complexity, but there is a jump in complexity if mappings with negated atoms are considered.

[1]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Developing Ontology-based Data Management for the Italian Public Debt , 2014, SEBD.

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

[3]  Leopoldo E. Bertossi,et al.  Logic Programs for Consistently Querying Data Integration Systems , 2003, IJCAI.

[4]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Consistent Query Answering: Five Easy Pieces , 2007, ICDT.

[5]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Inconsistency-tolerant query answering in ontology-based data access , 2015, J. Web Semant..

[6]  G. Gottlob,et al.  Query Answering in the Description Logic Horn-SHIQ ⋆ , 2008 .

[7]  Andrea Calì,et al.  Query rewriting and answering under constraints in data integration systems , 2003, IJCAI.

[8]  Leopoldo E. Bertossi,et al.  Database Repairing and Consistent Query Answering , 2011, Database Repairing and Consistent Query Answering.

[9]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  On the Complexity of Dealing with Inconsistency in Description Logic Ontologies , 2011, IJCAI.

[10]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The DL-Lite Family and Relations , 2009, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[11]  Giorgos Stoilos,et al.  Efficient Query Answering over Expressive Inconsistent Description Logics , 2016, IJCAI.

[12]  Michael Zakharyaschev,et al.  An Introduction to Description Logics and Query Rewriting , 2014, Reasoning Web.

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

[14]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Ontop: Answering SPARQL queries over relational databases , 2016, Semantic Web.

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

[16]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Consistent query answers in the presence of universal constraints , 2008, Inf. Syst..

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

[18]  Stefano Spaccapietra,et al.  Journal on Data Semantics I , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  M. Tamer Özsu.  Synthesis Lectures on Data Management , 2010 .

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

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

[22]  Phokion G. Kolaitis,et al.  Exchange-Repairs , 2014, Journal on Data Semantics.

[23]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  An Introduction to Description Logic , 2017 .

[24]  Julius T. Tou,et al.  Information Systems , 1973, GI Jahrestagung.

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

[26]  Meghyn Bienvenu,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant Querying of Description Logic Knowledge Bases , 2016, Reasoning Web.

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