Query Answering with Inconsistent Existential Rules under Stable Model Semantics

Traditional inconsistency-tolerent query answering in ontology-based data access relies on selecting maximal components of an ABox/database which are consistent with the ontology. However, some rules in ontologies might be unreliable if they are extracted from ontology learning or written by unskillful knowledge engineers. In this paper we present a framework of handling inconsistent existential rules under stable model semantics, which is defined by a notion called rule repairs to select maximal components of the existential rules. Surprisingly, for R-acyclic existential rules with R-stratified or guarded existential rules with stratified negations, both the data complexity and combined complexity of query answering under the rule {repair semantics} remain the same as that under the conventional query answering semantics. This leads us to propose several approaches to handle the rule {repair semantics} by calling answer set programming solvers. An experimental evaluation shows that these approaches have good scalability of query answering under rule repairs on realistic cases.

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

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

[3]  Joohyung Lee,et al.  Stable models and circumscription , 2011, Artif. Intell..

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

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

[6]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Stable Model Semantics for Guarded Existential Rules and Description Logics , 2014, KR.

[7]  Andrea Calì,et al.  A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies , 2009, SEBD.

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

[9]  Richard Chang,et al.  The Boolean Hierarchy and the Polynomial Hierarchy: A Closer Connection , 1996, SIAM J. Comput..

[10]  Thomas Lukasiewicz,et al.  Inconsistency Handling in Datalog+/- Ontologies , 2012, ECAI.

[11]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  Class expression learning for ontology engineering , 2011, J. Web Semant..

[12]  EiterThomas,et al.  The complexity of logic-based abduction , 1995 .

[13]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Computing Stable Models for Nonmonotonic Existential Rules , 2013, IJCAI.

[14]  Jia-Huai You,et al.  Existential Rule Languages with Finite Chase: Complexity and Expressiveness , 2014, AAAI.

[15]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Repairing Unsatisfiable Concepts in OWL Ontologies , 2006, ESWC.

[16]  Yuefeng Li,et al.  Instance-driven TBox Revision in DL-Lite , 2014, Description Logics.

[17]  Jianfeng Du,et al.  Weight-based consistent query answering over inconsistent SHIQ knowledge bases , .

[18]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Query answering under probabilistic uncertainty in Datalog+ / − ontologies , 2013, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[19]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Complexity and expressive power of logic programming , 2001, CSUR.

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

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

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

[23]  Mario Alviano,et al.  Default Negation for Non-Guarded Existential Rules , 2015, PODS.

[24]  Thomas Lukasiewicz,et al.  From Classical to Consistent Query Answering under Existential Rules , 2015, AMW.

[25]  Abraham Bernstein,et al.  Structure Preserving TBox Repair using Defaults , 2010, Description Logics.

[26]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  The complexity of logic-based abduction , 1993, JACM.

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

[28]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  Finding Maximally Satisfiable Terminologies for the Description Logic ALC , 2006, AAAI.