Inconsistency-tolerant query answering in ontology-based data access

Ontology-based data access (OBDA) is receiving great attention as a new paradigm for managing information systems through semantic technologies. According to this paradigm, a Description Logic ontology provides an abstract and formal representation of the domain of interest to the information system, and is used as a sophisticated schema for accessing the data and formulating queries over them. In this paper, we address the problem of dealing with inconsistencies in OBDA. Our general goal is both to study DL semantical frameworks that are inconsistency-tolerant, and to devise techniques for answering unions of conjunctive queries under such inconsistency-tolerant semantics. Our work is inspired by the approaches to consistent query answering in databases, which are based on the idea of living with inconsistencies in the database, but trying to obtain only consistent information during query answering, by relying on the notion of database repair. We first adapt the notion of database repair to our context, and show that, according to such a notion, inconsistency-tolerant query answering is intractable, even for very simple DLs. Therefore, we propose a different repair-based semantics, with the goal of reaching a good compromise between the expressive power of the semantics and the computational complexity of inconsistency-tolerant query answering. Indeed, we show that query answering under the new semantics is first-order rewritable in OBDA, even if the ontology is expressed in one of the most expressive members of the DL-Lite family.

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

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

[3]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Path-Based Identification Constraints in Description Logics , 2008, KR.

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

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

[7]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Conceptual Modeling for Data Integration , 2009, Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications.

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

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

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

[11]  Leopoldo E. Bertossi,et al.  Complexity and Approximation of Fixing Numerical Attributes in Databases Under Integrity Constraints , 2005, DBPL.

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

[13]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Mastro at Work: Experiences on Ontology-Based Data Access , 2010, Description Logics.

[14]  Meghyn Bienvenu,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant Conjunctive Query Answering for Simple Ontologies , 2012, Description Logics.

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

[16]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Query Rewriting for Inconsistent DL-Lite Ontologies , 2011, RR.

[17]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The MASTRO system for ontology-based data access , 2011, Semantic Web.

[18]  Rafael Peñaloza,et al.  Axiom Pinpointing in General Tableaux , 2007, TABLEAUX.

[19]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  Inconsistency Tolerance , 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

[21]  Domenico Lembo,et al.  Consistent Query Answering over Description Logic Ontologies , 2007, Description Logics.

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

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

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

[25]  Thomas Lukasiewicz,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Rewriting for Linear Datalog+/- , 2012, Datalog.

[26]  Meghyn Bienvenu,et al.  First-Order Expressibility Results for Queries over Inconsistent DL-Lite Knowledge Bases , 2011, Description Logics.

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

[28]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  The Combined Approach to Query Answering in DL-Lite , 2010, KR.

[29]  André Fuhrmann,et al.  Theory contraction through base contraction , 1991, J. Philos. Log..

[30]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Belief Revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax-Based Approaches , 1991, KR.

[31]  Sergio Greco,et al.  A Logical Framework for Querying and Repairing Inconsistent Databases , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

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

[33]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Optimizing query rewriting in ontology-based data access , 2013, EDBT '13.

[34]  Serge Abiteboul,et al.  Foundations of Databases , 1994 .

[35]  Guilin Qi,et al.  A revision-based approach to handling inconsistency in description logics , 2006, Artificial Intelligence Review.

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

[37]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  Paraconsistent Reasoning for OWL 2 , 2009, RR.

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

[39]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Adding Number Restrictions to a Four-Valued Terminological Logic , 1988, AAAI.

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

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

[42]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Repair localization for query answering from inconsistent databases , 2008, TODS.

[43]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  Algorithms for Paraconsistent Reasoning with OWL , 2007, ESWC.

[44]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Minimal-change integrity maintenance using tuple deletions , 2002, Inf. Comput..

[45]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  A Sequent Calculus for Reasoning in Four-Valued Description Logics , 1997, TABLEAUX.

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

[47]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Explaining Inconsistencies in OWL Ontologies , 2009, SUM.

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

[49]  Alberto O. Mendelzon,et al.  Merging Databases Under Constraints , 1998, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[50]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Source inconsistency and incompleteness in data integration , 2002, KRDB.

[51]  Jef Wijsen,et al.  Charting the tractability frontier of certain conjunctive query answering , 2013, PODS '13.

[52]  Jef Wijsen,et al.  Database repairing using updates , 2005, TODS.

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

[54]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Conjunctive Query Answering for the Description Logic SHIQ , 2007, IJCAI.

[55]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  Evaluation of Techniques for Inconsistency Handling in OWL 2 QL Ontologies , 2012, International Semantic Web Conference.

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

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

[58]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant First-Order Rewritability of DL-Lite with Identification and Denial Assertions , 2012, Description Logics.

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

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

[61]  Gabriel M. Kuper,et al.  Updating Logical Databases , 1986, Adv. Comput. Res..

[62]  Rada Chirkova,et al.  Approximate Rewriting of Queries Using Views , 2009, ADBIS.

[63]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  On the semantics of updates in databases , 1983, PODS.

[64]  Rafael Peñaloza,et al.  Complexity of Axiom Pinpointing in the DL-Lite Family , 2010, Description Logics.

[65]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Testing Containment of Conjunctive Queries under Functional and Inclusion Dependencies , 1984, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..