A fundamental use of knowledge bases (KBs) is query answering, i.e., retrieving the information entailed by the KB in response to a user query. When both the KB and the query are specified as logical formulae, the standard form of answer provided to users is the set of all certain answers (CAs): tuples of constants that satisfy the formula defining the query in every model of the logical theory defining the KB. Despite their wide adoption, CAs are known to be just a lossy representation of the information that a KB and a query provide. While several alternative answer languages have been proposed in the literature, no general consensus has emerged on the most suitable approach to query answering over ontological KBs, as each language comes with its own limitations. To address some of these issues, we introduce Regularly Recurrent Answers (RRAs), a novel answer language for queries over ontological KBs based on regular expressions. RRAs support the representation of infinite sets of tuples of constants via a simple (and arguably well understood) generation mechanism. We show that RRAs can capture a fundamental fragment of the certain information entailed by union of conjunctive queries and DL-Lite KBs, making them a strong candidate for informative query answering settings. Our contribution includes the formal definition of RRAs, a proof of their informativeness, and a study of the computational complexity of query answering problem using RRAs.

More and more organizations are relying on Machine Learning (ML) models to support internal decision-making processes. To better support such processes, it would be highly beneficial to contextualize the inductively acquired knowledge encoded in these models and enable formal reasoning over it. Despite significant progress in Neural-Symbolic AI, this specific challenge remains largely under-explored. We propose a framework that allows to integrate the knowledge induced by ML classifiers with the knowledge specified by logic-based formalisms. The framework is based on the novel notion of Hybrid Knowledge Base (HKB), consisting of two components: an ontology and a set of ML binary classifiers. As usual, the ontology provides an intensional representation of the modeled domain through logic-based axioms, while the binary classifiers implicitly encode the extensional knowledge. Specifically, a HKB associates to each concept and role mentioned in the ontology a classifier based on a set of features deemed to be relevant for the application domain, thereby virtually populating the concepts and roles with the instances and pairs of instances from the feature space. Besides the definition of the new framework, as a more technical contribution we show how to reason in this framework by studying query answering over HKBs. In particular, we investigate the computational complexity of query answering in a rich language over HKBs in which the ontology is specified in (the Description Logic counterpart of) RDFS, while the binary classifiers are represented by Multi-Layer Perceptrons.

Expressing negative conditions is a crucial feature of query languages for knowledge bases (KBs). Answering such queries over ontological KBs, however, is a very challenging task that becomes undecidable even for lightweight Description Logic (DL) ontologies. Such negative results hold even for Conjunctive Queries (CQs) equipped with basic forms of negative conditions such as the so-called safe negation or inequality atoms. One ontology language that is seemingly unaffected by these results is (the DL counterpart of) RDFS even if equipped with disjointness axioms. Answering CQs with inequalities over such ontologies is known to be Pi^p_2-complete, if the number of inequality atoms is unbounded, and NP-complete if we limit this number to one. Notably, these results leave open the cases of CQs with a fixed number greater than two of inequality atoms. Additionally, such a thorough analysis is missing for CQs with safe negation. In this paper, we embark in a refined analysis of the combined complexity of answering CQs with inequality atoms and safe negation over RDFS ontologies augmented with disjointness axioms. Firstly, we provide a unified Pi^p_2 query answering algorithm for the general problem. Secondly, we confirm the generally held conjecture according to which answering CQs with two inequality atoms over such ontologies is already Pi^p_2-hard. This result closes an important gap in the current literature and has an impact on the widely influential problem of query containment. Lastly, for CQs with safe negation, we prove a behavior similar to that of CQs with inequality atoms. Specifically, we show that answering CQs with at most one negated atom can be done in NP, while allowing at most two negated atoms is sufficient to obtain Pi^p_2-hardness.

We propose a general framework for assessing the exposure of sensitive knowledge in policy-protected knowledge bases (KBs), where knowledge is represented as logical theories and data protection policies are defined declaratively using epistemic dependencies. The framework models scenarios in which confidential parts of the KB may be publicly known due to security breaches. We study two fundamental decision problems: determining whether the exposed knowledge violates the data protection policy (leakage), and whether there exists a secure view of the KB that complies with the policy. We analyze the computational complexity (specifically, data complexity) of these problems, focusing on the DL-Lite_R and EL_\bot Description Logics. Our findings show that, for DL-Lite_R with restricted forms of policy, both the problems can be efficiently solved through query rewriting methods. For EL_\bot, we establish conditions for tractable computational bounds. Our results highlight the potential of this framework for practical applications in confidentiality-preserving knowledge management.

In this paper, we present ASPEN+, which extends an existing ASP-based system, ASPEN,for collective entity resolution with two important functionalities: support for local merges and new optimality criteria for preferred solutions. Indeed, ASPEN only supports so-called global merges of entity-referring constants (e.g. author ids), in which all occurrences of matched constants are treated as equivalent and merged accordingly. However, it has been argued that when resolving data values, local merges are often more appropriate, as e.g. some instances of ‘J. Lee’ may refer to ‘Joy Lee’, while others should be matched with ‘Jake Lee’. In addition to allowing such local merges, ASPEN+ offers new optimality criteria for selecting solutions, such as minimizing rule violations or maximising the number of rules supporting a merge. Our main contributions are thus (1) the formalisation and computational analysis of various notions of optimal solution, and (2) an extensive experimental evaluation on real-world datasets, demonstrating the effect of local merges and the new optimality criteria on both accuracy and runtime.

Controlled Query Evaluation (CQE) is a methodology designed to maintain confidentiality by either rejecting specific queries or adjusting responses to safeguard sensitive information. In this investigation, our focus centers on CQE within Description Logic ontologies, aiming to ensure that queries are answered truthfully as long as possible before resorting to deceptive responses, a cooperativity property which is called the “longest honeymoon”. Our work introduces new semantics for CQE, denoted as MC-CQE, which enjoys the longest honeymoon property and outperforms previous methodologies in terms of cooperativity. We study the complexity of query answering in this new framework for ontologies expressed in the Description Logic DL-Lite_R. Specifically, we establish data complexity results under different maximally cooperative semantics and for different classes of queries. Our results identify both tractable and intractable cases. In particular, we show that the evaluation of Boolean unions of conjunctive queries is the same under all the above semantics and its data complexity is in AC^0. This result makes query answering amenable to SQL query rewriting. However, this favorable property does not extend to open queries, even with a restricted query language limited to conjunctions of atoms. While, in general, answering open queries in the MC-CQE framework is intractable, we identify a sub-family of semantics under which answering full conjunctive queries is tractable.

In this paper we study Controlled Query Evaluation (CQE), a declarative approach to privacy-preserving query answering over databases, knowledge bases, and ontologies. CQE is based on the notion of censor, which defines the answers to each query posed to the data/knowledge base. We investigate both semantic and computational properties of CQE in the context of OWL ontologies, and specifically in the description logic DL-LiteR, which underpins the OWL 2 QL profile. In our analysis, we focus on semantics of CQE based on censors (called optimal GA censors) that enjoy the so-called indistinguishability property, analyzing the trade-off between maximizing the amount of data disclosed by query answers and minimizing the computational cost of privacy-preserving query answering. We first study the data complexity of skeptical entailment of unions of conjunctive queries under all the optimal GA censors, showing that the computational cost of query answering in this setting is intractable. To overcome this computational issue, we then define a different semantics for CQE centered around the notion of intersection of all the optimal GA censors. We show that query answering over OWL 2 QL ontologies under the new intersection-based semantics for CQE enjoys tractability and is first-order rewritable, i.e. amenable to be implemented through SQL query rewriting techniques and the use of standard relational database systems; on the other hand, this approach shows limitations in terms of amount of data disclosed. To improve this aspect, we add preferences between ontology predicates to the CQE framework, and identify a semantics under which query answering over OWL 2 QL ontologies maintains the same computational properties of the intersection-based approach without preferences.

Query answering for Knowledge Bases (KBs) amounts to extracting information from the various models of a KB, and presenting the user with an object that represents such information. In the vast majority of cases, this object consists of those tuples of constants that satisfy the query expression either in every model (certain answers) or in some model (possible answers). However, similarly to the case of incomplete databases, both these forms of answers are a lossy representation of all the knowledge inferable from the query and the queried KB. In this paper, we illustrate a formal framework to characterize the information that query answers for KBs are able to represent. As a first application of the framework, we study the informativeness of current query answering approaches, including the recently introduced partial answers. We then define a novel notion of answers, allowing repetition of variables across answer tuples. We show that these answers are capable of representing a meaningful form of information, and we also study their data complexity properties.

In this paper, we present ASPEN, an answer set programming (ASP) implementation of a recently proposed declarative framework for collective entity resolution (ER). While an ASP encoding had been previously suggested, several practical issues had been neglected, most notably, the question of how to efficiently compute the (externally defined) similarity facts that are used in rule bodies. This leads us to propose new variants of the encodings (including Datalog approximations) and show how to employ different functionalities of ASP solvers to compute (maximal) solutions, and (approximations of) the sets of possible and certain merges. A comprehensive experimental evaluation of ASPEN on real-world datasets shows that the approach is promising, achieving high accuracy in real-life ER scenarios. Our experiments also yield useful insights into the relative merits of different types of (approximate) ER solutions, the impact of recursion, and factors influencing performance.

Controlled Query Evaluation (CQE) is a framework for the protection of confidential data, where a policy given in terms of logic formulae indicates which information must be kept private. Functions called censors filter query answering so that no answers are returned that may lead a user to infer data protected by the policy. The preferred censors, called optimal censors, are the ones that conceal only what is necessary, thus maximizing the returned answers. Typically, given a policy over a data or knowledge base, several optimal censors exist. Our research on CQE is based on the following intuition: confidential data are those that violate the logical assertions specifying the policy, and thus censoring them in query answering is similar to processing queries in the presence of inconsistent data as studied in Consistent Query Answering (CQA). In this paper, we investigate the relationship between CQE and CQA in the context of Description Logic ontologies. We borrow the idea from CQA that query answering is a form of skeptical reasoning that takes into account all possible optimal censors. This approach leads to a revised notion of CQE, which allows us to avoid making an arbitrary choice on the censor to be selected, as done by previous research on the topic. We then study the data complexity of query answering in our CQE framework, for conjunctive queries issued over ontologies specified in the popular Description Logics DL-LiteR and EL⊥. In our analysis, we consider some variants of the censor language, which is the language used by the censor to enforce the policy. Whereas the problem is in general intractable for simple censor languages, we show that for DL-LiteR ontologies it is first-order rewritable, and thus in AC0 in data complexity, for the most expressive censor language we propose.

The Datalog query language can express several powerful recursive properties, often crucial in real-world scenarios. While answering such queries is feasible over relational databases, the picture changes dramatically when data is enriched with intensional knowledge. It is indeed well-known that answering Datalog queries is undecidable already over lightweight knowledge bases (KBs) of the DL-Lite family. To overcome this issue, we propose a new query language based on Disjunctive Datalog rules combined with a modal epistemic operator. Rules in this language interact with the queried KB exclusively via the epistemic operator, thus extracting only the information true in every model of the KB. This form of interaction is crucial for not falling into undecidability. The contribution provided by this paper is threefold. First, we illustrate the syntax and the semantics of the novel query language. Second, we study the expressive power of different fragments of our new language and compare it with Disjunctive Datalog and its variants. Third, we outline the precise data complexity of answering queries in our new language over KBs expressed in various well-known formalisms.

This paper considers the problem of querying dirty databases, which may contain both erroneous facts and multiple names for the same entity. While both of these data quality issues have been widely studied in isolation, our contribution is a holistic framework for jointly deduplicating and repairing data. Our REPLACE framework follows a declarative approach, utilizing logical rules to specify under which conditions a pair of entity references can or must be merged and logical constraints to specify consistency requirements. The semantics defines a space of solutions, each consisting of a set of merges to perform and a set of facts to delete, which can be further refined by applying optimality criteria. As there may be multiple optimal solutions, we use classical notions of possible and certain query answers to reason over the alternative solutions, and introduce a novel notion of most informative answer to obtain a more compact presentation of query results. We perform a detailed analysis of the data complexity of the central reasoning tasks of recognizing optimal solutions and (most informative) possible and certain answers, for each of the three notions of optimal solution and for both general and restricted specifications.

In the recently proposed LACE framework for collective entity resolution, logical rules and constraints are used to identify pairs of entity references (e.g. author or paper ids) that denote the same entity. This identification is global: all occurrences of those entity references (possibly across multiple database tuples) are deemed equal and can be merged. By contrast, a local form of merge is often more natural when identifying pairs of data values, e.g. some occurrences of 'J. Smith' may be equated with 'Joe Smith', while others should merge with 'Jane Smith'. This motivates us to extend LACE with local merges of values and explore the computational properties of the resulting formalism.

We study a novel reasoning task in Ontology-based Data Management (OBDM), called Abstraction, which aims at associating formal semantic descriptions to data services. In OBDM a domain ontology is used to provide a semantic layer mapped to the data sources of an organization. The basic idea of the work presented in this paper is to explain the semantics of a data service in terms of a query over the ontology. We illustrate a formal framework for this problem, based on three different notions of abstraction, called sound, complete, and perfect, respectively. We present a thorough complexity analysis of two computational problems, namely verification (checking whether a query is an abstraction of a given data service), and computation (computing an abstraction of a given data service).

In Ontology-Based Data Management (OBDM), an abstraction of a source query q is a query over the ontology capturing the semantics of q in terms of the concepts and the relations available in the ontology. Since a perfect characterization of a source query may not exist, the notions of best sound and complete approximations of an abstraction have been introduced and studied in the typical OBDM context, i.e., in the case where the ontology is expressed in DL-Lite, and source queries are expressed as unions of conjunctive queries (UCQs). Interestingly, if we restrict our attention to abstractions expressed as UCQs, even best approximations of abstractions are not guaranteed to exist. Thus, a natural question to ask is whether such limitations affect even larger classes of queries. In this paper, we answer this fundamental question for an essential class of queries, namely the class of monotone queries. We define a monotone query language based on disjunctive Datalog enriched with an epistemic operator, and show that its expressive power suffices for expressing the best approximations of monotone abstractions of UCQs.

In this paper, we revisit the problem of entity resolution and propose a novel, logical framework, LACE, which mixes declarative and procedural elements to achieve a number of desirable properties. Our approach is fundamentally declarative in nature: it utilizes hard and soft rules to specify conditions under which pairs of entity references must or may be merged, together with denial constraints that enforce consistency of the resulting instance. Importantly, however, rule bodies are evaluated on the instance resulting from applying the already 'derived' merges. It is the dynamic nature of our semantics that enables us to capture collective entity resolution scenarios, where merges can trigger further merges, while at the same time ensuring that every merge can be justified. As the denial constraints restrict which merges can be performed together, we obtain a space of (maximal) solutions, from which we can naturally define notions of certain and possible merges and query answers. We explore the computational properties of our framework and determine the precise computational complexity of the relevant decision problems. Furthermore, as a first step towards implementing our approach, we demonstrate how we can encode the various reasoning tasks using answer set programming.

Given an input dataset (i.e., a set of tuples), query definability in Ontology-based Data Management (OBDM) amounts to finding a query over the ontology whose certain answers coincide with the tuples in the given dataset. We refer to such a query as a characterization of the dataset with respect to the OBDM system. Our first contribution is to propose approximations of perfect characterizations in terms of recall (complete characterizations) and precision (sound characterizations). A second contribution is to present a thorough complexity analysis of three computational problems, namely verification (check whether a given query is a perfect, or an approximated characterization of a given dataset), existence (check whether a perfect, or a best approximated characterization of a given dataset exists), and computation (compute a perfect, or best approximated characterization of a given dataset).

Data integration provides a unified and abstract view over a set of existing data sources. The typical architecture of a data integration system comprises the global schema, which is the structure for the unified view, the source schema, and the mapping, which is a formal account of how data at the sources relate to the global view. Most of the research work on data integration in the last decades deals with the problem of processing a query expressed on the global schema by computing a suitable query over the sources, and then evaluating the latter in order to derive the answers to the original query. Here, we address a novel issue in data integration: starting from a query expressed over the sources, the goal is to find an abstraction of such query, i.e., a query over the global schema that captures the original query, modulo the mapping. The goal of the paper is to provide an overview of the notion of abstraction in data integration, by presenting a formal framework, illustrating the results that have appeared in the recent literature, and discussing interesting directions for future research.

In the context of the Description Logic DL-Liteℛ≠, i.e., DL-Liteℛ without UNA and with inequality axioms, we address the problem of adding to unions of conjunctive queries (UCQs) one of the simplest forms of negation, namely, inequality. It is well known that answering conjunctive queries with unrestricted inequalities over DL-Liteℛ ontologies is in general undecidable. Therefore, we explore two strategies for recovering decidability, and, hopefully, tractability. Firstly, we weaken the ontology language, and consider the variant of DL-Liteℛ≠ corresponding to rdfs enriched with both inequality and disjointness axioms. Secondly, we weaken the query language, by preventing inequalities to be applied to existentially quantified variables, thus obtaining the class of queries named UCQ≠,bs. We prove that in the two cases, query answering is decidable, and we provide tight complexity bounds for the problem, both for data and combined complexity. Notably, the results show that answering UCQ≠,bs over DL-Liteℛ≠ ontologies is still in AC0 in data complexity.

We study privacy-preserving query answering in Description Logics (DLs). Specifically, we consider the approach of controlled query evaluation (CQE) based on the notion of instance indistinguishability. We derive data complexity results for query answering over DL-LiteR ontologies, through a comparison with an alternative, existing confidentiality-preserving approach to CQE. Finally, we identify a semantically well-founded notion of approximated query answering for CQE, and prove that, for DL-LiteR ontologies, this form of CQE is tractable with respect to data complexity and is first-order rewritable, i.e., it is always reducible to the evaluation of a first-order query over the data instance.

In Ontology-Based Data Access (OBDA), a domain ontology is linked to the data sources of an organization in order to query, integrate and manage data through the concepts and relations of the domain of interest, thus abstracting from the technical details of the data layer implementation. While the great majority of contributions in OBDA in the last decade have been concerned with the issue of computing the answers of queries expressed over the ontology, recent papers address a different problem, namely the one of providing suitable abstractions of data services, i.e., characterizing or explaining the semantics of queries over the sources in terms of queries over the domain ontology. Current works on this subject are based on expressing abstractions in terms of unions of conjunctive queries (UCQs) over the ontology. In this paper we advocate the use of a non-monotonic language for this task. As a first contribution, we present a simple extension of UCQs with non-monotonic features, and show that non-monotonicity provides more expressive power in characterizing the semantics of data services. A second contribution is to prove that, similarly to the case of monotonic abstractions, depending on the expressive power of the languages used to specify the various components of the OBDA system, there are cases where neither perfect nor approximated abstractions exist for a given data service. As a third contribution, we single out interesting special cases where the existence of abstractions is guaranteed, and we present algorithms for computing such abstractions in these cases.

We study the problem of associating formal semantic descriptions to data services. We base our proposal on the Ontology-based Data Access paradigm, where a domain ontology is used to provide a semantic layer mapped to the data sources of an organization. The basic idea is to explain the semantics of a data service in terms of a query over the ontology. We illustrate a formal framework for this problem, based on the notion of source-to-ontology (s-to-o) rewriting, which comes in three variants, called sound, complete and perfect, respectively. We present a thorough complexity analysis of two computational problems, namely verification (checking whether a query is an s-to-o rewriting of a given data service), and computation (computing an s-to-o rewriting of a data service).