We explore the use of answer set programming (ASP) and its extension with quantifiers, ASP(Q), for inconsistency-tolerant querying of prioritized data, where a priority relation between conflicting facts is exploited to define three notions of optimal repairs (Pareto-, globally- and completion-optimal). We consider the variants of three well-known semantics (AR, brave and IAR) that use these optimal repairs, and for which query answering is in the first or second level of the polynomial hierarchy for a large class of logical theories. Notably, this paper presents the first implementation of globally-optimal repair-based semantics, as well as the first implementation of the grounded semantics, which is a tractable under-approximation of all these optimal repair-based semantics. Our experimental evaluation sheds light on the feasibility of computing answers under globally-optimal repair semantics and the impact of adopting different semantics, approximations, and encodings.

We present a novel approach to querying classically inconsistent description logic (DL) knowledge bases by adopting a paraconsistent semantics with the four 'Belnapian' values: exactly true (T), exactly false (F), both (B), and neither (N). In contrast to prior studies on paraconsistent DLs, we allow truth value operators in the query language over concept and role atoms, which can be used to differentiate between answers obtained from contradictory evidence and those based upon only positive evidence. We present a reduction to classical DL query answering that allows us to pinpoint the precise combined and data complexity of answering queries with values in paraconsistent ALCHI with two- and four-valued roles and their sublogics. Notably, we show that tractable data complexity is retained for Horn DLs. We also present a comparison with repair-based inconsistency-tolerant semantics, showing that the two approaches are incomparable: if we consider queries with the T (exactly true) operator, then we neither over-approximate the most cautious repair-based semantics, nor under-approximate the least cautious ones.

We establish a correspondence between (fragments of) TEL◯, a temporal extension of the EL description logic with the LTL operator ◯k, and some specific kinds of formal grammars, in particular, conjunctive grammars (context-free grammars equipped with the operation of intersection). This connection implies that TEL◯ does not possess the property of ultimate periodicity of models, and further leads to undecidability of query answering in TEL◯, closing a question left open since the introduction of TEL◯. Moreover, it also allows to establish decidability of query answering for some new interesting fragments of TEL◯, and to reuse for this purpose existing tools and algorithms for conjunctive grammars.

In this paper, we explore the issue of inconsistency handling in DatalogMTL, an extension of Datalog with metric temporal operators. Since facts are associated with time intervals, there are different manners to restore consistency when they contradict the rules, such as removing facts or modifying their time intervals. Our first contribution is the definition of relevant notions of conflicts (minimal explanations for inconsistency) and repairs (possible ways of restoring consistency) for this setting and the study of the properties of these notions and the associated inconsistency-tolerant semantics. Our second contribution is a data complexity analysis of the tasks of generating a single conflict / repair and query entailment under repair-based semantics.

Repair-based semantics have been extensively studied as a means of obtaining meaningful answers to queries posed over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs). While several works have considered how to exploit a priority relation between facts to select optimal repairs, the question of how to specify such preferences remains largely unaddressed. This motivates us to introduce a declarative rule-based framework for specifying and computing a priority relation between conflicting facts. As the expressed preferences may contain undesirable cycles, we consider the problem of determining when a set of preference rules always yields an acyclic relation, and we also explore a pragmatic approach that extracts an acyclic relation by applying various cycle removal techniques. Towards an end-to-end system for querying inconsistent KBs, we present a preliminary implementation and experimental evaluation of the framework, which employs answer set programming to evaluate the preference rules, apply the desired cycle resolution techniques to obtain a priority relation, and answer queries under prioritized-repair semantics.

In this paper, we explore a quantitative approach to querying inconsistent description logic knowledge bases. We consider weighted knowledge bases in which both axioms and assertions have (possibly infinite) weights, which are used to assign a cost to each interpretation based upon the axioms and assertions it violates. Two notions of certain and possible answer are defined by either considering interpretations whose cost does not exceed a given bound or restricting attention to optimal-cost interpretations. Our main contribution is a comprehensive analysis of the combined and data complexity of bounded cost satisfiability and certain and possible answer recognition, for description logics between ELbot and ALCO.

We present a novel approach to querying classical inconsistent description logic (DL) knowledge bases by adopting a paraconsistent semantics with the four ‘Belnapian’ values: exactly true (T), exactly false (F), both (B), and neither (N). In contrast to prior studies on paraconsistent DLs, we allow truth value operators in the query language, which can be used to differentiate between answers having contradictory evidence and those having only positive evidence. We present a reduction to classical DL query answering that allows us to pinpoint the precise combined and data complexity of answering queries with values in paraconsistent ALCHI and its sublogics. Notably, we show that tractable data complexity is retained for Horn DLs. We present a comparison with repair-based inconsistency-tolerant semantics, showing that the two approaches are incomparable.

Research on knowledge graph embeddings has recently evolved into knowledge base embeddings, where the goal is not only to map facts into vector spaces but also constrain the models so that they take into account the relevant conceptual knowledge available. This paper examines recent methods that have been proposed to embed knowledge bases in description logic into vector spaces through the lens of their geometric-based semantics. We identify several relevant theoretical properties, which we draw from the literature and sometimes generalize or unify. We then investigate how concrete embedding methods fit in this theoretical framework.

This paper revisits the problem of repairing and querying inconsistent databases equipped with universal constraints. We adopt symmetric difference repairs, in which both deletions and additions of facts can be used to restore consistency, and suppose that preferred repair actions are specified via a binary priority relation over (negated) facts. Our first contribution is to show how existing notions of optimal repairs, defined for simpler denial constraints and repairs solely based on fact deletion, can be suitably extended to our richer setting. We next study the computational properties of the resulting repair notions, in particular, the data complexity of repair checking and inconsistency-tolerant query answering. Finally, we clarify the relationship between optimal repairs of prioritized databases and repair notions introduced in the framework of active integrity constraints. In particular, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs in our setting correspond to founded, grounded and justified repairs w.r.t. the active integrity constraints obtained by translating the prioritized database. Our study also yields useful insights into the behavior of active integrity constraints.

Existential rules are a very popular ontology-mediated query language for which the chase represents a generic computational approach for query answering. It is straightforward that existential rule queries exhibiting chase termination are decidable and can only recognize properties that are preserved under homomorphisms. This paper is an extended abstract of our eponymous publication at KR 2021 where we show the converse: every decidable query that is closed under homomorphism can be expressed by an existential rule set for which the standard chase universally terminates. Membership in this fragment is not decidable, but we show via a diagonalisation argument that this is unavoidable.

Existential rules are a very popular ontology-mediated query language for which the chase represents a generic computational approach for query answering. It is straightforward that existential rule queries exhibiting chase termination are decidable and can only recognize properties that are preserved under homomorphisms. In this paper, we show the converse: every decidable query that is closed under homomorphism can be expressed by an existential rule set for which the standard chase universally terminates. Membership in this fragment is not decidable, but we show via a diagonalisation argument that this is unavoidable.

We address the problem of handling provenance information in ELHr ontologies. We consider a setting recently introduced for ontology-based data access, based on semirings and extending classical data provenance, in which ontology axioms are annotated with provenance tokens. A consequence inherits the provenance of the axioms involved in deriving it, yielding a provenance polynomial as an annotation. We analyse the semantics for the ELHr case and show that the presence of conjunctions poses various difficulties for handling provenance, some of which are mitigated by assuming multiplicative idempotency of the semiring. Under this assumption, we study three problems: ontology completion with provenance, computing the set of relevant axioms for a consequence, and query answering.

In this paper, we explore the issue of inconsistency handling over prioritized knowledge bases (KBs), which consist of an ontology, a set of facts, and a priority relation between conflicting facts. In the database setting, a closely related scenario has been studied and led to the definition of three different notions of optimal repairs (global, Pareto, and completion) of a prioritized inconsistent database. After transferring the notions of globally-, Pareto- and completion-optimal repairs to our setting, we study the data complexity of the core reasoning tasks: query entailment under inconsistency-tolerant semantics based upon optimal repairs, existence of a unique optimal repair, and enumeration of all optimal repairs. Our results provide a nearly complete picture of the data complexity of these tasks for ontologies formulated in common DL-Lite dialects. The second contribution of our work is to clarify the relationship between optimal repairs and different notions of extensions for (set-based) argumentation frameworks. Among our results, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs correspond precisely to stable extensions (and often also to preferred extensions), and we propose a novel semantics for prioritized KBs which is inspired by grounded extensions and enjoys favourable computational properties. Our study also yields some results of independent interest concerning preference-based argumentation frameworks.

Attributed description logic is a recently proposed formalism, targeted for graph-based representation formats, which enriches description logic concepts and roles with finite sets of attribute-value pairs, called annotations. One of the most important uses of annotations is to record provenance information. In this work, we first investigate the complexity of satisfiability and query answering for attributed DL-LiteR ontologies. We then propose a new semantics, based on provenance semirings, for integrating provenance information with query answering. Finally, we establish complexity results for satisfiability and query answering under this semantics.

The curation of a knowledge base is a crucial but costly task. In this work, we propose to take advantage of the edit history of the knowledge base in order to learn how to correct constraint violations. Our method is based on rule mining, and uses the edits that solved some violations in the past to infer how to solve similar violations in the present. The experimental evaluation of our method on Wikidata shows significant improvements over baselines.

Several inconsistency-tolerant semantics have been introduced for querying inconsistent description logic knowledge bases. The first contribution of this paper is a practical approach for computing the query answers under three well-known such semantics, namely the AR, IAR and brave semantics, in the lightweight description logic DL-LiteR. We show that query answering under the intractable AR semantics can be performed efficiently by using IAR and brave semantics as tractable approximations and encoding the AR entailment problem as a propositional satisfiability (SAT) problem. The second issue tackled in this work is explaining why a tuple is a (non-)answer to a query under these semantics. We define explanations for positive and negative answers under the brave, AR and IAR semantics. We then study the computational properties of explanations in DL-LiteR. For each type of explanation, we analyze the data complexity of recognizing (preferred) explanations and deciding if a given assertion is relevant or necessary. We establish tight connections between intractable explanation problems and variants of SAT, enabling us to generate explanations by exploiting solvers for Boolean satisfaction and optimization problems. Finally, we empirically study the efficiency of our query answering and explanation framework using a benchmark we built upon the well-established LUBM benchmark.

Several inconsistency-tolerant semantics have been introduced for querying inconsistent description logic knowledge bases. This paper addresses the problem of explaining why a tuple is a (non-)answer to a query under such semantics. We define explanations for positive and negative answers under the brave, AR and IAR semantics. We then study the computational properties of explanations in the lightweight description logic DL-Lite_R. For each type of explanation, we analyze the data complexity of recognizing (preferred) explanations and deciding if a given assertion is relevant or necessary. We establish tight connections between intractable explanation problems and variants of propositional satisfiability (SAT), enabling us to generate explanations by exploiting solvers for Boolean satisfaction and optimization problems. Finally, we empirically study the efficiency of our explanation framework using the well-established LUBM benchmark.

Recently several inconsistency-tolerant semantics have been introduced for querying inconsistent description logic knowledge bases. Most of these semantics rely on the notion of a repair, defined as an inclusion-maximal subset of the facts (ABox) which is consistent with the ontology (TBox). In this paper, we study variants of two popular inconsistency-tolerant semantics obtained by replacing classical repairs by various types of preferred repair. We analyze the complexity of query answering under the resulting semantics, focusing on the lightweight logic DL-Lite_R. Unsurprisingly, query answering is intractable in all cases, but we nonetheless identify one notion of preferred repair, based upon priority levels, whose data complexity is "only" coNP-complete. This leads us to propose an approach combining incomplete tractable methods with calls to a SAT solver. An experimental evaluation of the approach shows good scalability on realistic cases.