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.

Abstract. An important issue that arises when querying description logic (DL) knowledge bases is how to handle the case in which the knowledge base is inconsistent. Indeed, while it may be reasonable to assume that the TBox (ontology) has been properly debugged, the ABox (data) will typically be very large and subject to frequent modifications, both of which make errors likely. As standard DL semantics is useless in such circumstances (everything is entailed from a contradiction), several alternative inconsistency-tolerant semantics have been proposed with the aim of providing meaningful answers to queries in the presence of such data inconsistencies. In the first part of this chapter, we present and compare these inconsistency-tolerant semantics, which can be applied to any DL (or ontology language). The second half of the chapter summarizes what is known about the computational properties of these semantics and gives an overview of the main algorithmic techniques and existing systems, focusing on DLs of the DL-Lite family.

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.

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.

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.

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 inconsistencytolerant 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.

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.