Inconsistency-tolerant query answering for existential rules

Querying inconsistent knowledge bases is an intriguing problem that gave rise to a flourishing research activity in the knowledge representation and reasoning community during the last years. It has been extensively studied in the context of description logics (DLs), and its computational complexity...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inArtificial intelligence Vol. 307; p. 103685
Main Authors Lukasiewicz, Thomas, Malizia, Enrico, Martinez, Maria Vanina, Molinaro, Cristian, Pieris, Andreas, Simari, Gerardo I.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 01.06.2022
Elsevier Science Ltd
Subjects
Complexity
Computational complexity
Conjunctive queries
Inconsistency
Intersections
Knowledge bases (artificial intelligence)
Knowledge representation
Ontology
Query answering
Relational data bases
Rule-based ontologies
Semantics
Query answering
Inconsistency
Semantics
Computational complexity
Rule-based ontologies
Conjunctive queries
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Querying inconsistent knowledge bases is an intriguing problem that gave rise to a flourishing research activity in the knowledge representation and reasoning community during the last years. It has been extensively studied in the context of description logics (DLs), and its computational complexity is rather well-understood. Although DLs are popular formalisms for modeling ontologies, it is generally agreed that rule-based ontologies are well-suited for data-intensive applications, since they allow us to conveniently deal with higher-arity relations, which naturally occur in standard relational databases. The goal of this work is to perform an in-depth complexity analysis of querying inconsistent knowledge bases in the case of the main decidable classes of existential rules, based on the notions of guardedness, linearity, acyclicity, and stickiness, enriched with negative (a.k.a. denial) constraints. Our investigation concentrates on three central inconsistency-tolerant semantics: the ABox repair (AR) semantics, considered as the standard one, and its main sound approximations, the intersection of repairs (IAR) semantics and the intersection of closed repairs (ICR) semantics.
ISSN:0004-3702
1872-7921
DOI:10.1016/j.artint.2022.103685