Document Open Access Logo

A Logic Programming Approach to Repairing SHACL Constraint Violations

Authors Shqiponja Ahmetaj , Robert David , Axel Polleres , Mantas Šimkus

PDF

File

Thumbnail PDF
PDF
TGDK.3.3.1.pdf
  • Filesize: 1 MB
  • 36 pages

Document Identifiers

Related Versions

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Constraint and logic programming
  • Computing methodologies → Logic programming and answer set programming
Keywords
  • SHACL
  • Shapes Constraint Language
  • Database Repairs
  • Knowledge Graphs
  • Semantic Web
  • Answer Set Programming

Metrics

Abstract

The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) is a recent standard, a W3C recommendation, for validating RDF graphs against shape constraints to be checked on target nodes of a data graph. The standard also describes the notion of validation reports, which detail the results of the validation process. In case of violation of constraints, the validation report should explain the reasons for non-validation, offering guidance on how to identify or fix violations in the data graph. Since the specification left it open to SHACL processors to define such explanations, a recent work proposed the use of explanations in the style of database repairs, where a repair is a set of additions to or deletions from the data graph so that the resulting graph validates against the constraints. In this paper, we study such repairs for non-recursive SHACL, the largest fragment of SHACL that is fully defined in the specification. We propose an algorithm to compute repairs by encoding the explanation problem - using Answer Set Programming (ASP) - into a logic program, where the answer sets contain (minimal) repairs. We then study a scenario where it is not possible to simultaneously repair all the targets, which may be the case due to overall unsatisfiability or conflicting constraints. We introduce a relaxed notion of validation, which allows to validate a (maximal) subset of the targets and adapt the ASP translation to take into account this relaxation. Finally, we add support for repairing constraints which use property paths and equality of paths. Our implementation in clingo is - to the best of our knowledge - the first implementation of a repair program for SHACL.

Cite As Get BibTex

Shqiponja Ahmetaj, Robert David, Axel Polleres, and Mantas Šimkus. A Logic Programming Approach to Repairing SHACL Constraint Violations. In Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge (TGDK), Volume 3, Issue 3, pp. 1:1-1:36, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025) https://doi.org/10.4230/TGDK.3.3.1

Author Details

Shqiponja Ahmetaj
  • TU Wien, Austria
  • Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
Robert David
  • Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
  • Semantic Web Company GmbH, Vienna, Austria
Axel Polleres
  • Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
  • Complexity Science Hub, Vienna, Austria
Mantas Šimkus
  • TU Wien, Austria
  • Umeå University, Sweden

Funding

This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Cluster of Excellence "BILAI" [10.55776/COE12]. Ahmetaj was also supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) projects netidee SCIENCE [T1349-N] and the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) [10.47379/ICT2201].

Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Shqiponja Ahmetaj, Iovka Boneva, Jan Hidders, Katja Hose, Maxime Jakubowski, José Emilio Labra Gayo, Wim Martens, F. Mogavero, Filip Murlak, Cem Okulmus, Axel Polleres, Ognjen Savkovic, Mantas Simkus, and Dominik Tomaszuk. Common foundations for shacl, shex, and pg-schema. The Web Conference (WWW), 2025. To appear. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.01295.
  2. Shqiponja Ahmetaj, Diego Calvanese, Magdalena Ortiz, and Mantas Šimkus. Managing change in graph-structured data using description logics. In AAAI-14. AAAI Press, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1404.4274.
  3. Shqiponja Ahmetaj, Robert David, Magdalena Ortiz, Axel Polleres, Bojken Shehu, and Mantas Simkus. Reasoning about explanations for non-validation in SHACL. In Meghyn Bienvenu, Gerhard Lakemeyer, and Esra Erdem, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2021, Online event, November 3-12, 2021, pages 12-21, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2021/2.
  4. Shqiponja Ahmetaj, Robert David, Axel Polleres, and Mantas Simkus. Repairing SHACL constraint violations using answer set programming. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2022 - 21st International Semantic Web Conference, Virtual Event, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, volume 13489 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 375-391. Springer, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19433-7_22.
  5. Shqiponja Ahmetaj, Timo Camillo Merkl, and Reinhard Pichler. Consistent query answering over SHACL constraints. In Pierre Marquis, Magdalena Ortiz, and Maurice Pagnucco, editors, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2024, Hanoi, Vietnam. November 2-8, 2024, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/KR.2024/1.
  6. Medina Andresel, Julien Corman, Magdalena Ortiz, Juan L. Reutter, Ognjen Savkovic, and Mantas Šimkus. Stable model semantics for recursive SHACL. In Proc. of The Web Conference 2020, WWW '20, pages 1570-1580. ACM, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380229.
  7. Marcelo Arenas, Leopoldo E. Bertossi, and Jan Chomicki. Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In Proc. of PODS, pages 68-79. ACM Press, 1999. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/303976.303983.
  8. Franz Baader. Optimal Repairs in Ontology Engineering as Pseudo-Contractions in Belief Change. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC '23, pages 983-990, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3555776.3577719.
  9. Franz Baader. Relating Optimal Repairs in Ontology Engineering with Contraction Operations in Belief Change. SIGAPP Appl. Comput. Rev., 23(3):5-18, September 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626307.3626308.
  10. Franz Baader, Patrick Koopmann, Francesco Kriegel, and Adrian Nuradiansyah. Computing Optimal Repairs of Quantified ABoxes w.r.t. Static EL TBoxes. In Automated Deduction – CADE 28: 28th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Virtual Event, July 12–15, 2021, Proceedings, pages 309-326, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2021. Springer-Verlag. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79876-5_18.
  11. Franz Baader, Patrick Koopmann, Francesco Kriegel, and Adrian Nuradiansyah. Optimal ABox Repair w.r.t. Static EL TBoxes: From Quantified ABoxes Back To ABoxes. In The Semantic Web: 19th International Conference, ESWC 2022, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece, May 29 – June 2, 2022, Proceedings, pages 130-146, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022. Springer-Verlag. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06981-9_8.
  12. Franz Baader and Francesco Kriegel. Pushing Optimal ABox Repair from EL Towards More Expressive Horn-DLs. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 22-32, August 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2022/3.
  13. Franz Baader and Renata Wassermann. Contractions Based on Optimal Repairs. LTCS-Report 24-03, 2024. Google Scholar
  14. Leopoldo E. Bertossi. Database Repairing and Consistent Query Answering. Synthesis Lectures on Data Management. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.2200/S00379ED1V01Y201108DTM020.
  15. Meghyn Bienvenu, Camille Bourgaux, and François Goasdoué. Querying inconsistent description logic knowledge bases under preferred repair semantics. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8855.
  16. Meghyn Bienvenu, Camille Bourgaux, and François Goasdoué. Explaining inconsistency-tolerant query answering over description logic knowledge bases. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10092.
  17. Meghyn Bienvenu and Riccardo Rosati. Tractable approximations of consistent query answering for robust ontology-based data access. In Francesca Rossi, editor, IJCAI. IJCAI/AAAI, 2013. URL: http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI13/paper/view/6904.
  18. Diego Calvanese, Davide Lanti, Ana Ozaki, Rafael Peñaloza, and Guohui Xiao. Enriching ontology-based data access with provenance. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2019). AAAI Press, 2019. Google Scholar
  19. Diego Calvanese, Magdalena Ortiz, and Mantas Šimkus. Verification of Evolving Graph-structured Data under Expressive Path Constraints. In ICDT, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2016.15.
  20. Diego Calvanese, Magdalena Ortiz, Mantas Simkus, and Giorgio Stefanoni. Reasoning about explanations for negative query answers in DL-Lite. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 48:635-669, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.3870.
  21. İsmail İlkan Ceylan, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Enrico Malizia, Cristian Molinaro, and Andrius Vaicenavicius. Explanations for negative query answers under existential rules. In Proc. of KR 2020, pages 223-232, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2020/23.
  22. Julien Corman, Juan L. Reutter, and Ognjen Savkovic. Semantics and validation of recursive SHACL. In Proc. of ISWC'18. Springer, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00671-6_19.
  23. Robert David. SHACL Repair Program Implementation. Software, version 1.2.1., (visited on 2025-12-08). URL: https://github.com/robert-david/shacl-repairs
    Software Heritage Logo archived version
    full metadata available at: https://doi.org/10.4230/artifacts.25261
  24. Robert David, Albin Ahmeti, Shqiponja Ahmetaj, and Axel Polleres. OWLstrict: A Constrained OWL Fragment to avoid Ambiguities for Knowledge Graph Practitioners. In The Semantic Web: 22nd European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2025, Portoroz, Slovenia, June 1–5, 2025, Proceedings, Part II, pages 47-64, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2025. Springer-Verlag. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94578-6_3.
  25. Thomas Eiter, Giovambattista Ianni, and Thomas Krennwallner. Answer set programming: A primer. In Sergio Tessaris, Enrico Franconi, Thomas Eiter, Claudio Gutiérrez, Siegfried Handschuh, Marie-Christine Rousset, and Renate A. Schmidt, editors, Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for Information Systems, volume 5689 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 40-110. Springer, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03754-2_2.
  26. Nicolas Ferranti, Axel Polleres, Jairo Francisco de Souza, and Shqiponja Ahmetaj. Formalizing property constraints in wikidata. In Wikidata@ ISWC, 2022. Google Scholar
  27. Mikhail Galkin, Sören Auer, Maria-Esther Vidal, and Simon Scerri. Enterprise knowledge graphs: A semantic approach for knowledge management in the next generation of enterprise information systems. In ICEIS (2), pages 88-98, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.5220/0006325200880098.
  28. José Emilio Labra Gayo, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Iovka Boneva, and Dimitris Kontokostas. Validating RDF Data. Synthesis Lectures on the Semantic Web: Theory and Technology. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.2200/S00786ED1V01Y201707WBE016.
  29. Maertin Gebser, Roland Kaminski, Benjamin Kaufmann, and Torsten Schaub. Multi-shot asp solving with clingo. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 19(1):27-82, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068418000054.
  30. Aidan Hogan, Eva Blomqvist, Michael Cochez, Claudia d'Amato, Gerard de Melo, Claudio Gutiérrez, Sabrina Kirrane, José Emilio Labra Gayo, Roberto Navigli, Sebastian Neumaier, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, Axel Polleres, Sabbir M. Rashid, Anisa Rula, Lukas Schmelzeisen, Juan Sequeda, Steffen Staab, and Antoine Zimmermann. Knowledge Graphs. Synthesis Lectures on Data, Semantics, and Knowledge. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.2200/S01125ED1V01Y202109DSK022.
  31. Aditya Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, Matthew Horridge, and Evren Sirin. Finding all justifications of OWL DL entailments. In The Semantic Web: 6th International Semantic Web Conference, 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2007+ ASWC 2007, Busan, Korea, November 11-15, 2007. Proceedings, pages 267-280. Springer, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_20.
  32. Holger Knublauch and Dimitris Kontokostas. Shapes constraint language (SHACL). Technical report, W3C, July 2017. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/.
  33. Domenico Lembo, Maurizio Lenzerini, Riccardo Rosati, Marco Ruzzi, and Domenico Fabio Savo. Inconsistency-tolerant semantics for description logics. In RR, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15918-3_9.
  34. Ying Li and Patrick Lambrix. Repairing EL ontologies using weakening and completing. In European Semantic Web Conference, pages 298-315. Springer, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33455-9_18.
  35. Mónica Caniupán Marileo and Leopoldo E. Bertossi. The consistency extractor system: Answer set programs for consistent query answering in databases. Data Knowl. Eng., 69:545-572, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2010.01.005.
  36. A. Ozaki and Rafael Peñaloza. Provenance in ontology-based data access. Description Logics, 2018. URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53179150.
  37. Rafael Peñaloza. Axiom pinpointing. In Applications and Practices in Ontology Design, Extraction, and Reasoning, pages 162-177. IOS Press, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/SSW200042.
  38. Slawek Staworko, Jan Chomicki, and Jerzy Marcinkowski. Prioritized repairing and consistent query answering in relational databases. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 64(2-3):209-246, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-012-9288-8.
  39. Denny Vrandečić and Markus Krötzsch. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Communications of the ACM, 57(10):78-85, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2629489.
Any Issues?
X

Feedback on the Current Page

CAPTCHA

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted to Dagstuhl Publishing

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2025 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact