5 Search Results for "Molinaro, Cristian"

Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2026.21
First-Order Rewritability of Rule-Based Ontology Mediated Queries with Negation

Authors: Georg Gottlob, Marco Manna, Andreas Pieris, and Aldo Ricioppo

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 365, 29th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2026)

Abstract
The idea of using an ontology to enrich user queries with domain knowledge has attracted considerable attention from the database and KR communities during the last fifteen years or so. The ontology and the user query can be conveniently seen as two components of one composite query, called ontology-mediated query (omq), while an omq language (OL,QL) collects all such omqs where the ontology is expressed using the ontology language OL and the user query comes from the query language QL. The evaluation problem for rule-based omq languages of the form (OL,CQ), where OL is a rule-based ontology language, i.e., it collects ontologies modelled using tuple-generating dependencies (a.k.a. existential rules), and CQ is the language of conjunctive queries, has been extensively studied in the literature. In particular, the notion of first-order rewritability of such languages, i.e., the property of being able to rewrite every omq from the language in question to an equivalent first-order query, has been studied in depth. This research effort led an algorithmic characterization of when a rule-based omq language (OL,CQ) is first-order rewritable. More precisely, there is a uniform algorithm Rewrite such that, for every rule-based ontology language OL, the omq language (OL,CQ) is first-order rewritable iff for every omq O from (OL,CQ), the algorithm Rewrite on input O terminates and constructs a first-order rewriting of O. The question that we are interested in is whether the above algorithmic characterization can be extended to rule-based omq languages of the form (OL,nCQ), where nCQ is the language of conjunctive queries with the useful feature of negation. The goal of this work is to initiate effort towards the settlement of the above highly non-trivial question. To this end, we provide a new algorithm, which is a non-trivial extension of the algorithm Rewrite for positive omqs, and show the following: under the Skolem semantics, a well-established approach for defining the answer to a rule-based omq when the user query can use negation, the proposed algorithm is a first-order rewriter for (OL,nCQ), where OL is the language of linear or acyclic tuple-generating dependencies, two central rule-based ontology languages that ensure first-order rewritability for positive omqs. We strongly believe that the new algorithm can serve as a good starting point towards the full settlement of our main question.
Cite as

Georg Gottlob, Marco Manna, Andreas Pieris, and Aldo Ricioppo. First-Order Rewritability of Rule-Based Ontology Mediated Queries with Negation. In 29th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2026). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 365, pp. 21:1-21:20, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2026)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{gottlob_et_al:LIPIcs.ICDT.2026.21,
  author =	{Gottlob, Georg and Manna, Marco and Pieris, Andreas and Ricioppo, Aldo},
  title =	{{First-Order Rewritability of Rule-Based Ontology Mediated Queries with Negation}},
  booktitle =	{29th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2026)},
  pages =	{21:1--21:20},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-413-0},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2026},
  volume =	{365},
  editor =	{ten Cate, Balder and Funk, Maurice},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2026.21},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-256353},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2026.21},
  annote =	{Keywords: ontology-mediated queries, tuple-generating dependencies, conjunctive queries with negation, first-order rewritability}
}
Document
Research
DOI: 10.4230/TGDK.3.3.1
A Logic Programming Approach to Repairing SHACL Constraint Violations

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

Published in: TGDK, Volume 3, Issue 3 (2025). Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge, Volume 3, Issue 3

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

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)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@Article{ahmetaj_et_al:TGDK.3.3.1,
  author =	{Ahmetaj, Shqiponja and David, Robert and Polleres, Axel and \v{S}imkus, Mantas},
  title =	{{A Logic Programming Approach to Repairing SHACL Constraint Violations}},
  journal =	{Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge},
  pages =	{1:1--1:36},
  ISSN =	{2942-7517},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{3},
  number =	{3},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/TGDK.3.3.1},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-252124},
  doi =		{10.4230/TGDK.3.3.1},
  annote =	{Keywords: SHACL, Shapes Constraint Language, Database Repairs, Knowledge Graphs, Semantic Web, Answer Set Programming}
}
Document
Invited Paper
DOI: 10.4230/OASIcs.RW.2024/2025.5
Inconsistency-Tolerant Semantics Based on (Preferred) Repairs (Invited Paper)

Authors: Camille Bourgaux

Published in: OASIcs, Volume 138, Joint Proceedings of the 20th and 21st Reasoning Web Summer Schools (RW 2024 & RW 2025)

Abstract
Real-world datasets are plagued by data quality issues which may render the data inconsistent w.r.t. a set of constraints, be they given by database integrity constraints or ontologies. A prominent way to handle such inconsistent data is to use inconsistency-tolerant semantics to obtain meaningful answers to queries. Most of these semantics are based on some notion of repairs, which represent ways of restoring the data consistency. The most basic kind of repairs is that of subset repairs, which are maximal consistent subsets of the dataset. However, in many scenarios, one can define preferred repairs based on some preference information. These lecture notes present inconsistency-tolerant semantics, focusing on the repair-based ones, then review different kinds of preferred repairs that have been considered in the literature. We present in particular the relationships between different kinds of preferred repairs and other notions related to inconsistency handling, the computational complexity of reasoning with (preferred) repairs, and some implementations.
Cite as

Camille Bourgaux. Inconsistency-Tolerant Semantics Based on (Preferred) Repairs (Invited Paper). In Joint Proceedings of the 20th and 21st Reasoning Web Summer Schools (RW 2024 & RW 2025). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 138, pp. 5:1-5:67, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{bourgaux:OASIcs.RW.2024/2025.5,
  author =	{Bourgaux, Camille},
  title =	{{Inconsistency-Tolerant Semantics Based on (Preferred) Repairs}},
  booktitle =	{Joint Proceedings of the 20th and 21st Reasoning Web Summer Schools (RW 2024 \& RW 2025)},
  pages =	{5:1--5:67},
  series =	{Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-405-5},
  ISSN =	{2190-6807},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{138},
  editor =	{Artale, Alessandro and Bienvenu, Meghyn and Garc{\'\i}a, Yazm{\'\i}n Ib\'{a}\~{n}ez and Murlak, Filip},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/OASIcs.RW.2024/2025.5},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-250504},
  doi =		{10.4230/OASIcs.RW.2024/2025.5},
  annote =	{Keywords: Knowledge bases, databases, inconsistency handling, repairs, preferences}
}
Document
Invited Paper
DOI: 10.4230/OASIcs.RW.2024/2025.6
Explaining Reasoning Results for Description Logic Ontologies (Invited Paper)

Authors: Patrick Koopmann

Published in: OASIcs, Volume 138, Joint Proceedings of the 20th and 21st Reasoning Web Summer Schools (RW 2024 & RW 2025)

Abstract
The Web Ontology Language (OWL), grounded in description logics, enables reasoning systems to infer implicit knowledge in a transparent manner. However, the expressivity of description logics and the complexity of large ontologies often results in reasoning outcomes that are hard to understand without additional tool support. Explanations of these outcomes are essential for users to understand ontology content, communicate its structure and behavior effectively, and debug undesired or missing inferences. This chapter provides an overview of the central explanation techniques that have been developed for explaining reasoning with description logic ontologies. Here, we consider both explanations for positive entailments (explaining why something can be deduced), as well as negative entailments (why something cannot be deduced). More specifically, we discuss justifications, proofs and interpolation as a means to explain positive entailments, and abduction for explaining negative entailments, where we also have a closer look at practical algorithms as well as practical and theoretical challenges.
Cite as

Patrick Koopmann. Explaining Reasoning Results for Description Logic Ontologies (Invited Paper). In Joint Proceedings of the 20th and 21st Reasoning Web Summer Schools (RW 2024 & RW 2025). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 138, pp. 6:1-6:29, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{koopmann:OASIcs.RW.2024/2025.6,
  author =	{Koopmann, Patrick},
  title =	{{Explaining Reasoning Results for Description Logic Ontologies}},
  booktitle =	{Joint Proceedings of the 20th and 21st Reasoning Web Summer Schools (RW 2024 \& RW 2025)},
  pages =	{6:1--6:29},
  series =	{Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-405-5},
  ISSN =	{2190-6807},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{138},
  editor =	{Artale, Alessandro and Bienvenu, Meghyn and Garc{\'\i}a, Yazm{\'\i}n Ib\'{a}\~{n}ez and Murlak, Filip},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/OASIcs.RW.2024/2025.6},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-250514},
  doi =		{10.4230/OASIcs.RW.2024/2025.6},
  annote =	{Keywords: Explanations, Justifications, Proofs, Craig Interpolation, Contrastive Explanations}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ICLP.2011.240
Abduction in Annotated Probabilistic Temporal Logic

Authors: Cristian Molinaro, Amy Sliva, and V. S. Subrahmanian

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 11, Technical Communications of the 27th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'11) (2011)

Abstract
Annotated Probabilistic Temporal (APT) logic programs are a form of logic programs that allow users to state (or systems to automatically learn)rules of the form ``formula G becomes true K time units after formula F became true with L to U% probability.'' In this paper, we develop a theory of abduction for APT logic programs. Specifically, given an APT logic program Pi, a set of formulas H that can be ``added'' to Pi, and a goal G, is there a subset S of H such that Pi \cup S is consistent and entails the goal G? In this paper, we study the complexity of the Basic APT Abduction Problem (BAAP). We then leverage a geometric characterization of BAAP to suggest a set of pruning strategies when solving BAAP and use these intuitions to develop a sound and complete algorithm.
Cite as

Cristian Molinaro, Amy Sliva, and V. S. Subrahmanian. Abduction in Annotated Probabilistic Temporal Logic. In Technical Communications of the 27th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'11). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 11, pp. 240-250, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2011)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{molinaro_et_al:LIPIcs.ICLP.2011.240,
  author =	{Molinaro, Cristian and Sliva, Amy and Subrahmanian, V. S.},
  title =	{{Abduction in Annotated Probabilistic Temporal Logic}},
  booktitle =	{Technical Communications of the 27th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'11)},
  pages =	{240--250},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-939897-31-6},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2011},
  volume =	{11},
  editor =	{Gallagher, John P. and Gelfond, Michael},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICLP.2011.240},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-31697},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ICLP.2011.240},
  annote =	{Keywords: Probabilistic Reasoning, Imprecise Probabilities, Temporal Reasoning, Abductive Reasoning}
}
  • Refine by Type
  • 5 Document/PDF
  • 4 Document/HTML

  • Refine by Publication Year
  • 1 2026
  • 3 2025
  • 1 2011

  • Refine by Author
  • 1 Ahmetaj, Shqiponja
  • 1 Bourgaux, Camille
  • 1 David, Robert
  • 1 Gottlob, Georg
  • 1 Koopmann, Patrick
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Series/Journal
  • 2 LIPIcs
  • 2 OASIcs
  • 1 TGDK

  • Refine by Classification
  • 2 Computing methodologies → Description logics
  • 1 Computing methodologies → Logic programming and answer set programming
  • 1 Computing methodologies → Nonmonotonic, default reasoning and belief revision
  • 1 Computing methodologies → Reasoning about belief and knowledge
  • 1 Information systems → Data cleaning
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Keyword
  • 1 Abductive Reasoning
  • 1 Answer Set Programming
  • 1 Contrastive Explanations
  • 1 Craig Interpolation
  • 1 Database Repairs
  • Show More...

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
© 2023-2026 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact