Entity resolution (ER) is an important and common problem in data cleaning. It is about identifying and merging records in a database that represent the same real-world entity. Recently, matching dependencies (MDs) have been introduced and investigated as declarative rules that specify ER. An ER process induced by MDs over a dirty instance leads to multiple clean instances, in general. In this work, we present disjunctive answer set programs (with stable model semantics) that capture through their models the class of alternative clean instances obtained after an ER process based on MDs. With these programs, we can obtain clean answers to queries, i.e. those that are invariant under the clean instances, by skeptically reasoning from the program. We investigate the ER programs in terms of expressive power for the ER task at hand. As an important special and practical case of ER, we provide a declarative reconstruction of the so-called union-case ER methodology, as presented through a generic approach to ER (the so-called Swoosh approach).

Many examples of epistemic reasoning in the literature exhibit a stratified structure: defaults are formulated on top of an incomplete knowledge base. These defaults derive extra information in case information is missing in the knowledge base. In autoepistemic logic, default logic and ASP this inherent stratification is not preserved as they may refer to their own knowledge or logical consequences. Defining the semantics of such logics requires a complex mathematical construction. As an alternative, this paper further develops ordered epistemic logic. This logic extends first order logic with a modal operator and stratification is maintained. This allows us to define an easy to understand semantics. Moreover, inference tasks have a lower complexity than in autoepistemic logic and the logic integrates seamlessly into classical logic and its extensions. In this paper we also propose a generalization of ordered epistemic logic, which we call distributed ordered epistemic logic. We argue that it can provide a semantic foundation for a number of distributed knowledge representation formalisms found in the literature.

In this paper we introduce an abstract theory of normative reasoning, whose central notion is the generation of obligations, permissions and institutional facts from conditional norms. We present various semantics and their proof systems. The theory can be used to classify and compare new candidates for standards of normative reasoning, and to explore more elaborate forms of normative reasoning than studied thus far.

Only-knowing was originally introduced by Levesque to capture the beliefs of an agent in the sense that its knowledge base is all the agent knows. When a knowledge base contains defaults Levesque also showed an exact correspondence between only-knowing and autoepistemic logic. Later these results were extended by Lakemeyer and Levesque to also capture a variant of autoepistemic logic proposed by Konolige and Reiter's default logic. One of the benefits of such an approach is that various nonmonotonic formalisms can be compared within a single monotonic logic leading, among other things, to the first axiom system for default logic. In this paper, we will bring another large class of nonmonotonic systems, which were first studied by McDermott and Doyle, into the only-knowing fold. Among other things, we will provide the first possible-world semantics for such systems, providing a new perspective on the nature of modal approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning.

Automatically deriving properties of new games is one of the fundamental challenges for general game-playing systems, whose task is to learn to play any previously unknown game solely by being given the rules of that game. A recently developed method uses Answer Set Programming for verifying finitely-bounded temporal invariance properties against a given game description by structural induction. Addressing the new challenge posed by the recent extension of the general Game Description Language to include games with imperfect information and randomness, we extend this method to epistemic properties about games. We formally prove this extension to be correct, and we report on experiments that show its practical applicability.

Standard models of multi-agent modal logic do not capture the fact that information is often ambiguous, and may be interpreted in different ways by different agents. We propose a framework that can model this, and consider different semantics that capture different assumptions about the agents' beliefs regarding whether or not there is ambiguity. We consider the impact of ambiguity on a seminal result in economics: Aumann's result saying that agents with a common prior cannot agree to disagree. This result is known not to hold if agents do not have acommon prior; we show that it also does not hold in the presence of ambiguity. We then consider the tradeoff between assuming a common interpretation (i.e., no ambiguity) and a common prior (i.e., shared initial beliefs).

We explore the paradigm of artifact-centric systems from a knowledge-based perspective. We provide a semantics based on interpreted-systems to interpret a first-order temporal- epistemic language with identity in a multi-agent setting. We consider the model checking problem for this language and provide abstraction results. We isolate a natural subclass of artifact-systems for which the model checking problem is decidable. We give an upper bound on the complexity of the model checking problem.

In ontology-based data access (OBDA), ontologies are used as an interface for querying instance data. Since in typical applications the size of the data is much larger than the size of the ontology and query, data complexity is the most important complexity measure. In this paper, we propose a new method for investigating data complexity in OBDA: instead of classifying whole logics according to their complexity, we aim at classifying each individual ontology within a given master language. Our results include a P/coNP-dichotomy theorem for ontologies of depth one in the description logic ALCFI, the equivalence of a P/coNP-dichotomy theorem for ALC/ALCI-ontologies of unrestricted depth to the famous dichotomy conjecture for CSPs by Feder and Vardi, and a non-P/coNP-dichotomy theorem for ALCF-ontologies.

We study (i) uniform interpolation for TBoxes that are formulated in the description logic EL and (ii) approximations of TBoxes formulated in more expressive languages. In both cases, we give model-theoretic characterizations based on simulations and cartesian products, and we develop algorithms that decide whether interpolants and approximations exist. We present a uniform approach to both problems, based on a novel amorphous automaton model called EL automata (EA). Using EAs, we also establish a simpler proof of the known result that conservative extensions of EL-TBoxes can be decided in ExpTime.

The key idea is that RDBMSs in practice appears to indicate only that answering data, 'stored in a standard relational database management real-world queries over real-world databases turns out to be system (RDBMS), can be queried through an OWL 2 QL tractable. As rewritings can turn a standard query to something ontology via a simple rewriting mechanism, i.e., by rewriting'out of this world,' a first rule of thumb could be as follows: the query into an SQL query that is then answered by the rewritten query should look similar to the original the RDBMS, without any changes to the data' (