Research on knowledge graph embeddings has recently evolved into knowledge base embeddings, where the goal is not only to map facts into vector spaces but also constrain the models so that they take into account the relevant conceptual knowledge available. This paper examines recent methods that have been proposed to embed knowledge bases in description logic into vector spaces through the lens of their geometric-based semantics. We identify several relevant theoretical properties, which we draw from the literature and sometimes generalize or unify. We then investigate how concrete embedding methods fit in this theoretical framework.

We investigate semiring provenance--a successful framework originally defined in the relational database setting--for description logics. In this context, the ontology axioms are annotated with elements of a commutative semiring and these annotations are propagated to the ontology consequences in a way that reflects how they are derived. We define a provenance semantics for a language that encompasses several lightweight description logics and show its relationships with semantics that have been defined for ontologies annotated with a specific kind of annotation (such as fuzzy degrees). We show that under some restrictions on the semiring, the semantics satisfies desirable properties (such as extending the semiring provenance defined for databases). We then focus on the well-known why-provenance, which allows to compute the semiring provenance for every additively and multiplicatively idempotent commutative semiring, and for which we study the complexity of problems related to the provenance of an axiom or a conjunctive query answer. Finally, we consider two more restricted cases which correspond to the so-called positive Boolean provenance and lineage in the database setting. For these cases, we exhibit relationships with well-known notions related to explanations in description logics and complete our complexity analysis. As a side contribution, we provide conditions on an ELHI_bot ontology that guarantee tractable reasoning.

This paper revisits the problem of repairing and querying inconsistent databases equipped with universal constraints. We adopt symmetric difference repairs, in which both deletions and additions of facts can be used to restore consistency, and suppose that preferred repair actions are specified via a binary priority relation over (negated) facts. Our first contribution is to show how existing notions of optimal repairs, defined for simpler denial constraints and repairs solely based on fact deletion, can be suitably extended to our richer setting. We next study the computational properties of the resulting repair notions, in particular, the data complexity of repair checking and inconsistency-tolerant query answering. Finally, we clarify the relationship between optimal repairs of prioritized databases and repair notions introduced in the framework of active integrity constraints. In particular, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs in our setting correspond to founded, grounded and justified repairs w.r.t. the active integrity constraints obtained by translating the prioritized database. Our study also yields useful insights into the behavior of active integrity constraints.

We investigate practical algorithms for inconsistency-tolerant query answering over prioritized knowledge bases, which consist of a logical theory, a set of facts, and a priority relation between conflicting facts. We consider three well-known semantics (AR, IAR and brave) based upon two notions of optimal repairs (Pareto and completion). Deciding whether a query answer holds under these semantics is (co)NP-complete in data complexity for a large class of logical theories, and SAT-based procedures have been devised for repair-based semantics when there is no priority relation, or the relation has a special structure. The present paper introduces the first SAT encodings for Pareto- and completion-optimal repairs w.r.t. general priority relations and proposes several ways of employing existing and new encodings to compute answers under (optimal) repair-based semantics, by exploiting different reasoning modes of SAT solvers. The comprehensive experimental evaluation of our implementation compares both (i) the impact of adopting semantics based on different kinds of repairs, and (ii) the relative performances of alternative procedures for the same semantics.

In the search for knowledge graph embeddings that could capture ontological knowledge, geometric models of existential rules have been recently introduced. It has been shown that convex geometric regions capture the so-called quasi-chained rules. Attributed description logics (DL) have been defined to bridge the gap between DL languages and knowledge graphs, whose facts often come with various kinds of annotations that may need to be taken into account for reasoning. In particular, temporally attributed DLs are enriched by specific attributes whose semantics allows for some temporal reasoning. Considering that geometric models and (temporally) attributed DLs are promising tools designed for knowledge graphs, this paper investigates their compatibility, focusing on the attributed version of a Horn dialect of the DL-Lite family. We first adapt the definition of geometric models to attributed DLs and show that every satisfiable ontology has a convex geometric model. Our second contribution is a study of the impact of temporal attributes. We show that a temporally attributed DL may not have a convex geometric model in general but we can recover geometric satisfiability by imposing some restrictions on the use of the temporal attributes.

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.

The problem The need to equip reasoning systems with explanation services of querying such KBs using database-style queries (in is widely acknowledged by the DL community (see particular, conjunctive queries) has been a major focus of Section 6 for discussion and references), and such facilities recent DL research. Since scalability is a key concern, much are all the more essential when using inconsistency-tolerant of the work has focused on lightweight DLs for which query semantics, as recently argued in (Arioua et al. 2014). Indeed, answering can be performed in polynomial time w.r.t. the the brave, AR, and IAR semantics allow one to classify size of the ABox. The DL-Lite family of lightweight DLs query answers into three categories of increasing reliability, (Calvanese et al. 2007) is especially popular due to the fact and a user may naturally wonder why a given tuple was assigned that query answering can be reduced, via query rewriting, to to, or excluded from, one of these categories.

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.