We investigate the problem whether two ALC ontologies are indistinguishable (or inseparable) by means of queries in a given signature, which is fundamental for ontology engineering tasks such as ontology versioning, modularisation, update, and forgetting. We consider both knowledge base (KB) and TBox inseparability. For KBs, we give model-theoretic criteria in terms of (finite partial) homomorphisms and products and prove that this problem is undecidable for conjunctive queries (CQs), but 2ExpTime-complete for unions of CQs (UCQs). The same results hold if (U)CQs are replaced by rooted (U)CQs, where every variable is connected to an answer variable. We also show that inseparability by CQs is still undecidable if one KB is given in the lightweight DL EL and if no restrictions are imposed on the signature of the CQs. We also consider the problem whether two ALC TBoxes give the same answers to any query over any ABox in a given signature and show that, for CQs, this problem is undecidable, too. We then develop model-theoretic criteria for Horn-ALC TBoxes and show using tree automata that, in contrast, inseparability becomes decidable and 2ExpTime-complete, even ExpTime-complete when restricted to (unions of) rooted CQs.

The question whether an ontology can safely be replaced by another, possibly simpler, one is fundamental for many ontology engineering and maintenance tasks. It underpins, for example, ontology versioning, ontology modularization, forgetting, and knowledge exchange. What safe replacement means depends on the intended application of the ontology. If, for example, it is used to query data, then the answers to any relevant ontology-mediated query should be the same over any relevant data set; if, in contrast, the ontology is used for conceptual reasoning, then the entailed subsumptions between concept expressions should coincide. This gives rise to different notions of ontology inseparability such as query inseparability and concept inseparability, which generalize corresponding notions of conservative extensions. We survey results on various notions of inseparability in the context of description logic ontologies, discussing their applications, useful model-theoretic characterizations, algorithms for determining whether two ontologies are inseparable (and, sometimes, for computing the difference between them if they are not), and the computational complexity of this problem.

Module extraction is the task of computing a (preferably small) fragment M of an ontology T that preserves a class of entailments over a signature of interest S. Extracting modules of minimal size is well-known to be computationally hard, and often algorithmically infeasible, especially for highly expressive ontology languages. Thus, practical techniques typically rely on approximations, where M provably captures the relevant entailments, but is not guaranteed to be minimal. Existing approximations ensure that M preserves all second-order entailments of T w.r.t. S, which is a stronger condition than is required in many applications, and may lead to unnecessarily large modules in practice. In this paper we propose a novel approach in which module extraction is reduced to a reasoning problem in datalog. Our approach generalises existing approximations in an elegant way. More importantly, it allows extraction of modules that are tailored to preserve only specific kinds of entailments, and thus are often significantly smaller. Our evaluation on a wide range of ontologies confirms the feasibility and benefits of our approach in practice.

Deciding inseparability of description logic knowledge bases (KBs) with respect to conjunctive queries is fundamental for many KB engineering and maintenance tasks including versioning, module extraction, knowledge exchange and forgetting. We study the combined and data complexity of this inseparability problem for fragments of Horn-ALCHI, including the description logics underpinning OWL 2 QL and OWL 2 EL.

Module extraction — the task of computing a (preferably small) fragment M of an ontology T that preserves entailments over a signature S — has found many applications in recent years. Extracting modules of minimal size is, however, computationally hard, and often algorithmically infeasible. Thus, practical techniques are based on approximations, where M provably captures the relevant entailments, but is not guaranteed to be minimal. Existing approximations, however, ensure that M preserves all second-order entailments of T w.r.t. S, which is stronger than is required in many applications, and may lead to large modules in practice. In this paper we propose a novel approach in which module extraction is reduced to a reasoning problem in datalog. Our approach not only generalises existing approximations in an elegant way, but it can also be tailored to preserve only specific kinds of entailments, which allows us to extract significantly smaller modules. An evaluation on widely-used ontologies has shown very encouraging results.

In many tasks related to reasoning about consequences of a logical theory, it is desirable to decompose the theory into a number of components with weakly-related or independent signatures. This facilitates reasoning when signature of a query formula belongs to only one of the components. However, an initial theory may be subject to change due to execution of actions affecting features mentioned in the theory. Having once computed a decomposition of a theory, one would like to know whether a decomposition has to be computed again for the theory obtained from taking into account the changes resulting from execution of an action. In the paper, we address this problem in the scope of the situation calculus, where change of an initial theory is related to the well-studied notion of progression. Progression provides a form of forward reasoning; it relies on forgetting values of those features which are subject to change and computing new values for them. We prove new results about properties of decomposition components under forgetting and show when a decomposition can be preserved in progression of an initial theory.

We study a logic-based approach to versioning of ontologies. Under this view, ontologies provide answers to queries about some vocabulary of interest. The difference between two versions of an ontology is given by the set of queries that receive different answers. We investigate this approach for terminologies given in the description logic EL extended with role inclusions and domain and range restrictions for three distinct types of queries: subsumption, instance, and conjunctive queries. In all three cases, we present polynomial-time algorithms that decide whether two terminologies give the same answers to queries over a given vocabulary and compute a succinct representation of the difference if it is non- empty. We present an implementation, CEX2, of the developed algorithms for subsumption and instance queries and apply it to distinct versions of Snomed CT and the NCI ontology.

The OWL 2 profile OWL 2 QL, based on the DL-Lite family of description logics, is emerging as a major language for developing new ontologies and approximating the existing ones. Its main application is ontology-based data access, where ontologies are used to provide background knowledge for answering queries over data. We investigate the corresponding notion of query inseparability (or equivalence) for OWL 2 QL ontologies and show that deciding query inseparability is PSPACE-hard and in EXPTIME. We give polynomial time (incomplete) algorithms and demonstrate by experiments that they can be used for practical module extraction.