On Conceptual Graphs and Explanation of Query Answering under Inconsistency

  • Abdallah AriouaEmail author
  • Nouredine Tamani
  • Madalina Croitoru
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8577)


Conceptual Graphs are a powerful visual knowledge representation language. In this paper we are interested in the use of Conceptual Graphs in the setting of Ontology Based Data Access, and, more specifically, in reasoning in the presence of inconsistency. We present different explanation heuristics of query answering under inconsistency and show how they can be implemented under the Conceptual Graphs editor COGUI.


Description Logic Argumentation Framework Conjunctive Query Query Answer Conceptual Graph 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arora, T., Ramakrishnan, R., Roth, W.G., Seshadri, P., Srivastava, D.: Explaining program execution in deductive systems. In: Ceri, S., Tanaka, K., Tsur, S. (eds.) DOOD 1993. LNCS, vol. 760, pp. 101–119. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the el envelope. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Peñaloza, R., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Pinpointing in the description logic \(\mathcal{EL}^{+}\). In: Hertzberg, J., Beetz, M., Englert, R. (eds.) KI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4667, pp. 52–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Debugging snomed ct using axiom pinpointing in the description logic \(\mathcal{EL}^{+}\). In: KR-MED, vol. 410 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baget, J.-F., Mugnier, M.-L., Rudolph, S., Thomazo, M.: Walking the complexity lines for generalized guarded existential rules. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 712–717 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bienvenu, M.: On the complexity of consistent query answering in the presence of simple ontologies. In: Proc. of AAAI (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borgida, A., Franconi, E., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Explaining ALC subsumption. In: Lambrix, P., Borgida, A., Lenzerini, M., Möller, R., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1999 International Workshop on Description Logics 1999, Linköping, Sweden, vol. 22 (July 1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eigth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 77–86. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The dl-lite family. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chein, M., Mugnier, M.-L.: Graph-based Knowledge Representation and Reasoning—Computational Foundations of Conceptual Graphs. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Croitoru, M., Vesic, S.: What can argumentation do for inconsistent ontology query answering? In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 15–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deng, X., Haarslev, V., Shiri, N.: A framework for explaining reasoning in description logics. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Explanation-Aware Computing, pp. 189–204. AAAI Press (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-persons games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garcıa, A., Chesnevar, C.I., Rotstein, N.D., Simari, G.R.: An abstract presentation of dialectical explanations in defeasible argumentation. In: ArgNMR 2007, pp. 17–32 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Godfrey, P.: Minimization in cooperative response to failing database queries. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 06(02), 95–149 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Godfrey, P., Minker, J., Novik, L.: An architecture for a cooperative database system. In: Litwin, W., Risch, T. (eds.) ADB 1994. LNCS, vol. 819, pp. 3–24. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hempel, C.G., Oppenheim, P.: Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science 15(2), 135–175 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Explaining inconsistencies in owl ontologies. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5785, pp. 124–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Justification oriented proofs in OWL. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 354–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M., Savo, D.F.: Inconsistency-tolerant semantics for description logics. In: Hitzler, P., Lukasiewicz, T. (eds.) RR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6333, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lukasiewicz, T., Martinez, M.V., Simari, G.I., et al.: Inconsistency handling in datalog+/-ontologies. In: ECAI, pp. 558–563 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGuinness, D.L., Borgida, A.T.: Explaining subsumption in description logics. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1995, vol. 1, pp. 816–821. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meliou, A., Gatterbauer, W., Halpern, J.Y., Koch, C., Moore, K.F., Suciu, D.: Causality in databases. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 33(3), 59–67 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meliou, A., Gatterbauer, W., Moore, K.F., Suciu, D.: Why so? or why no? functional causality for explaining query answers. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International VLDB Workshop on Management of Uncertain Data (MUD 2010) in Conjunction with VLDB 2010, Singapore, September 13 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schlobach, S.: Debugging and semantic clarification by pinpointing. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 226–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2003, pp. 355–360. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seselja, D., Strasser, C.: Abstract argumentation and explanation applied to scientific debates. Synthese 190(12), 2195–2217 (2013)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdallah Arioua
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nouredine Tamani
    • 1
  • Madalina Croitoru
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Montpellier IIMontpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations