Reasoning about Explanations for Negative Query Answers in DL-Lite

In order to meet usability requirements, most logic-based applications provide explanation facilities for reasoning services. This holds also for Description Logics, where research has focused on the explanation of both TBox reasoning and, more recently, query answering. Besides explaining the presence of a tuple in a query answer, it is important to explain also why a given tuple is missing. We address the latter problem for instance and conjunctive query answering over DL-Lite ontologies by adopting abductive reasoning; that is, we look for additions to the ABox that force a given tuple to be in the result. As reasoning tasks we consider existence and recognition of an explanation, and relevance and necessity of a given assertion for an explanation. We characterize the computational complexity of these problems for arbitrary, subset minimal, and cardinality minimal explanations.

View Synthesis from Schema Mappings

In data management, and in particular in data integration, data exchange, query optimization, and data privacy, the notion of view plays a central role. In several contexts, such as data integration, data mashups, and data warehousing, the need arises of designing views starting from a set of known correspondences between queries over different schemas. In this paper we deal with the issue of automating such a design process. We call this novel problem view synthesis from schema mappings: given a set of schema mappings, each relating a query over a source schema to a query over a target schema, automatically synthesize for each source a view over the target schema in such a way that for each mapping, the query over the source is a rewriting of the query over the target wrt the synthesized views. We study view synthesis from schema mappings both in the relational setting, where queries and views are (unions of) conjunctive queries, and in the semistructured data setting, where queries and views are (two-way) regular path queries, as well as unions of conjunctions thereof. We provide techniques and complexity upper bounds for each of these cases.