Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Ho, Loana; b; * | Arch-int, Somjita; ** | Acar, Ermanb; c | Schlobach, Stefanb | Arch-int, Ngamnija
Affiliations: [a] Department of Computer Science, College of Computing, KhonKaen University, KhonKaen, 40002, Thailand | [b] Department of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands | [c] Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author. E-mail: loanthuyho.cs@gmail.com.
Correspondence: [**] Corresponding author. E-mail: somjit@kku.ac.th.
Abstract: Prioritized Datalog± is a well-studied formalism for modelling ontological knowledge and data, and has a success story in many applications in the (Semantic) Web and in other domains. Since the information content on the Web is both inherently context-dependent and frequently updated, the occurrence of a logical inconsistency is often inevitable. This phenomenon has led the research community to develop various types of inconsistency-tolerant semantics over the last few decades. Although the study of query answering under inconsistency-tolerant semantics is well-understood, the problem of explaining query answering under such semantics took considerably less attention, especially in the scenario where the facts are prioritized. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap. More specifically, we use Dung’s abstract argumentation framework to address the problem of explaining inconsistency-tolerant query answering in Datalog± KB where facts are prioritized, or preordered. We clarify the relationship between preferred repair semantics and various notions of extensions for argumentation frameworks. The strength of such argumentation-based approach is the explainability; users can more easily understand why different points of views are conflicting and why the query answer is entailed (or not) under different semantics. To this end we introduce the formal notion of a dialogical explanation, and show how it can be used to both explain showing why query results hold and not hold according to the known semantics in inconsistent Datalog± knowledge bases.
Keywords: Argumentation, Datalog±, inconsistency, preferences, prioritized knowledge bases, explanation
DOI: 10.3233/AIC-220087
Journal: AI Communications, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 243-267, 2022
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
sales@iospress.com
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to editorial@iospress.nl
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
info@iospress.nl
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office info@iospress.nl
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
china@iospress.cn
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to editorial@iospress.nl
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: editorial@iospress.nl