@inproceedings{ahme-etal-2021kr,
title = {Reasoning about Explanations for Non-validation in {SHACL}},
author= {Shqiponja Ahmetaj and Robert David and Magdalena Ortiz and Axel Polleres and Bojken Shehu and Mantas \v{S}imkus},
year = 2021,
month = nov,
day = {3--12},
abstract = {The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) is a recently standardized
  language for describing and validating constraints over RDF
  graphs. The SHACL specification describes the so-called
  \emph{validation reports}, which are meant to explain to the users
  the outcome of validating an RDF graph against a collection of
  constraints. Specifically, explaining the reasons why the input
  graph does not satisfy the constraints is challenging. In fact, the
  current SHACL standard leaves it open on how such explanations can
  be provided to the users. In this paper, inspired by works on
  logic-based abduction and database repairs, we study the problem of
  explaining non-validation of SHACL constraints. In particular, in
  our framework non-validation is explained using the notion of a
  repair, i.e.,a collection of additions and deletions whose
  application on an input graph results in a repaired graph that does
  satisfy the given SHACL constraints. We define a collection of
  decision problems for reasoning about explanations, possibly
  restricting to explanations that are minimal with respect to
  cardinality or set inclusion. We provide a detailed characterization
  of the computational complexity of those reasoning tasks, including
  the combined and the data complexity.},
url = {http://polleres.net/publications/ahme-etal-2021KR.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2021/2},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2021)},
}

{"_id":"EGXupfogswowqGqQX","bibbaseid":"ahmetaj-david-ortiz-polleres-shehu-imkus-reasoningaboutexplanationsfornonvalidationinshacl-2021","author_short":["Ahmetaj, S.","David, R.","Ortiz, M.","Polleres, A.","Shehu, B.","Šimkus, M."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"inproceedings","type":"inproceedings","title":"Reasoning about Explanations for Non-validation in SHACL","author":[{"firstnames":["Shqiponja"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Ahmetaj"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Robert"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["David"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Magdalena"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Ortiz"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Axel"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Polleres"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Bojken"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Shehu"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Mantas"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Šimkus"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2021","month":"November","day":"3–12","abstract":"The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) is a recently standardized language for describing and validating constraints over RDF graphs. The SHACL specification describes the so-called \\emphvalidation reports, which are meant to explain to the users the outcome of validating an RDF graph against a collection of constraints. Specifically, explaining the reasons why the input graph does not satisfy the constraints is challenging. In fact, the current SHACL standard leaves it open on how such explanations can be provided to the users. In this paper, inspired by works on logic-based abduction and database repairs, we study the problem of explaining non-validation of SHACL constraints. In particular, in our framework non-validation is explained using the notion of a repair, i.e.,a collection of additions and deletions whose application on an input graph results in a repaired graph that does satisfy the given SHACL constraints. We define a collection of decision problems for reasoning about explanations, possibly restricting to explanations that are minimal with respect to cardinality or set inclusion. We provide a detailed characterization of the computational complexity of those reasoning tasks, including the combined and the data complexity.","url":"http://polleres.net/publications/ahme-etal-2021KR.pdf","doi":"https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2021/2","booktitle":"Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2021)","bibtex":"@inproceedings{ahme-etal-2021kr,\ntitle = {Reasoning about Explanations for Non-validation in {SHACL}},\nauthor= {Shqiponja Ahmetaj and Robert David and Magdalena Ortiz and Axel Polleres and Bojken Shehu and Mantas \\v{S}imkus},\nyear = 2021,\nmonth = nov,\nday = {3--12},\nabstract = {The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) is a recently standardized\n language for describing and validating constraints over RDF\n graphs. The SHACL specification describes the so-called\n \\emph{validation reports}, which are meant to explain to the users\n the outcome of validating an RDF graph against a collection of\n constraints. Specifically, explaining the reasons why the input\n graph does not satisfy the constraints is challenging. In fact, the\n current SHACL standard leaves it open on how such explanations can\n be provided to the users. In this paper, inspired by works on\n logic-based abduction and database repairs, we study the problem of\n explaining non-validation of SHACL constraints. In particular, in\n our framework non-validation is explained using the notion of a\n repair, i.e.,a collection of additions and deletions whose\n application on an input graph results in a repaired graph that does\n satisfy the given SHACL constraints. We define a collection of\n decision problems for reasoning about explanations, possibly\n restricting to explanations that are minimal with respect to\n cardinality or set inclusion. We provide a detailed characterization\n of the computational complexity of those reasoning tasks, including\n the combined and the data complexity.},\nurl = {http://polleres.net/publications/ahme-etal-2021KR.pdf},\ndoi = {https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2021/2},\nbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2021)},\n}\n\n\n","author_short":["Ahmetaj, S.","David, R.","Ortiz, M.","Polleres, A.","Shehu, B.","Šimkus, M."],"key":"ahme-etal-2021kr","id":"ahme-etal-2021kr","bibbaseid":"ahmetaj-david-ortiz-polleres-shehu-imkus-reasoningaboutexplanationsfornonvalidationinshacl-2021","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://polleres.net/publications/ahme-etal-2021KR.pdf"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"html":""},"bibtype":"inproceedings","biburl":"www.polleres.net/mypublications.bib","dataSources":["QfLT6siHZuHw9MqvK","cBfwyqsLFQQMc4Fss","gixxkiKt6rtWGoKSh"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["reasoning","explanations","non","validation","shacl","ahmetaj","david","ortiz","polleres","shehu","šimkus"],"title":"Reasoning about Explanations for Non-validation in SHACL","year":2021}