Description Logics (DLs) are a family of logic-based knowledge representation languages used to describe the knowledge of an application domain and reason about it in formally well-defined way. They allow users to describe the important notions and classes of the knowledge domain as concepts, which formalize the necessary and sufficient conditions for individual objects to belong to that concept. A variety of different DLs exist, differing in the set of properties one can use to express concepts, the so-called concept constructors, as well as the set of axioms available to describe the relations between concepts or individuals. However, all classical DLs have in common that they can only express exact knowledge, and correspondingly only allow exact inferences. Either we can infer that some individual belongs to a concept, or we can't, there is no in-between. In practice though, knowledge is rarely exact. Many definitions have their exceptions or are vaguely formulated in the first place, and people might not only be interested in exact answers, but also in alternatives that are "close enough". This thesis is aimed at tackling how to express that something "close enough", and how to integrate this notion into the formalism of Description Logics. To this end, we will use the notion of similarity and dissimilarity measures as a way to quantify how close exactly two concepts are. We will look at how useful measures can be defined in the context of DLs, and how they can be incorporated into the formal framework in order to generalize it. In particular, we will look closer at two applications of thus measures to DLs: Relaxed instance queries will incorporate a similarity measure in order to not just give the exact answer to some query, but all answers that are reasonably similar. Prototypical definitions on the other hand use a measure of dissimilarity or distance between concepts in order to allow the definitions of and reasoning with concepts that capture not just those individuals that satisfy exactly the stated properties, but also those that are "close enough".

Access restrictions are essential in standard information systems and became an issue for ontologies in the following two aspects. Ontologies can represent explicit and implicit knowledge about an access policy. For this aspect we provided a methodology to represent and systematically complete role-based access control policies. Orthogonally, an ontology might be available for limited reading access. Independently of a specific ontology language or reasoner, we provided a lattice-based framework to assign labels to an ontology’s axioms and consequences. We looked at the problems to compute and repair one or multiple consequence labels and to assign a query-based access restriction. An empirical evaluation has shown that the algorithms perform well in practical scenarios with large-scale ontologies.

Description logics (DL) knowledge bases are often build by users with expertise in the application domain, but little expertise in logic. To support this kind of users when building their knowledge bases a number of extension methods have been proposed to provide the user with concept descriptions as a starting point for new concept definitions. The inference service central to several of these approaches is the computation of (least) common subsumers of concept descriptions. In case disjunction of concepts can be expressed in the DL under consideration, the least common subsumer (lcs) is just the disjunction of the input concepts. Such a trivial lcs is of little use as a starting point for a new concept definition to be edited by the user. To address this problem we propose two approaches to obtain "meaningful" common subsumers in the presence of disjunction tailored to two different methods to extend DL knowledge bases. More precisely, we devise computation methods for the approximation-based approach and the customization of DL knowledge bases, extend these methods to DLs with number restrictions and discuss their efficient implementation.

Ontology-based data access (OBDA) augments classical query answering in databases by including domain knowledge provided by an ontology. An ontology captures the terminology of an application domain and describes domain knowledge in a machine-processable way. Formal ontology languages additionally provide semantics to these specifications. Systems for OBDA thus may apply logical reasoning to answer queries; they use the ontological knowledge to infer new information, which is only implicitly given in the data. Moreover, they usually employ the open-world assumption, which means that knowledge not stated explicitly in the data or inferred is neither assumed to be true nor false. Classical OBDA regards the knowledge however only w.r.t. a single moment, which means that information about time is not used for reasoning and hence lost; in particular, the queries generally cannot express temporal aspects. We investigate temporal query languages that allow to access temporal data through classical ontologies. In particular, we study the computational complexity of temporal query answering regarding ontologies written in lightweight description logics, which are known to allow for efficient reasoning in the atemporal setting and are successfully applied in practice. Furthermore, we present a so-called rewritability result for ontology-based temporal query answering, which suggests ways for implementation. Our results may thus guide the choice of a query language for temporal OBDA in data-intensive applications that require fast processing, such as context recognition.

Description Logic (abbrv. DL) belongs to the field of knowledge representation and reasoning. DL researchers have developed a large family of logic-based languages, so-called description logics (abbrv. DLs). These logics allow their users to explicitly represent knowledge as ontologies, which are finite sets of (human- and machine-readable) axioms, and provide them with automated inference services to derive implicit knowledge. The landscape of decidability and computational complexity of common reasoning tasks for various description logics has been explored in large parts: there is always a trade-off between expressibility and reasoning costs. It is therefore not surprising that DLs are nowadays applied in a large variety of domains: agriculture, astronomy, biology, defense, education, energy management, geography, geoscience, medicine, oceanography, and oil and gas. Furthermore, the most notable success of DLs is that these constitute the logical underpinning of the Web Ontology Language (abbrv. OWL) in the Semantic Web. Formal Concept Analysis (abbrv. FCA) is a subfield of lattice theory that allows to analyze data-sets that can be represented as formal contexts. Put simply, such a formal context binds a set of objects to a set of attributes by specifying which objects have which attributes. There are two major techniques that can be applied in various ways for purposes of conceptual clustering, data mining, machine learning, knowledge management, knowledge visualization, etc. On the one hand, it is possible to describe the hierarchical structure of such a data-set in form of a formal concept lattice. On the other hand, the theory of implications (dependencies between attributes) valid in a given formal context can be axiomatized in a sound and complete manner by the so-called canonical base, which furthermore contains a minimal number of implications w.r.t. the properties of soundness and completeness. In spite of the different notions used in FCA and in DLs, there has been a very fruitful interaction between these two research areas. My thesis continues this line of research and, more specifically, I will describe how methods from FCA can be used to support the automatic construction and extension of DL ontologies from data.

Description Logics (DLs) are a family of logic-based knowledge representation languages used to describe the knowledge of an application domain and reason about it in formally well-defined way. They allow users to describe the important notions and classes of the knowledge domain as concepts, which formalize the necessary and sufficient conditions for individual objects to belong to that concept. A variety of different DLs exist, differing in the set of properties one can use to express concepts, the so-called concept constructors, as well as the set of axioms available to describe the relations between concepts or individuals. However, all classical DLs have in common that they can only express exact knowledge, and correspondingly only allow exact inferences. Either we can infer that some individual belongs to a concept, or we can't, there is no in-between. In practice though, knowledge is rarely exact. Many definitions have their exceptions or are vaguely formulated in the first place, and people might not only be interested in exact answers, but also in alternatives that are "close enough". This thesis is aimed at tackling how to express that something "close enough", and how to integrate this notion into the formalism of Description Logics. To this end, we will use the notion of similarity and dissimilarity measures as a way to quantify how close exactly two concepts are. We will look at how useful measures can be defined in the context of DLs, and how they can be incorporated into the formal framework in order to generalize it. In particular, we will look closer at two applications of thus measures to DLs: Relaxed instance queries will incorporate a similarity measure in order to not just give the exact answer to some query, but all answers that are reasonably similar. Prototypical definitions on the other hand use a measure of dissimilarity or distance between concepts in order to allow the definitions of and reasoning with concepts that capture not just those individuals that satisfy exactly the stated properties, but also those that are "close enough".

Access restrictions are essential in standard information systems and became an issue for ontologies in the following two aspects. Ontologies can represent explicit and implicit knowledge about an access policy. For this aspect we provided a methodology to represent and systematically complete role-based access control policies. Orthogonally, an ontology might be available for limited reading access. Independently of a specific ontology language or reasoner, we provided a lattice-based framework to assign labels to an ontology’s axioms and consequences. We looked at the problems to compute and repair one or multiple consequence labels and to assign a query-based access restriction. An empirical evaluation has shown that the algorithms perform well in practical scenarios with large-scale ontologies.

Golog is a powerful programming language for logic-based agents. The primitives of the language are actions whose preconditions and effects are defined in a Situation Calculus action theory using first-order logic. To describe possible courses of actions the programmer can freely combine imperative control structures with constructs for non-deterministic choice, leaving it to the system to resolve the non-determinism in a suitable manner. Golog has been successfully used for high-level decision making in the area of cognitive robotics. Obviously, it is important to verify certain properties of a Golog program before executing it on a physical robot. However, due to the high expressiveness of the language the verification problem is in general undecidable. In this thesis, we study the verification problem for Golog programs over actions defined in action languages based on Description Logics and explore the boundary between decidable and undecidable fragments.

Description logics (DL) knowledge bases are often build by users with expertise in the application domain, but little expertise in logic. To support this kind of users when building their knowledge bases a number of extension methods have been proposed to provide the user with concept descriptions as a starting point for new concept definitions. The inference service central to several of these approaches is the computation of (least) common subsumers of concept descriptions. In case disjunction of concepts can be expressed in the DL under consideration, the least common subsumer (lcs) is just the disjunction of the input concepts. Such a trivial lcs is of little use as a starting point for a new concept definition to be edited by the user. To address this problem we propose two approaches to obtain "meaningful" common subsumers in the presence of disjunction tailored to two different methods to extend DL knowledge bases. More precisely, we devise computation methods for the approximation-based approach and the customization of DL knowledge bases, extend these methods to DLs with number restrictions and discuss their efficient implementation.

Axiom pinpointing has been introduced in description logics (DLs) to help the user to understand the reasons why consequences hold and to remove unwanted consequences by computing minimal (maximal) subsets of the knowledge base that have (do not have) the consequence in question. The pinpointing algorithms described in the DL literature are obtained as extensions of the standard tableau-based reasoning algorithms for computing consequences from DL knowledge bases. Although these extensions are based on similar ideas, they are all introduced for a particular tableau-based algorithm for a particular DL. The purpose of this paper is to develop a general approach for extending a tableau-based algorithm to a pinpointing algorithm. This approach is based on a general definition of „tableau algorithms,' which captures many of the known tableau-based algorithms employed in DLs, but also other kinds of reasoning procedures.