The combined approach to query answering in DL-Lite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Databases and related information systems can benefit from the use of ontologies to enrich the data with general background knowledge. The DL-Lite family of ontology languages was specifically tailored towards such ontology-based data access, enabling an implementation in a relational database management system (RDBMS) based on a query rewriting approach. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach to implementing ontology-based data access in DL-Lite with the distinguishing feature of allowing to rewrite both the query and the data. We show that, in contrast to the existing approaches, no exponential blowup is produced by the rewritings. Based on experiments with a number of real-world ontologies, we demonstrate that query execution in the proposed approach is often more efficient than in existing approaches, especially for large ontologies. We also show how to seamlessly integrate the data rewriting step of our approach into an RDBMS using views (which solves the update problem) and make an interesting observation regarding the succinctness of queries in the original query rewriting approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".