A consistent query answer in an inconsistent database is an answer obtained in every (minimal) repair. The repairs are obtained by resolving all conflicts in all possible ways. Often, however, the user is able to provide a preference on how conflicts should be resolved. We investigate here the framework of preferred consistent query answers, in which user preferences are used to narrow down the set of repairs to a set of preferred repairs. We axiomatize desirable properties of preferred repairs. We present three different families of preferred repairs and study their mutual relationships. Finally, we investigate the complexity of preferred repairing and computing preferred consistent query answers.
Recently there has been an increasing interest in integrity constraints associated with relational databases and in inconsistent databases, i.e. databases which do not satisfy integrity constraints. In the presence of inconsistencies two main techniques have been proposed: compute repairs, i.e. minimal set of insertion and deletion operations, called database repairs, and compute consistent answers, i.e. identify the sets of atoms which we can assume true, false and undefined without modifying the database. In this paper feasibility conditions and preference criteria are introduced which, associated with integrity constraints, allow to restrict the number of repairs and to increase the power of queries over inconsistent databases. Moreover, it is studied the complexity of computing repairs and the expressive power of relational queries over databases with integrity constraints, feasibility conditions and preference criteria.