Reasoning on temporal class diagrams: Undecidability results

  • Alessandro ArtaleEmail author

This paper introduces a temporal class diagram language useful to model temporal varying data. The atemporal portion of the language contains the core constructors available in both EER diagrams and UML class diagrams. The temporal part of the language is able to distinguish between temporal and atemporal constructs, and it has the ability to represent dynamic constraints between classes. The language is characterized by a model-theoretic (temporal) semantics. Reasoning services as logical implication and satisfiability are also defined. We show that reasoning on finite models is different from reasoning on unrestricted ones. Then, we prove that reasoning on temporal class diagrams is an undecidable problem on both unrestricted models and on finite ones.


description logics temporal data models temporal logics 

AMS subject classification

computer science knowledge representation database theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Artale and E. Franconi, Temporal ER modeling with description logics, in: Proc. of the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER'99), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, 1999).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Artale and E. Franconi, A survey of temporal extensions of description logics, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 30(1–4) (2001).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Artale, Reasoning on temporal conceptual schemas with dynamic constraints, in: 11th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME04) (IEEE Computer Society, 2004). Also in Proc. of the 2004 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL'04).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Artale, E. Franconi and F. Mandreoli, Description logics for modelling dynamic information, in: Logics for Emerging Applications of Databases, eds. J. Chomicki, R. van der Meyden and G. Saake, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, 2003).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Artale, E. Franconi, F. Wolter and M. Zakharyaschev, A temporal description logic for reasoning about conceptual schemas and queries, in: Proceedings of the 8th Joint European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA-02), volume 2424 of LNAI, eds. S. Flesca, S. Greco, N. Leone and G. Ianni (Springer, 2002) pp. 98–110.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi and P.F. Patel-Schneider, eds., in: Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Berardi, D. Calvanese and G. De Giacomo, Reasoning on UML class diagrams, Artificial Intelligence 168(1–2) (2005) 70–118.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini, On the decidability of query containment under constraints, in: Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Sym. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'98) (1998) pp. 149–158.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Calvanese, M. Lenzerini and D. Nardi, Unifying class-based representation formalisms, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11 (1999) 199–240.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Chomicki and D. Toman, Temporal logic in information systems, in: Logics for Databases and Information Systems, chapter 1, eds. J. Chomicki and G. Saake (Kluwer, 1998).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Elmasri and S.B. Navathe, Fundamentals of Database Systems, 2nd edition (Benjamin/Cummings, 1994).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. Gabbay, A. Kurucz, F. Wolter and M. Zakharyaschev, Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications, Studies in Logic (Elsevier, 2003).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Gregersen and J.S. Jensen, Conceptual modeling of time-varying information, Technical Report TimeCenter TR-35 (Aalborg University, Denmark, 1998).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    H. Gregersen and J.S. Jensen, Temporal entity-relationship models – A survey, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 11(3) (1999) 464–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Gupta and G. Hall, Modeling transition, in: Proc. of ICDE'91 (1991) pp. 540–549.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    C.S. Jensen, J. Clifford, S.K. Gadia, P. Hayes and S. Jajodia et al., The consensus glossary of temporal database concepts, Temporal Databases – Research and Practice, eds. O. Etzion, S. Jajodia and S. Sripada (Springer, 1998) pp. 367–405.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    C.S. Jensen and R.T. Snodgrass, Temporal data management, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 111(1) (1999) 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    C.S. Jensen, M. Soo and R.T. Snodgrass, Unifying temporal data models via a conceptual model, Information Systems 9(7) (1994) 513–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    S. Spaccapietra, C. Parent and E. Zimanyi, Modeling time from a conceptual perspective, in: Int. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM98) (1998).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    C. Theodoulidis, P. Loucopoulos and B. Wangler, A conceptual modelling formalism for temporal database applications, Information Systems 16(3) (1991) 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    F. Wolter and M. Zakharyaschev, Satisfiability problem in description logics with modal operators, in: Proc. of the 6 \(^{th}\) International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'98) (Trento, Italy, June 1998) pp. 512–523.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations