Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 385–429 | Cite as

Tractable Reasoning and Efficient Query Answering in Description Logics: The DL-Lite Family

  • Diego Calvanese
  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
  • Domenico Lembo
  • Maurizio Lenzerini
  • Riccardo Rosati
Article

Abstract

We propose a new family of description logics (DLs), called DL-Lite, specifically tailored to capture basic ontology languages, while keeping low complexity of reasoning. Reasoning here means not only computing subsumption between concepts and checking satisfiability of the whole knowledge base, but also answering complex queries (in particular, unions of conjunctive queries) over the instance level (ABox) of the DL knowledge base. We show that, for the DLs of the DL-Lite family, the usual DL reasoning tasks are polynomial in the size of the TBox, and query answering is LogSpace in the size of the ABox (i.e., in data complexity). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first result of polynomial-time data complexity for query answering over DL knowledge bases. Notably our logics allow for a separation between TBox and ABox reasoning during query evaluation: the part of the process requiring TBox reasoning is independent of the ABox, and the part of the process requiring access to the ABox can be carried out by an SQL engine, thus taking advantage of the query optimization strategies provided by current database management systems. Since even slight extensions to the logics of the DL-Lite family make query answering at least NLogSpace in data complexity, thus ruling out the possibility of using on-the-shelf relational technology for query processing, we can conclude that the logics of the DL-Lite family are the maximal DLs supporting efficient query answering over large amounts of instances.

Keywords

Description logics DL-Lite Query answering Ontology languages 

References

  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acciarri, A., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Palmieri, M., Rosati, R.: QuOnto: Querying Ontologies. In: Proc. of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005) pp. 1670–1671 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L.E., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Proc. of the 18th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’99) pp. 68–79 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\mathcal{EL}\) envelope. In: Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005) pp. 364–369 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F., (Eds.): The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J.: Conceptual modeling with description logics. In [5], chapter 10, pp. 349–372 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J., McGuinness, D.L., Resnick, L.A.: CLASSIC: a structural data model for objects. In: Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pp. 59–67 (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bravo, L., Bertossi, L.: Logic programming for consistently querying data integration systems. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), pp. 10–15 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calì, A., Lembo, D., Rosati, R.: On the decidability and complexity of query answering over inconsistent and incomplete databases. In: Proc. of the 22nd ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 2003), pp. 260–271 (2003a)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calì, A., Lembo, D., Rosati, R.: Query rewriting and answering under constraints in data integration systems. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), pp. 16–21 (2003b)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calvanese, D.: Reasoning with inclusion axioms in description logics: algorithms and complexity. In: Proc. of the 12th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’96), pp. 303–307 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: Linking data to ontologies: the description logic DL-LiteA. In: Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on OWL: experiences and directions (OWLED 2006) (2006a)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: DL-Lite: tractable description logics for ontologies. In: Proc. of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), pp. 602–607 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 260–270 (2006b)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Can OWL model football leagues?. In: Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: Answering queries using views over description logics knowledge bases. In: Proc. of the 17th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000) pp. 386–391 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: On the update of description logic ontologies at the instance level. In: Proc. of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: Deduction in concept languages: from subsumption to instance checking. J. Log. Comput. 4(4), 423–452 (1994)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: \({\cal AL}\)-log: integrating datalog and description logics. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 10(3), 227–252 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duschka, O.M., Genesereth, M.R., Levy, A.Y.: Recursive query plans for data integration. J. Log. Program. 43(1), 49–73 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fan, W., Siméon, J.: Integrity constraints for XML. In: Proc. of the 19th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 2000), pp. 23–34 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proc. of the 12th Int. World Wide Web Conf. (WWW 2003), pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hustadt, U., Motik, B., Sattler, U.: Data complexity of reasoning in very expressive description logics. In: Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pp. 466–471 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson, D.S., Klug, A.C.: Testing containment of conjunctive queries under functional and inclusion dependencies. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 28(1), 167–189 (1984)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artif. Intell. 104(1,2), 165–209 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ortiz, M.M., Calvanese, D., Eiter, T.: Characterizing data complexity for conjunctive query answering in expressive description logics. In: Proc. of the 21st Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Poggi, A., Lembo, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Linking data to ontologies. Submitted for publication (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosati, R.: On the decidability and finite controllability of query processing in databases with incomplete information. In: Proc. of the 25th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 2006), pp. 356–365 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vardi, M.Y.: The complexity of relational query languages. In: Proc. of the 14th ACM SIGACT Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC’82), pp. 137–146 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego Calvanese
    • 1
  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
    • 2
  • Domenico Lembo
    • 2
  • Maurizio Lenzerini
    • 2
  • Riccardo Rosati
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations