On Expressive Description Logics with Composition of Roles in Number Restrictions

  • Fabio Grandi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2514)

Abstract

Description Logics are knowledge representation formalisms which have been used in a wide range of application domains. Owing to their appealing expressiveness, we consider in this paper extensions of the well-known concept language ALC allowing for number restrictions on complex role expressions. These have been first introduced by Baader and Sattler as ALCN(M) languages, with the adoption of role constructors M ⊆ ◯,-,⊔,⊓.

In particular, as far as languages equipped with role composition are concerned, they showed in 1999 that, although ALCN(◯) is decidable, the addition of other operators may easily lead to undecidability: in fact, ALCN(◯,⊓) and ALCN(◯,-,⊔) were proved undecidable. In this work, we further investigate the computational properties of the ALCN family, aiming at narrowing the decidability gap left open by Baader and Sattler’s results. In particular, we will show that ALCN(◯) extended with inverse roles both in number and in value restrictions becomes undecidable, whereas it can be safely extended with qualified number restrictions without losing decidability of reasoning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Artale and E. Franconi. Temporal ER Modeling with Description Logics. In Proc. Intl’ Conf. on Conceptual Modeling (ER’99), pages 81–95, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Baader, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P.F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Decsription Logic Handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, 2002 (to appear).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Baader and U. Sattler. Expressive Number Restrictions in Description Logics. J. of Logic and Computation, 9(3):319–350, 1999.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Baader and U. Sattler. An Overview of Tableau Algorithms for Description Logics. Studia Logica, 69:5–40, 2001.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Berger. The Undecidability of the Dominoe Problems. Mem. Amer. Mathematical Society, 66:1–72, 1966.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Borgida. On the Relative Expressiveness of Description Logics and First Order Logics. Artificial Intelligence, 82:353–367, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Borgida and M. Jarke. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(6):449–450, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. Representing and Reasoning on XML Documents: A Description Logic Approach. J. of Logic and Computation, 9(3):295–318, 1999.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. Description Logics: Foundations for Class-based Knowledge Representation. In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’99), 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, and D. Nardi. Reasoning in Expressive Description Logics. In Handbook of Automated Reasoning, pages 1581–1634. Elsevier, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and R. Rosati. Description Logic Framework for Information Integration. In Proc. of Intl’ Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’98), 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Calvanese, M. Lenzerini, and D. Nardi. Description Logics for Conceptual Data Modeling. In Logics for Databases and Information Systems, pages 229–263. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. TBox and ABox Reasoning in Expressive Description Logics. In Proc. of Intl’ Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’96), pages 348–353, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F.M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and W. Nutt. The Complexity of Concept Languages. Information and Computation, 134:1–58, 1997.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Franconi, F. Grandi, and F. Mandreoli. A Semantic Approach for Schema Evolution and Versioning in Object-Oriented Databases. In Proc. Intl’ Conf. on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD 2000), pages 1048–1062, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.A. Goble and C. Haul and S. Bechhofer. Describing and Classifying Multimedia Using the Description Logic GRAIL. In Proc. of Storage and Retrieval for Image and Video Databases (SPIE), 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Grädel, M. Otto, and E. Rosen. Two-variable Logic with Counting is Decidable. In Proc. Annual IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’97), pages 306–317, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Grandi. On Expressive Number Restrictions in Description Logics. In Proc. of Intl’ Workshop on Description Logics (DL’01), 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Grandi. On Expressive Description Logics with Composition of Roles in Number Restrictions. Technical Report CSITE-01-02, CSITE-CNR Bologna, 2002. (URL ftp://ftp-db.deis.unibo.it/pub/fabio/TR/CSITE-01-02.pdf)
  20. 20.
    B. Hollunder and F. Baader. Qualifying Number Restrictions in Concept Languages. In Proc. of 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR-91, pages 335–346, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Hollunder, W. Nutt, and M. Schmidt-Schauß. Subsumption Algorithms for Concept Description Languages. In Proc. of Europ. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’90), pages 335–346, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. Ontology Reasoning in the SHOQ(D) Description Logic. In Proc. of Intl’ Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’01), 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. Pacholski, W. Szwast, and L. Tendera. Complexity of Two-variable Logic with Counting. In Proc. Annual IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’97), pages 318–327, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W. J. Savitch. Relationship between Nondeterministic and Deterministic Tape Complexities. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 4:177–192, 1970.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Schmidt-Schauß and G. Smolka. Attributive Concept Descriptions with Complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Tobies. Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Grandi
    • 1
  1. 1.CSITE-CNR and DEISAlma Mater Studiorum - Università di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations